Wikimedia Commons is a very important resource, but it also has policies which many people will find difficult to understand. They cannot just upload whatever they want, they have to provide full source information, and they should have at least a basic understanding of licensing.
Many ideas have been mentioned here to somehow limit uploads by first timers. One that I haven't heard mentioned is to require every new user to go through some interactive tutorial process that explains the basics. How could this be done?
1) Create a new permission for uploading. 2) Any user who doesn't have the permission, and tries to upload, is presented with the tutorial. 3) Once they have completed the tutorial, they receive the permission.
On the implementation level, it seems that this can be done as an extension which a) hooks into the upload process and checks whether a user has the permission, b) displays a set of pages from the MediaWiki: namespace (important so the tutorial can be localized using the "/de", "/en" .. subpage syntax), each of them with a "Previous"/"Next" button. Only when a user has viewed the final page in the sequence, they would be given the upload permission.
All existing users (except sysops) would have to go through the process as well.
Future refinements could include interactive questions/answers about copyright issues. As for bots, bot status has to be set by bureaucrats anyway, so these could also give bots the upload permission.
Does this idea make sense? If it works for Commons, a simplified version might even be useful for each individual Wikimedia project.
Erik
Hm, I'm not sure what would stop users just guessing and hitting 'back' a lot to get through it. And what questions would we ask? That would be the hardest bit. (Well, maybe collecting all the translations would be the hardest...)
I had an idea which would hopefully achieve a similar outcome, that we could introduce "throttled" or "reviewed" uploads. Once a user uploads say, 5 files, an admin has to review the files before they can upload any more. If they made any mistakes, they stay on reviewed upload. If they didn't make any mistakes with licensing, they can go onto unreviewed upload (what we have at the moment).
No idea if it would be even remotely technically feasible, though.
Brianna
On 16/06/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
Wikimedia Commons is a very important resource, but it also has policies which many people will find difficult to understand. They cannot just upload whatever they want, they have to provide full source information, and they should have at least a basic understanding of licensing.
Many ideas have been mentioned here to somehow limit uploads by first timers. One that I haven't heard mentioned is to require every new user to go through some interactive tutorial process that explains the basics. How could this be done?
- Create a new permission for uploading.
- Any user who doesn't have the permission, and tries to upload, is
presented with the tutorial. 3) Once they have completed the tutorial, they receive the permission.
On the implementation level, it seems that this can be done as an extension which a) hooks into the upload process and checks whether a user has the permission, b) displays a set of pages from the MediaWiki: namespace (important so the tutorial can be localized using the "/de", "/en" .. subpage syntax), each of them with a "Previous"/"Next" button. Only when a user has viewed the final page in the sequence, they would be given the upload permission.
All existing users (except sysops) would have to go through the process as well.
Future refinements could include interactive questions/answers about copyright issues. As for bots, bot status has to be set by bureaucrats anyway, so these could also give bots the upload permission.
Does this idea make sense? If it works for Commons, a simplified version might even be useful for each individual Wikimedia project.
Erik _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 6/18/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Hm, I'm not sure what would stop users just guessing and hitting 'back' a lot to get through it. And what questions would we ask? That would be the hardest bit. (Well, maybe collecting all the translations would be the hardest...)
I had an idea which would hopefully achieve a similar outcome, that we could introduce "throttled" or "reviewed" uploads. Once a user uploads say, 5 files, an admin has to review the files before they can upload any more. If they made any mistakes, they stay on reviewed upload. If they didn't make any mistakes with licensing, they can go onto unreviewed upload (what we have at the moment).
No idea if it would be even remotely technically feasible, though.
No idea either, but it'd be nice if it could. I really like the idea. I like the tutorial idea too, it could be implemented if someone fails the 5 uploads without licence problems. then you'd have to take your "commons upload license" type thing.
Let's see.
New user uploads up to 5 files Admin (or any trusted user..ie. with X files uploaded and no deletion/warnings etc.) reviews the 5 pics and waives the reviewed status. New user doesn't pass the test of 5 good licenses. New user must go through tutorial. New user gets 5 new uploads. etc.
Potential problems: -Some people just download one bad file and go. Lots of people actually. So this only tackles one part of the problem. - How do we make sure that files are reviewed within a certain period of time (ie. do people on Commons have the time to do this?) so that people don't wait around for ever to get their reviewed satus waived? - If it can be implemented at all, can it be accessed from local wikipedias (ie. there are people who can review the stuff better in their own language and who are not commons users).
Delphine
On 19/06/06, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
Potential problems: -Some people just download one bad file and go. Lots of people actually. So this only tackles one part of the problem.
Yes... well... I don't think there's anything we can do about that. Any more than we can get rid of "fly-by-night" vandals from Wikipedias. We just mark their images as missing source/license, they don't respond in 7 days, we delete it. It's a bit slower but we still get rid of it. (BTW I think you mean "upload". :))
- How do we make sure that files are reviewed within a certain period
of time (ie. do people on Commons have the time to do this?) so that people don't wait around for ever to get their reviewed satus waived?
Well, at the moment we have a WelcomeBot who automatically welcomes all new accounts with at least one edit or upload. It keeps a log of these welcomes at [[User:Orgullobot/Welcome log]]. Admins & others (all volunteers) check the contribs of these users and tag/delete their images & warn/advise the users as appropriate, then remove their name from the list.
From my perception, of 20 users, more than 10 are uploading obvious
copyvios and/or images without any source information. Around another 5 are uploading their own work but not categorising it. Maybe 2 out of 20 need no correction at all.
(5 seconds to upload, 5 minutes to delete... if you're lucky.)
It is actually a great approach that is working really well, because we are catching people right at the start when they're more likely to be around, and can fix misconceptions *before* they upload 50 images under the same flawed reasoning. But we unfortunately don't have enough people volunteering to help (there is <10 at the moment), so already there is a backlog of about a week.
- If it can be implemented at all, can it be accessed from local
wikipedias (ie. there are people who can review the stuff better in their own language and who are not commons users).
Well, if we don't have a Commons admin in X language, I really really encourage a person interested in Commons/images/helping people in their language to step forward and volunteer to be an admin. Even given the recent lifting of standards we still have the easiest admin requirements I've ever seen on Wikimedia.
cheers, Brianna
<snip>
Just FYI, there's still my Tasks extension waiting in the wings, eh, SVN. Among several other functions, it could easily be adapted to add a "review" task to each uploaded file. Tasks can be automatiically listed by date, oldest first. They can (depending on their type) be displayed in the sidebar and/or as a prominent text of the pages they are assigned to.
For clarification, this is /not/ a {{{template tag}}. The tasks have their own separate database table, and do not alter page texts. It is possible to set the "review" task type so it can be removed by admins only.
This would IMHO help organizing the checking efforts, as * Images are clearly and automatically labeled as "in need of review" * No messing with categories and templates * No duplicated effort - if you review an image, and think it is OK, just close the task, and it will disappear from the list
There are lots of "neat" things associated with the task extension; each task gets its own talk page, if needed; tasks can be assigned to a specific person, and assigned tasks can be hidden from the "to do" list; task lists can also be filtered by categories of their pages (this includes subcategories); etc.
I originally wrote this to lessen the mess on Wikipedia, and to ease the creation of articles by anons (everyone may add a "create" task for a non-existing topic; the task would be closed automatically when the article is created). Likewise, "deletion" tasks would have their own talk page (less mess), and be closed automatically once the article is deleted.
Maybe that extension could find a new home at commons. Just a thought.
Magnus
On 6/19/06, Magnus Manske magnus.manske@web.de wrote:
<snip>
Just FYI, there's still my Tasks extension waiting in the wings, eh, SVN. Among several other functions, it could easily be adapted to add a "review" task to each uploaded file. Tasks can be automatiically listed by date, oldest first. They can (depending on their type) be displayed in the sidebar and/or as a prominent text of the pages they are assigned to.
For clarification, this is /not/ a {{{template tag}}. The tasks have their own separate database table, and do not alter page texts. It is possible to set the "review" task type so it can be removed by admins only.
We've been begging for this on enwiki for months now, but the devs refuse to implement for performance reasons IIRC.
Kelly
2006/6/18, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com:
Hm, I'm not sure what would stop users just guessing and hitting 'back' a lot to get through it. And what questions would we ask? That would be the hardest bit. (Well, maybe collecting all the translations would be the hardest...)
I don't think users guessing and hitting 'back' would be so bad. It will still function to have most of them think about the questions and note the answer if it is not what they at first thought. Although to really work, we should make "think and then make a reasoned guess" be a faster way to get through then "press all buttons until one of them works." One possibility might be to give the right/wrong not directly, but only when all questions have been answered.
I think questions could be along the lines of "You get a picture from a website saying such-and-such..." or "You get a picture in such-and-such way..." Can you submit it to Commons? If so, what license tag is applicable, and if not, why not?
On 6/18/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Hm, I'm not sure what would stop users just guessing and hitting 'back' a lot to get through it.
I think the first question we should ask is why users upload obvious copyvios on Commons. Here are some factors I can think of:
Most importantly, copyright policies are fairly lenient in many projects and languages. This is in spite of the fact that the user interface typically warns very strongly against uploading copyright violations. I think standardizing copyright policy to a certain extent will help in dealing with that. We cannot communicate clearly while the facts are blurry to begin with.
Users come to Commons from one of the existing projects. Why do they go to Commons? Because the projects advertise it quite actively. And this is not limited to links on the local upload form. It is part of the social dynamic ("Why did you not upload X to Commons?"). There are also sister project links to Commons in many articles. The projects portray using Commons as a good and right thing to do.
When users come to Commons, do they set their UI language? Many may not be aware that this is possible. If they aren't native English speakers, this means that they are likely to ignore any message above a certain complexity. So they understand how to upload, but they don't understand anything else.
I believe Commons newbies are often clueless or semi-cluess about the purpose of Commons, and only discover it more or less by accident. I think if we can ensure that every user who visits Commons views a tutorial in _their_ language, we might be able to address many of the factors that are currently leading to copyvio uploads.
And what questions would we ask? That would be the hardest bit. (Well, maybe collecting all the translations would be the hardest...)
I think the questions wouldn't be so hard, really. For example, "Can you upload a movie poster to Commons?" Many people seem to think that press photos, promotional materials and such are OK. This is also in line with the "fair use" policy of the projects. We need to explain clearly that this is not so.
Andre's suggestion that it should be hard to complete the tutorial by randomly clicking is a good one. It could be done with a JavaScript that checks several multiple choice boxes on a page, and only allows you to continue if all the answers are correct. If we accept that users without JavaScript (a minority) can just click through it, this is relatively easy to code.
I had an idea which would hopefully achieve a similar outcome, that we could introduce "throttled" or "reviewed" uploads. Once a user uploads say, 5 files, an admin has to review the files before they can upload any more. If they made any mistakes, they stay on reviewed upload. If they didn't make any mistakes with licensing, they can go onto unreviewed upload (what we have at the moment).
Hmm, negative points I can see here: - complex: you need a good and effective review interface for admins. - a lot of additional work for admins; if they do not catch up, users will have frustrating waiting periods. - takes away from the wiki notion of doing things "quickly".
The tutorial solution is also somewhat un-wiki, but at least you would only have to go through it once, and then the normal wiki processes apply. We probably want to try multiple strategies, though.
Erik
On 20/06/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
I think the first question we should ask is why users upload obvious copyvios on Commons. Here are some factors I can think of:
#1 reason: most people /everywhere/ know nothing about copyright. I don't think it has much to do with WM. It is possible to contribute to WP for a long time (if not ever) and only interact with copyright in a very minimal way.
When users come to Commons, do they set their UI language? Many may not be aware that this is possible. If they aren't native English speakers, this means that they are likely to ignore any message above a certain complexity. So they understand how to upload, but they don't understand anything else.
Well, we have [[special:userlogin]] translated in about 10 languages. Likewise [[Commons:First steps/Account]] which details how to set your language preferences. It's also linked pretty heavily, I think Arnomane saw well to that.
I had an idea which would hopefully achieve a similar outcome, that we could introduce "throttled" or "reviewed" uploads. Once a user uploads say, 5 files, an admin has to review the files before they can upload any more. If they made any mistakes, they stay on reviewed upload. If they didn't make any mistakes with licensing, they can go onto unreviewed upload (what we have at the moment).
Hmm, negative points I can see here:
- complex: you need a good and effective review interface for admins.
True. I didn't say it was technically feasible...
- a lot of additional work for admins; if they do not catch up, users
will have frustrating waiting periods.
The alternative is what we have now: a lot of users upload a lot of copyvios and admins have frustrating workloads chasing after them.
- takes away from the wiki notion of doing things "quickly".
Copyright concerns make wiki-nirvana impossible already.
Anyway here is my draft quiz, please improve it. These are the top 10 misconceptions I can think of based on newbie stalking. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pfctdayelise/Licensing_quiz
cheers Brianna
*Users can simply try answers until they find the correct one
The software could realise it and... deny him tutorial access for some hours? set him as can't-upload until an admin verifies him?
*What if they're not reviewed?
Users on queue without uploading permission should automatically get it if nobody reviewed him (either accepting or denying) for X days. That would ensure we *do* allow people. If we fail to get everybody reviewed, we're like now :-)
*There's too much work for admins
We're talking of adding a 'can upload' permission. Also add an can review permission, automatically got after N uploads and no copyright problem. Admins could always add/remove this permission.
When users come to Commons, do they set their UI language
I'd like local interwikies to [[commons: ]] have the ?uselang=<projectlang> appended. This is tecnically available, a simple configuration issue, the only problem would be breaking the interwikies-are-equal-on-all-wikipedias system. A second parameter on the software (giving the user/wiki language) would do too.
- Takes away from the wiki notion of doing things "quickly".
Agree, but it's easier to upload 2x copyvios than detecting x copyvios. This would help reducing the difference.
People could log in to the irc and explicity ask someone to verify their uploads or they could also be checked in the channel. The irc channel is quite dead.
A problem i see is the correct answer. This is a wiki, everyone should be able to edit and propose changes, i easily think on discussions about the accuracy of 'correct answers' but they shouldn't be too easy to find...
Another problem would be people creating new accounts to bypass this limit system.
On 24/06/06, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
*Users can simply try answers until they find the correct one
The software could realise it and... deny him tutorial access for some hours? set him as can't-upload until an admin verifies him?
No, I think there's nothing wrong with guessing (as Eloquence also said, IIRC). The important part is that they find out which is the correct answer and we explain why. Anyway if we use the quiz I wrote it won't take them long to figure out that guessing "False" is a pretty safe bet. ;)
*There's too much work for admins
We're talking of adding a 'can upload' permission. Also add an can review permission, automatically got after N uploads and no copyright problem. Admins could always add/remove this permission.
Do you mean 'we' as in the people on this list, or 'we' as in the developers? If it's the dev's then I'm very glad to hear it (so that we can block people from uploading only). But to my knowledge MediaWiki is not set up for this kind of thing, is it? B'crats can add/remove bot flags.
Another problem would be people creating new accounts to bypass this limit system.
Yeah, but I think we'll just have to wear that (not much we can do about it, and hopefully not too much of a problem).
Brianna
*There's too much work for admins
We're talking of adding a 'can upload' permission. Also add an can review permission, automatically got after N uploads and no copyright problem. Admins could always add/remove this permission.
Do you mean 'we' as in the people on this list, or 'we' as in the developers? If it's the dev's then I'm very glad to hear it (so that we can block people from uploading only). But to my knowledge MediaWiki is not set up for this kind of thing, is it? B'crats can add/remove bot flags.
We as people in this list, people of commons. Sorry.
Another problem would be people creating new accounts to bypass this limit system.
Yeah, but I think we'll just have to wear that (not much we can do about it, and hopefully not too much of a problem).
It's not a problem now, but if we set continuous upload more difficult, who knows?
Brianna
Platonides