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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 19/06/06, Delphine Ménard &lt;notafishz(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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". :)) 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. 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. 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

2006/6/18, Brianna Laugher &lt;brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: 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? -- Andre Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels

On 6/18/06, Brianna Laugher &lt;brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com&gt; 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: 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. 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. 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

The software could realise it and... deny him tutorial access for some hours? set him as can't-upload until an admin verifies him? 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 :-) 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. 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. 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.

We as people in this list, people of commons. Sorry. It's not a problem now, but if we set continuous upload more difficult, who knows? Platonides