Why not just edit stuff in the [[mediawiki:*]] namespace to make the uploader field more prominent in the file history? Whomever uploaded it is usually the author, and you don't need users to do the "right thing" its automatic.
-bawolff
bawolff bawolff+wn@gmail.com skrev: Why not just edit stuff in the [[mediawiki:*]] namespace to make the uploader field more prominent in the file history? Whomever uploaded it is usually the author, and you don't need users to do the "right thing" its automatic.
-bawolff
It is difficult to implement this, as the developers have told me.
I do think that if we want to develop this free stuff concept, our software needs to be more user friendly. Wikipedia is getting big, but it is still too complicated for ordinary people to do things that should be simple, such as uploading files.
The upload form which requires the user to copy and paste a template is not something I'd expect every user to understand (for example my grandparents, but maybe not my parents either). And the current language translation of template is hardly optimal.
Fredrik.
__________________________________________________ Använder du Yahoo!? Är du trött på spam? Yahoo! E-post har det bästa spamskyddet som finns http://se.mail.yahoo.com
Fredrik Josefsson a écrit :
I do think that if we want to develop this free stuff concept, our software needs to be more user friendly. Wikipedia is getting big, but it is still too complicated for ordinary people to do things that should be simple, such as uploading files.
This is not necessarily a bad thing, since many many people out there seem to have very inaccurate ideas of copyright and other issues related to images. This is not YouTube.
-- DM
2007/1/4, David Monniaux David.Monniaux@free.fr:
Fredrik Josefsson a écrit :
I do think that if we want to develop this free stuff concept, our software needs to be more user friendly. Wikipedia is getting big, but it is still too complicated for ordinary people to do things that should be simple, such as uploading files.
This is not necessarily a bad thing, since many many people out there seem to have very inaccurate ideas of copyright and other issues related to images. This is not YouTube.
Unless you give me evidence that the people who have problems with our software are the same people who have problems with copyright, this is an extremely bad way to tackle this (admittedly large) problem.
--- Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com skrev:
2007/1/4, David Monniaux David.Monniaux@free.fr:
Fredrik Josefsson a écrit :
I do think that if we want to develop this free
stuff concept, our
software needs to be more user friendly.
Wikipedia is getting big, but
it is still too complicated for ordinary people
to do things that
should be simple, such as uploading files.
This is not necessarily a bad thing, since many
many people out there
seem to have very inaccurate ideas of copyright
and other issues related
to images. This is not YouTube.
Unless you give me evidence that the people who have problems with our software are the same people who have problems with copyright, this is an extremely bad way to tackle this (admittedly large) problem.
I was also surprised to see a reply implying that it would solve copyright problems to have a complicated interface. From what I've seen, even good intended contributors initially find it difficult to get everything right when they are uploading files.
Fredrik
__________________________________________________ Använder du Yahoo!? Är du trött på spam? Yahoo! E-post har det bästa spamskyddet som finns http://se.mail.yahoo.com
Fredrik Josefsson wrote:
I was also surprised to see a reply implying that it would solve copyright problems to have a complicated interface. From what I've seen, even good intended contributors initially find it difficult to get everything right when they are uploading files.
I was referring to the claim that a bad user interface is the reason why the Foundation and others get requests for reuse of images or text.
In my humble opinion, this has little to do with user interface and rather more to do with habits.
People have been told to request permission from the web site before reusing content. Even though our page say that you can reuse content under the terms of <link to GFDL or CC or whatever>, people assume they must email those who run the site, that is, the Foundation.
I don't see how rearranging the user interface will change anything to this. And I must say, the user interface at Flickr is even less clear with respect to image reuse rights.
On 04/01/07, David Monniaux David.Monniaux@free.fr wrote:
I was referring to the claim that a bad user interface is the reason why the Foundation and others get requests for reuse of images or text. In my humble opinion, this has little to do with user interface and rather more to do with habits.
No, in the case I was speaking of they knew it was a PD image scanned from a book, they were trying to track down a better copy. I said "well, the original uploader is the one with that." "Who's that on the page?" "See there?" "... no ..."
- d.
David Monniaux wrote:
People have been told to request permission from the web site before reusing content. Even though our page say that you can reuse content under the terms of <link to GFDL or CC or whatever>, people assume they must email those who run the site, that is, the Foundation.
I get emails like that too. I just reply with, "sure, you have permission", and try to reinforce a bit with "just like the license on the image page says", although I'm sure they stop reading my message once they see the "you have permission" part. :-)
We do tell people not to rely on WP as their sole source, so it shouldn't be too surprising if responsible persons want confirmation about the information on an image page. It's not like it's protected from vandalism...
Stan
Stan Shebs wrote:
David Monniaux wrote:
People have been told to request permission from the web site before reusing content. Even though our page say that you can reuse content under the terms of <link to GFDL or CC or whatever>, people assume they must email those who run the site, that is, the Foundation.
I get emails like that too. I just reply with, "sure, you have permission", and try to reinforce a bit with "just like the license on the image page says", although I'm sure they stop reading my message once they see the "you have permission" part. :-)
We do tell people not to rely on WP as their sole source, so it shouldn't be too surprising if responsible persons want confirmation about the information on an image page. It's not like it's protected from vandalism...
Yes, but generally, people don't ask for confirmation of the conditions on the image page, but ask for a permission from the site provider.
Whomever uploaded is usually the author? On commons? What data is this claim based on?
I wish it were true but I'm not sure that it is...
On 12/30/06, bawolff bawolff+wn@gmail.com wrote:
Why not just edit stuff in the [[mediawiki:*]] namespace to make the uploader field more prominent in the file history? Whomever uploaded it is usually the author, and you don't need users to do the "right thing" its automatic.
-bawolff _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l