Commons:Village pump/Proposals

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search


  Welcome to Commons   Community Portal   Help Desk
Upload help
  Village Pump
copyright • proposals
  Administrators' Noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks and protections
Commons discussion pages (index)

Welcome to the Village pump proposals section[edit]

This Wikimedia Commons page is used for making proposals relating to the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons; it is distinguished from the main Commons:Village pump, which handles community-wide discussion of all kinds. Discussions here should be of wide interest; those which are more specific may be moved to the main Village Pump, with a note left here. The page may also be used to advertise significant discussions taking place elsewhere, such as on the talk page of a Commons policy. For old discussions, see the Archive. Recent sections with no replies for 14 days may be archived.

  • If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing please do not comment here. It is a waste of your time. One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is just a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  • Have you read the FAQ?
  • For technical support and graphics talks (PNG, SVG, GIF, etc.), please post on the Graphics village pump.

Activate Flickr option in current UploadWizard to all users[edit]

Upload wizard with "Share images from Flickr" button

Recently I noticed that "Share images from Flickr" button available in Special:UploadWizard is not activated for all users. According to Commons:Upload_tools it is restricted to admins and image reviewers only. I found this tool to be the easiest way to upload images from flickr and I think we should encourage its use (by documenting it for example) by all users, instead of forcing them to do it by hand or use other tools, like flickr2commons, Flinfo, F2ComButton, etc. which are available to all users. Other tools should stay but I find Special:UploadWizard interface to be the most friendly and I do not see a reason why regular users should use non-standard tools. --Jarekt (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support in general but Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for technical reasons: 1) OPS has not agreed yet, AFAIK, 2) AFAIK, the verification tag set by UploadWizard can be easily faked. The feature - as currently restricted to a group that can be probably trusted not to fake these tags - gives at least some certainty about the uploaded work's licensing information. -- Rillke(q?) 14:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
At Wikimania I talked to @GDubuc (WMF): about this. It seems there is less of a technical blocker than I thought. Gilles, would you confirm/weigh in on the technical aspects of this? Jean-Fred (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Ping: @Fabrice Florin (WMF):^^ --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any technical blockers. Some development work might be required, but it's small. I'm not familiar with the verification tag, but I imagine we can make that configurable (i.e. it could be turned off for regular users, turned on for trusted users, etc.). I doubt that Ops would disagree to opening that feature to everyone, given that a subset of users already has access to it. It'd just be a matter of informing them so that they keep an eye on server load.--GDubuc (WMF) (talk) 05:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
FWIW I Symbol support vote.svg Support the principle of easing Flickr uploads, but Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose doing it in UploadWizard - I think we're aiming to have a separate tool for Flickr transfers sometime within the next year or so, pending some better technical infrastructure surrounding front-end uploading. --MarkTraceur (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't understand why this was not enable a long time ago. IMO we would get better metadata if users upload images from Flickr this way, rather than manually and copy paste description, license, etc. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Per rillke. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now because the verification tag set by UploadWizard can be easily faked. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support There should be a well-supported, well-documented tool for uploading Flickr images. The current state of things is less than ideal, because Bryan's tool was decommissioned, and although Magnus's tool is pretty good, it isn't adequately publicized, and the user interface can be a little intimidating for first time users. (And even though I've used it a lot, I still manage to click on the wrong button by accident fairly often.) Whenever the issue comes up, the official answer seems to be "We have great support in Upload Wizard... but you can't use it", which isn't a very helpful answer. If you're not going to enable it in Upload Wizard, then you need to better maintain and document the existing tools. --Ppelleti (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
A big +1 to this comment. It's very frustrating for me to see resources being allocated to work on tools such as MediaViewer (which nobody asked for) rather than improving upload tools (which plenty of people have asked for). --MZMcBride (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Note, Commons:Upload Wizard feedback#WMF plans for 2014-15. --Nemo 14:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
+1. We've only been waiting for fear of abuse, but I don't think the risk is so high, or rather it's low enough that we can give it a try and restrict it again if needed. Given the assassination of Toolserver by WMF, the first concern should be the necessity to compensate the decrease in functionality. --Nemo 14:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support If we suddenly get a dinosaur sized pile of Flickr-powered-fertilizer, it will be easy to spot and we can switch it off again until better safeguards are in place. I favour proceeding with good faith towards contributors, unless the process gives demonstrably sucky results, it seems the nice thing to do. As a licence reviewer, I actually had no idea this was not standard already, I am sure I have told people that this was available during editathons (oops). -- (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent feature, only has one or two 'bed bug' (misspelling intended), have used it for over 10 months now, its actually more reliable than Magnus tool with only 2 problems being unable to upload more than 50 images at a time and editing of description can freeze and kill browser..excellent for small/limited uploads and is spot on on licences so I'm not sure how this feature can be abused..--Stemoc 14:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There does not seem to be any way to tell if a file was uploaded through the upload wizard or using some other method. Upload wizard content can easily be faked using "api.php?action=upload". Direct users to toollabs:flickr2commons instead, or get the upload wizard to tag files as unreviewed in need of review if the user isn't a sysop or licence reviewer. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Rillke and Stefan4. Revicomplaint? 13:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • See also this discussion of April 2014. --Atlasowa (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
On that page, Darkweasel94 makes the suggestion that Upload Wizard should just tag the photo with {{flickrreview}}, just as FlickrToCommons does. I didn't see an argument on that page for why that shouldn't be done. So why hasn't it been done? That would solve this problem fairly easily. --Ppelleti (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pinging me. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as long as UploadWizard works the way it does now. Flickr2Commons has the advantage that it even has a double license review: the fact that the upload log entry is tagged with something like "OAuth Uploader", and the fact that it will be reviewed by FlickrreviewR. UploadWizard actually has no license review at all as the check for a compatible license is done on the client side, not the server side (as was pointed out by Zhuyifei1999 in the aforementioned discussion), and it doesn't have a distinctive tag that can't be faked; and of course it doesn't use a flickrreview template but something that, in essence, the original uploader themselves adds. The license check should be migrated to the server side, UW Flickr uploads should have a distinctive tag that can't be faked on the client side, and it should add a {{flickrreview}} template instead of the template it adds now. Then we can do this. Not before – the current UW leaves way too little evidence (and I mean that in a legal sense: evidence usable in a court) behind that the file was actually under a compatible license. darkweasel94 07:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Socialize Wikimedia Commons[edit]

Hi! I would like to share with you a draft I have just submitted for an IEG. I would like to write a report on the differences between Wikimedia Commons and the most famous social media platforms to understand why, while many people is used to share lots of multimedia items on-line everyday, just a small amount of them consider uploading them into Wikimedia Commons or even is aware of the possibility of doing so. Just to note that the number of items in Commons is currently less than 10% of the items that are shared in a single day using these platforms. I hope that you agree that, even taking into account those that are not educational, this imbalance represents a great deal that could be formally addressed. Feedback and endorsements would be greatly appreciated. Thanks a lot! --Jey86 (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

That "G" in "IEG" strands for "grant", I guess, right? As in, a fraction of the money the WMF gets from donations, is that so? -- Tuválkin 21:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
As in, the money growing on trees, is that so ? Pyb (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Very helpful, thank you. Let me reciprocate: The extra space you typed before the question mark, well, it should have been typed after the wiki-text colon instead. -- Tuválkin 12:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Quote from Meta: IEG = "Individual Engagement Grants support Wikimedians to complete projects that benefit the Wikimedia movement. Our focus is on experimentation for online impact. We fund individuals or small teams to organize, build, create, research or facilitate something that enhances the work of Wikimedia’s volunteers." --Túrelio (talk) 09:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. -- Tuválkin 12:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Your proposal seems to take it as a given that if being more social-media-like would result in more files that are realistically useful for an educational purpose, then it would be a good thing to be more like social media. I'm not sure that necessarily follows. I think there's a lot more to what makes commons special than just "It has lots of cool files", even if that's arguably the most important parts. I think such a report, in order to be useful would have to not only consider what is to be gained by following in the footsteps of social media giants, but also what is to be lost. The situation is complex, and well there may certainly be a lot we could gain from looking to others, it's important to look at it from both prespectives (imo). Bawolff (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I also have a thing or two to say about (against, really) this project. But better centralize that in the relevant talk page. -- Tuválkin 19:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it is a complex issue. And I find it interesting to open the debate and have someone takeing note of ideas and draw the conclusions in a systematic way. --Dvdgmz (talk) 07:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Bawolff I will try to answer your concerns in the talk page. Thanks for your feedback. --Jey86 (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
See meta:Grants talk:IEG/Socialize Wikimedia Commons#most_results_of_this_extremely_expensive_report_might_be_foreseeable. This looks to me like wasting 4600 Euros for nothing, therefore i Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose this. Money should be spended for important software improvements but not for such things. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I posted a comment on COM:VP so that moor users can see the IEG thing. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Steinsplitter (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambig/Redir excluded from "Unused categories"[edit]

Would it be possible to exclude disambig and redir pages from Unused categories? Currently most (almost all) hits are not unused ctgr, but disambig & redir ctgr. It would be much easier to control unused ctgr, if this would be possible. Regards, --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 11:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)