Community Wishlist Survey 2020/Wikispecies

Community Wishlist Survey 2020

Wikispecies

1 proposal, 28 contributors, 7 support votes

The survey has closed. Thanks for your participation :)

Here are the Community Wishlist Survey 2020 results!

Add Google's view in 3D to Wikispecies pages

Edit proposal/discussion

Problem: Although we have pictures of the species/animals on Wikispecies page, it's more vivid and informative for users by viewing the species in 3d model on Wikispecies pages. View in 3d is only shown up to the users who are using the Google search engine, but for the users of Bing and Yahoo might miss it.
Who would benefit: The users
Proposed solution: Get permission from Google / Collaborate with Google. Insert the model or state the link on Wikispecies pages.
More comments:
Phabricator tickets:
Proposer: Jesuisici11 (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Can you give a link to such a 3D model? I've never seen one. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jesuisici11: I have the same question as Jon above. Please provide examples, because as it is, this proposal is too unclear to proceed to voting. Thanks, MaxSem (WMF) (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jon Harald Søby: @MaxSem:please review this URL: https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/2/18649312/google-ar-search-results-animals-3d-model-augmented-reality-lions-tigers-bears-oh-my We can only review the 3D model of the animals through Google engine and I think it would be great if we can insert it on the wikispecies page that the users who don't use Google search can also view it. Jesuisici11 (talk) 4:59 19 November 2019 (AEDT)
I prefer the 2D illustrations/photos. If this goes forward, can it be made optional? Libcub (talk) 08:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose integrating any proprietary solution into Wikispecies. If Wikispecies doesn't want to be reusable with a free license, it should first ask to not be a Wikimedia project any more. Is there consensus in Wikispecies for giving up on free culture? Nemo 09:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose to implementing this at Wikispecies. First of all I don't think it's compatible with the major license types valid within the Wikimedia community (including Wikispecies), and second of all this issue has never been discussed at Wikispecies (where btw I'm a bureaucrat.) Tommy Kronkvist (talk · contribs) 17:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
3D renderings with an open licence can be added to Wikimedia Commons (example: File:EiffelTower fixed.stl), then attached to the taxon via Wikidata using d:Property:P4896, and transcluded on Wikispecies pages, as seen at species:User:Pigsonthewing/Sandbox. There is thus nothing that needs doing here, regardless of whether or not Wikispecies chooses to use such files, or whether such files are available. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

Support JogiAsad (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dixonsara (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support 游魂 16:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tommy Kronkvist (talk · contribs) 17:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Support Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 18:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this concept is beyond our mandate and difficult to impliment across a broad range ofd taxa. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 18:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a wish of the Wikispecies community, where this had never been discussed. Copyright issues, and out of the control of the Wikispecies community regarding the content potentially displayed for each taxa. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This has never been discussed by the Wikispecies community. It is far out of the project scope, as Wikispecies is a database for taxonomy and nomenclature, so "more vivid" 3D images are not important. We rather need more images of type specimens. --Thiotrix (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I do not see any real advantage of this proposal, but at the same time I do not share the above expressed fear that it would necessarily make Wikispecies impossible to be reused with a free licence. The fact that the Community Tech team passed the proposal into the voting phase imo means that they saw a way how to make it compatible with the Wikimedia policies. --Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No. --Kusurija (talk) 14:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Until discussed by the Wikispecies community. May cause problems with up to date taxonomic and scientific accuracy, as sometimes occurs with WikiCommons and WikiData. Andyboorman (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Absolutely not. We're not even 100% sure we want to have distributional data to begin with, this is ridiculously marginal compared to our actual needs. Circeus (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This should first be discussed at Wikispecies, and not forced on the community by an outside vote. Additionally, such imaging applies to a tiny fraction of the total number of species and other taxa presented on Wikispecies. It therefore would provide a very spotty change, which is therefore ill-advised. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --RLJ (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The software seems more to be for inserting a 3Dimage of a limited range of wild mammals into a chosen background. This less suited for the cut and dried straightforward environment of Wikispecies than for Twitter or Facebook. There are several excellent techniques available for creating 3D images used in recent publications which are of equal quality to what I observed on the provided website. This includes image stacking and confocal microscopy. What is more important is making these type specimen images accessible for our licensing requirements through agreements such as we have with ZooKeys, and/or available open access museum repository websites such as provided by National Museum of Natural History, Paris. Neferkheperre (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd be very concerned that anything from google is unlikely to be compatible with our free access principles. Additionally, looking at the example provided above, the material doesn't look very realistic; neither is it of the taxonomically verified, located, known wild origin specimens that are preferred for scientific resources like this (ask yourself: which subspecies of Panthera tigris is that in the sample?). - MPF (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Burmeister (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image presented as example is ridiculous. Absolutelly not natural. Besides that I cannot imagine how that would work for rare, scarce species, tge vast majority.--Hector Bottai (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think that's needed yet. The technical level of the images and the amount of them in the storage are not sufficient.--Rosičák (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Novak Watchmen (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]