Re: Usability - we are planning on creating some sort of 'queue' or 'limbo', where works can remain in an unpublished state, but at least some users can still view them.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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l