A friend of mine ran into a series of really annoying/frustrating
problems today which ended up greatly discouraging him from contributing.
This is meant to be constructive criticism, please make of it what you will.
He downloaded an image file from Wikipedia without realising that it was
actually hosted on Commons. This is perfectly reasonable because
Wikipedia explicitly tries to cover up the distinction for normal users.
He then tried to upload his improved version of the image.
Problem #1: He couldn't because it was hosted on Commons. The error
message suggested to use a different filename.
Short-term solution: The message should have mentioned that he can
replace the image on Commons.
Long-term solution: Replacing the image should be transparent. He
should not have to care where it is hosted, it should just be replaced
wherever it is.
Problem #2: He didn't have an account on Commons.
Solution: Fix the single sign-on for good. No more single-site
accounts.
Problem #3 (and this is the main reason I'm posting this): Commons
didn't let him replace the image because his account was "too new".
This is completely unacceptable. I am not convinced that this detracts
absolutely any vandals or other malicious users, and it only serves to
prevent honest/legitimate contributions. This restriction results in a
net loss, not gain, of useful contribution to Commons.
Thanks for listening!
Timwi