Re: Usability - we are planning on creating some sort of 'queue' or
'limbo', where works can remain in an unpublished state, but at least
some users can still view them. Works might go into that state if the
user wasn't sure how to license them, or if the license was suspect. I
would like to get a more formal proposal out soon, before the end of
this month.
However, our main purpose wasn't to address the inappropriate-content
problem.
We'd have to think really carefully about this. Sue Gardner mentioned
something the other day that I think is quite wise, a crisis is a
terrible time to formulate new policy.
I absolutely agree that no procedure should stop people of good faith
from getting things done quickly, and getting quick satisfaction in
adding an image to an article, for instance. *Especially* on their first
try!
There are some ideas we could borrow from other sites -- the proposal of
having admins passively check up on new uploaders is similar to what
Flickr does. It can work, if we think we have enough volunteers that
there won't be a huge backlog.
Another strategy might be to watch for images that gain unusual
attention, or attention matching some criteria (such as incoming links
from certain bulletin boards).
On 05/11/2010 08:31 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Gnangarra
<gnangarra(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Really all we need to do is impliment a review
process for uploaded media
that way we address not only scope but copyright, derivative wroks, FOP,
permission and licensing issues before the image is available for use,
something like a flagged revisions. Providing it has an auto review for
approved contributors so as not to create unmanagable back logs it should be
a relatively fast process.
I haven't seen any evidence that we've got a significant
eyeballs-to-images problem on commons. Can you suggest some?
Lack of immediate gratification would be a big turn-off... e.g. at
least a flagged revision change is atomic: you make your edit and
forget about it. But for an upload, if you're planning on putting it
in a specific article that would pretty much stink.
Many of the recently deleted (but now restored) images came from users
with long contribution histories.
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
--
Neil Kandalgaonkar ( <neilk(a)wikimedia.org>