I was just browsing wikimedia.org and saw some new icons on the side of the image on:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Marmolejo_summit_cone_on_the_edge_of_...
These say "Download", "Use this file", etc... They look really nice and I think they're a usability win.
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 9:04 PM, Paul Houle paul@ontology2.com wrote:
I was just browsing wikimedia.org and saw some new icons on the side of the image on:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Marmolejo_summit_cone_on_the_edge_of_...
These say "Download", "Use this file", etc... They look really nice and I think they're a usability win.
Thank you! I've moved the icons (and made them smaller) to the bottom of the image, after some complaints; force-reload your browser to see the new layout.
Also, I had added a bunch of social network "share this" icons, but Geni removed them. Ah well.
Cheers, Magnus
Op 6 okt 2010, om 22:24 heeft Magnus Manske het volgende geschreven:
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 9:04 PM, Paul Houle paul@ontology2.com wrote:
I was just browsing wikimedia.org and saw some new icons on the side of the image on:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Marmolejo_summit_cone_on_the_edge_of_...
These say "Download", "Use this file", etc... They look really nice and I think they're a usability win.
Thank you! I've moved the icons (and made them smaller) to the bottom of the image, after some complaints; force-reload your browser to see the new layout.
Also, I had added a bunch of social network "share this" icons, but Geni removed them. Ah well.
Cheers, Magnus
The clear icons to the right were better in my opinion without being disturbing or overwhelming. What is the motivation / reason for the change ? Taking in account that the UsabilityInitiative had a similar design; like the one you had for a few days (the larger icons to the right).
-- Krinkle
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Krinkle krinklemail@gmail.com wrote:
The clear icons to the right were better in my opinion without being disturbing or overwhelming. What is the motivation / reason for the change ? Taking in account that the UsabilityInitiative had a similar design; like the one you had for a few days (the larger icons to the right).
For what it's worth, I liked them on the right a lot better too. :-)
On 10/6/10 4:44 PM, Krinkle wrote:
The clear icons to the right were better in my opinion without being disturbing or overwhelming. What is the motivation / reason for the change ? Taking in account that the UsabilityInitiative had a similar design; like the one you had for a few days (the larger icons to the right).
Yeah, I liked it much better with the icons on the right as well.
Promoting reuse is one of the primary functions of Wikimedia Commons, so we ought to make it as easy and visible as possible.
Op 6 okt 2010, om 22:24 heeft Magnus Manske het volgende geschreven:
Also, I had added a bunch of social network "share this" icons, but Geni removed them. Ah well.
Yeah, that had its uses, so why was that removed? Deemed annoying?
I've tried to research what's the best way to do "share this" buttons and there isn't any clear data or consensus on this. Collapsing the various share icons into one popup is probably the most extensible / least annoying.
On 7 October 2010 01:55, Neil Kandalgaonkar neilk@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 10/6/10 4:44 PM, Krinkle wrote:
The clear icons to the right were better in my opinion without being disturbing or overwhelming. What is the motivation / reason for the change ? Taking in account that the UsabilityInitiative had a similar design; like the one you had for a few days (the larger icons to the right).
Yeah, I liked it much better with the icons on the right as well.
Promoting reuse is one of the primary functions of Wikimedia Commons, so we ought to make it as easy and visible as possible.
Op 6 okt 2010, om 22:24 heeft Magnus Manske het volgende geschreven:
Also, I had added a bunch of social network "share this" icons, but Geni removed them. Ah well.
Yeah, that had its uses, so why was that removed? Deemed annoying?
I've tried to research what's the best way to do "share this" buttons and there isn't any clear data or consensus on this. Collapsing the various share icons into one popup is probably the most extensible / least annoying.
-- Neil Kandalgaonkar neilk@wikimedia.org
For what it's worth, Several staff of the people where I'm currently
working had noticed the reuse buttons when they were on the right and remarked on them to me as really cool. These were going to be used as an example in a meeting about how their own interface could look but when the buttons moved neither they nor I could find the buttons any more. I only noticed the buttons again when I read this thread.
Summary - those buttons placed on the right hand side of the image were noticed by "non-wikipedians" and seen as a good idea. When they moved it was assumed that they were gone, not merely moved. As for the "share" buttons - precisely why were they removed? Are we anti-social networks (or their logos on our pages), or is it because they were too big or something? FWIW WikiNews has been using these kinds of buttons for a long time in articles.
-Liam
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 October 2010 01:55, Neil Kandalgaonkar neilk@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 10/6/10 4:44 PM, Krinkle wrote:
The clear icons to the right were better in my opinion without being disturbing or overwhelming. What is the motivation / reason for the change ? Taking in account that the UsabilityInitiative had a similar design; like the one you had for a few days (the larger icons to the right).
Yeah, I liked it much better with the icons on the right as well.
Promoting reuse is one of the primary functions of Wikimedia Commons, so we ought to make it as easy and visible as possible.
Op 6 okt 2010, om 22:24 heeft Magnus Manske het volgende geschreven:
Also, I had added a bunch of social network "share this" icons, but Geni removed them. Ah well.
Yeah, that had its uses, so why was that removed? Deemed annoying?
I've tried to research what's the best way to do "share this" buttons and there isn't any clear data or consensus on this. Collapsing the various share icons into one popup is probably the most extensible / least annoying.
-- Neil Kandalgaonkar neilk@wikimedia.org
For what it's worth, Several staff of the people where I'm currently working had noticed the reuse buttons when they were on the right and remarked on them to me as really cool. These were going to be used as an example in a meeting about how their own interface could look but when the buttons moved neither they nor I could find the buttons any more. I only noticed the buttons again when I read this thread.
Summary - those buttons placed on the right hand side of the image were noticed by "non-wikipedians" and seen as a good idea. When they moved it was assumed that they were gone, not merely moved. As for the "share" buttons - precisely why were they removed? Are we anti-social networks (or their logos on our pages), or is it because they were too big or something? FWIW WikiNews has been using these kinds of buttons for a long time in articles.
By popular demand here :-) I have re-enabled the larger top/side icons. It is easy to switch back and forth between them. Maybe a user option? Or would that be overkill?
I left the "share" buttons turned off; see the discussion here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Stockphoto.js#Social_networ...
Cheers, Magnus
Op 7 okt 2010, om 10:05 heeft Magnus Manske het volgende geschreven:
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 October 2010 01:55, Neil Kandalgaonkar neilk@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 10/6/10 4:44 PM, Krinkle wrote:
The clear icons to the right were better in my opinion without being disturbing or overwhelming. What is the motivation / reason for the change ? Taking in account that the UsabilityInitiative had a similar design; like the one you had for a few days (the larger icons to the right).
Yeah, I liked it much better with the icons on the right as well.
Promoting reuse is one of the primary functions of Wikimedia Commons, so we ought to make it as easy and visible as possible.
Op 6 okt 2010, om 22:24 heeft Magnus Manske het volgende geschreven:
Also, I had added a bunch of social network "share this" icons, but Geni removed them. Ah well.
Yeah, that had its uses, so why was that removed? Deemed annoying?
I've tried to research what's the best way to do "share this" buttons and there isn't any clear data or consensus on this. Collapsing the various share icons into one popup is probably the most extensible / least annoying.
-- Neil Kandalgaonkar neilk@wikimedia.org
For what it's worth, Several staff of the people where I'm currently working had noticed the reuse buttons when they were on the right and remarked on them to me as really cool. These were going to be used as an example in a meeting about how their own interface could look but when the buttons moved neither they nor I could find the buttons any more. I only noticed the buttons again when I read this thread.
Summary - those buttons placed on the right hand side of the image were noticed by "non-wikipedians" and seen as a good idea. When they moved it was assumed that they were gone, not merely moved. As for the "share" buttons - precisely why were they removed? Are we anti-social networks (or their logos on our pages), or is it because they were too big or something? FWIW WikiNews has been using these kinds of buttons for a long time in articles.
By popular demand here :-) I have re-enabled the larger top/side icons. It is easy to switch back and forth between them. Maybe a user option? Or would that be overkill?
I left the "share" buttons turned off; see the discussion here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Stockphoto.js#Social_networ...
Cheers, Magnus
We all love options and personal perferences. But I think it would be wise to keep this one as simple and equal as possible. Main reason being that, although the buttons are highly useful (and I can't imagine any big usercase in which they would be unwanted), so aside from that.... they are also in a very visible area that lots of scripts, tools and applications do or could potentially use to print their buttons and all sorts of triggers aswell. In order to not further complicate that area (eg. "Oh I can't program it here because some of the users of this particular script puts the buttons there also..");
So for that reason I would recommand not making options in terms of size or location of the buttons. Anything else that might be wished (text / no text, language, image-sets etc.) wouldn't be an issue though
Once again I want to say how much I like these buttons. its so... plain simple and obvious need. Thanks Magnus :-)
-- Krinkle
On 7 October 2010 14:23, Krinkle krinklemail@gmail.com wrote:
Main reason being that, although the buttons are highly useful (and I can't imagine any big usercase in which they would be unwanted), so aside from that.... they are also in a very visible area that lots of scripts, tools and applications do or could potentially use to print their buttons and all sorts of triggers aswell. In order to not further complicate that area (eg. "Oh I can't program it here because some of the users of this particular script puts the buttons there also..");
Now you mention it, I'm really surprised I haven't seen anything else using that big white-space area. But it seems a bit odd to keep it empty just in case someone else wants to use it, especially when making these prominent is so useful.
A useful solution might be to implement an option to have the "normal" sharing buttons display below the images, and then anyone writing a script which wants to use the right-hand side can include the trigger for that function - move them out of the way in order to add in your new exciting rotation tool or what have you, but not affect them the rest of the time. As long as that second tool is itself an opt-in option, this wouldn't conflict too much...
Op 7 okt 2010, om 21:34 heeft Andrew Gray het volgende geschreven:
On 7 October 2010 14:23, Krinkle krinklemail@gmail.com wrote:
Main reason being that, although the buttons are highly useful (and I can't imagine any big usercase in which they would be unwanted), so aside from that.... they are also in a very visible area that lots of scripts, tools and applications do or could potentially use to print their buttons and all sorts of triggers aswell. In order to not further complicate that area (eg. "Oh I can't program it here because some of the users of this particular script puts the buttons there also..");
Now you mention it, I'm really surprised I haven't seen anything else using that big white-space area. But it seems a bit odd to keep it empty just in case someone else wants to use it, especially when making these prominent is so useful.
A useful solution might be to implement an option to have the "normal" sharing buttons display below the images, and then anyone writing a script which wants to use the right-hand side can include the trigger for that function - move them out of the way in order to add in your new exciting rotation tool or what have you, but not affect them the rest of the time. As long as that second tool is itself an opt-in option, this wouldn't conflict too much...
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Just in case we misunderstood eachother, I didn't mean that it's a problem that the icons are as big as they are now at the position they are now (large and in a vertical row next to the image) However, I'm just saying that it's good to keep it that way (atleast not providing an option like: StockPhoto.position.options = ["top left", "bottom right", "upside down here", "funky cool there", "small icons in the corner", "big icons in the footer"];
I totally agree that it is odd to keep the space empty just becuase someone could use it. We are the ones using it now, so that's fine. But just keep it consistant way :-)
-- Krinkle
On 7 October 2010 09:05, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
By popular demand here :-) I have re-enabled the larger top/side icons. It is easy to switch back and forth between them. Maybe a user option? Or would that be overkill?
I'm all in favour of keeping them on the left, though a user preference to optionally put them below would make sense. I'd certainly prefer we keep them prominent for non-registered users, ie the default view.
(If memory serves, the interface is reversed when using RTL languages such as Arabic - what happens to the "left" buttons then?)
My only quibble would be that the buttons look quite "rough" - the bottom one, information about reuse, is smooth and clean, but the top four are pixellated to some degree or another. I assume this is just an artifact of the original image size?
On 10/6/2010 9:55 PM, Neil Kandalgaonkar wrote:
Yeah, that had its uses, so why was that removed? Deemed annoying?
I've tried to research what's the best way to do "share this" buttons and there isn't any clear data or consensus on this. Collapsing the various share icons into one popup is probably the most extensible / least annoying.
Well, I do think the large buttons on the left looked more like "wikispaces" than "wikipedia" (more commercial) but I thought they looked great. It might be nice to see more of that style in other places.
As for social sharing, that's more complicated. I know of a site (that you've probably never heard of) that was lucky enough to get on the list of social media share buttons that came with a popular wordpress plugin, and they got a number of backlinks that was absolutely staggering -- and then they got hacked by some S.E.O. spammers who turned it into their own private playground. The site was ranking well for many search terms and presumably getting quite a bit of traffic and also boosting the rankings of the spammers' sites, but it got zapped when somebody uploaded malware to the site. The site owners were basically absentee landlords and if there were any honest people contributing to the site they didn't do anything about it.
Today any idiot can install Pligg and have a Digg clone running in a few hours, and I'm sure there's something out there for making a delicious clone too. So if you make a list, you're in this awful position of picking winners and losers. You could make a case that Facebook is so big that it's sufficient to have a Facebook button -- but there's people out there who really hate Facebook. Now you might say "Facebook", "Twitter", "Digg", "Reddit", "StumbleUpon", "Delicious". Well, some people hate Digg so much that they'll still complain... There probably are thousands or tens of thousands of 'sharing' sites out there, and you can't draw a clear line between ones that are "big enough", the ones that are somebody's web-spam project (it isn't hard to make a flock of electric sheep that can beat the average Digger at the Turing Test), and ones that are just too little to matter... Not without offending somebody, and in a consensus-driven organization, that's a problem.
There's also the question of what value sharing buttons bring. For something to get traction in social media, it's got to be not just cool, but ~really~ cool, and what plays depends entirely on the community. For instance, I've got a certain content stream that consistently gets 5-10 votes in reddit and brings in maybe 500-5000 visitors. I submit the same stuff to Digg or Mixx and I might get 5 or 15 visitors. Part of that is that I've got a good account in reddit, but some content just does well in some communities and doesn't in others.
For a project I'm working on, I'm seriously thinking about a "Facebook-only" approach. I know that would drive some people nuts, but I own the site lock, stock and barrel and I can do what I want. Not everybody has that freedom.
As for the inconsistency in the icons (eg. not the same 'style').
I'll see if I can find alternatives all from one set tomorrow (or anyone else feel free to propose or edit yourself):
eg. pick one of the below: * http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Tango_project * http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:GNOME_Desktop_icons * http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nuvola_icons
-- Krinkle
Op 7 okt 2010, om 20:39 heeft Paul Houle het volgende geschreven:
On 10/6/2010 9:55 PM, Neil Kandalgaonkar wrote:
Yeah, that had its uses, so why was that removed? Deemed annoying?
I've tried to research what's the best way to do "share this" buttons and there isn't any clear data or consensus on this. Collapsing the various share icons into one popup is probably the most extensible / least annoying.
Well, I do think the large buttons on the left looked more like"wikispaces" than "wikipedia" (more commercial) but I thought they looked great. It might be nice to see more of that style in other places.
As for social sharing, that's more complicated. I know of a site(that you've probably never heard of) that was lucky enough to get on the list of social media share buttons that came with a popular wordpress plugin, and they got a number of backlinks that was absolutely staggering -- and then they got hacked by some S.E.O. spammers who turned it into their own private playground. The site was ranking well for many search terms and presumably getting quite a bit of traffic and also boosting the rankings of the spammers' sites, but it got zapped when somebody uploaded malware to the site. The site owners were basically absentee landlords and if there were any honest people contributing to the site they didn't do anything about it.
Today any idiot can install Pligg and have a Digg clone running ina few hours, and I'm sure there's something out there for making a delicious clone too. So if you make a list, you're in this awful position of picking winners and losers. You could make a case that Facebook is so big that it's sufficient to have a Facebook button -- but there's people out there who really hate Facebook. Now you might say "Facebook", "Twitter", "Digg", "Reddit", "StumbleUpon", "Delicious". Well, some people hate Digg so much that they'll still complain... There probably are thousands or tens of thousands of 'sharing' sites out there, and you can't draw a clear line between ones that are "big enough", the ones that are somebody's web-spam project (it isn't hard to make a flock of electric sheep that can beat the average Digger at the Turing Test), and ones that are just too little to matter... Not without offending somebody, and in a consensus-driven organization, that's a problem.
There's also the question of what value sharing buttons bring.For something to get traction in social media, it's got to be not just cool, but ~really~ cool, and what plays depends entirely on the community. For instance, I've got a certain content stream that consistently gets 5-10 votes in reddit and brings in maybe 500-5000 visitors. I submit the same stuff to Digg or Mixx and I might get 5 or 15 visitors. Part of that is that I've got a good account in reddit, but some content just does well in some communities and doesn't in others.
For a project I'm working on, I'm seriously thinking about a"Facebook-only" approach. I know that would drive some people nuts, but I own the site lock, stock and barrel and I can do what I want. Not everybody has that freedom.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Thanks for all your thoughts on social sharing... clearly you know this field really well.
I just want to distinguish what Wikimedia would be going for (at least in my opinion) versus a typical ad-revenue-driven site.
On 10/7/10 11:39 AM, Paul Houle wrote:
As for social sharing, that's more complicated.
[...]they got hacked by some S.E.O. spammers who turned it into their own private playground. [...]The site owners were basically absentee landlords
This is a good thing to watch for, but I don't see how it relates to the idea of having "share" buttons.
Wikimedia projects already have towering, monumental PageRank. And our URLs can already be submitted to social media, and there are obvious opportunities for SEO hacks already. Luckily we have a pretty vigilant community.
The "share" button makes it easier for ordinary users to share things via social media. I don't see how it enables SEO spammers any more than we already do.
But I'm not super familiar with that world, perhaps you can explain it further?
there's people out there who really hate Facebook. "Facebook", "Twitter", "Digg", "Reddit", "StumbleUpon", "Delicious".
If we want to avoid people complaining, we just have to do nothing.
And of course, until the social media sites standardize on some API, there's always the question of which sites to include in a "share" widget, and whether this means some form of approbation. Personally, I don't agree that putting a "Digg" button on the site means that we approve of Digg or whatever, it's just a convenience.
But before we do that, let's just ask what value there is in doing this at all. I think it's obvious that there is value, especially for Commons.
There's also the question of what value sharing buttons bring. Forsomething to get traction in social media, it's got to be not just cool, but ~really~ cool, [...]
Well, Wikimedia projects are not looking to be cool, IMO. We're not going for the maximum size audience, we're trying to useful and educational.
So the question is, does Tweeting, Facebook-liking, etc., serve a valid informational purpose? At least in my life, it does. I have a friend who has been working on an MA thesis on digital journalism and his Twitter stream and Facebook are a great source of information,
It's true that there's all kinds of dross that flows through those systems as well, but it's not clear to me that this brings the wrong audience to Wikimedia projects. It's not like this site is a secret or anything. ;)
Neil Kandalgaonkar wrote:
This is a good thing to watch for, but I don't see how it relates to the idea of having "share" buttons.
Wikimedia projects already have towering, monumental PageRank. And our URLs can already be submitted to social media, and there are obvious opportunities for SEO hacks already. Luckily we have a pretty vigilant community.
The "share" button makes it easier for ordinary users to share things via social media. I don't see how it enables SEO spammers any more than we already do.
But I'm not super familiar with that world, perhaps you can explain it further?
We don't want to include a "Share in spammy site" button.
there's people out there who really hate Facebook. "Facebook", "Twitter", "Digg", "Reddit", "StumbleUpon", "Delicious".
If we want to avoid people complaining, we just have to do nothing.
And of course, until the social media sites standardize on some API, there's always the question of which sites to include in a "share" widget, and whether this means some form of approbation. Personally, I don't agree that putting a "Digg" button on the site means that we approve of Digg or whatever, it's just a convenience.
It would be nice to support a public API if there's one, allowing the user to choose the service, and then not allow any other site unless they implement it.
I am no fan of social media sites, and mostly find those buttons not worth the space they take. Is it so hard to share one link without them?
And is it worth showing those images to averybody for all our images? I mean, it has a point for a piece of news or a brilliant blog post where my first reaction may be "let all people know it" [1]. But for a image site? I would expect browsing commons to dowload an image, use it in another page, maybe set it as a wallpaper. But not to "share the image with others" [2]. I would instead share the Wikipedia article about the topic the image is about.
1- Yes, you see those buttons on all blog posts, because they obviously think all those boring entries are brilliant or perhaps 'just in case'. Let they dream. A blog post of a respectable size will have those small buttons at the bottom being only a tiny fraction of the article area. OTOH in the commons case, they will be seen at the same time as the image (no need to scroll) and taking perhaps up to half the image area.
2- I would accept doing an exception for milestone images which could have more sharing needs (but why not share the local page about the milestone instead?).
Personally, I have the various share buttons in all sites deactivated by browser extensions as much as possible. I know alike I hope most people how to paste a url in an email, or--if I should ever want to--add it to a Facebook page, and that meetws any need I am likely to have.
Others feel differently. We are providing an encyclopedia for the use of everybody, and our goal should be to facilitate this use to the extent we can with compromising our principles. If people want to use our pages for sharing on the various services, there is no reason to discourage. We're not here to build PageRank as such, but we are here to make our information as widely available as possible.
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
Neil Kandalgaonkar wrote:
This is a good thing to watch for, but I don't see how it relates to the idea of having "share" buttons.
Wikimedia projects already have towering, monumental PageRank. And our URLs can already be submitted to social media, and there are obvious opportunities for SEO hacks already. Luckily we have a pretty vigilant community.
The "share" button makes it easier for ordinary users to share things via social media. I don't see how it enables SEO spammers any more than we already do.
But I'm not super familiar with that world, perhaps you can explain it further?
We don't want to include a "Share in spammy site" button.
there's people out there who really hate Facebook. "Facebook", "Twitter", "Digg", "Reddit", "StumbleUpon", "Delicious".
If we want to avoid people complaining, we just have to do nothing.
And of course, until the social media sites standardize on some API, there's always the question of which sites to include in a "share" widget, and whether this means some form of approbation. Personally, I don't agree that putting a "Digg" button on the site means that we approve of Digg or whatever, it's just a convenience.
It would be nice to support a public API if there's one, allowing the user to choose the service, and then not allow any other site unless they implement it.
I am no fan of social media sites, and mostly find those buttons not worth the space they take. Is it so hard to share one link without them?
And is it worth showing those images to averybody for all our images? I mean, it has a point for a piece of news or a brilliant blog post where my first reaction may be "let all people know it" [1]. But for a image site? I would expect browsing commons to dowload an image, use it in another page, maybe set it as a wallpaper. But not to "share the image with others" [2]. I would instead share the Wikipedia article about the topic the image is about.
1- Yes, you see those buttons on all blog posts, because they obviously think all those boring entries are brilliant or perhaps 'just in case'. Let they dream. A blog post of a respectable size will have those small buttons at the bottom being only a tiny fraction of the article area. OTOH in the commons case, they will be seen at the same time as the image (no need to scroll) and taking perhaps up to half the image area.
2- I would accept doing an exception for milestone images which could have more sharing needs (but why not share the local page about the milestone instead?).
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 7 October 2010 19:39, Paul Houle paul@ontology2.com wrote:
There probably are thousands or tens of thousands of 'sharing' sites out there, and you can't draw a clear line between ones that are "big enough", the ones that are somebody's web-spam project (it isn't hard to make a flock of electric sheep that can beat the average Digger at the Turing Test), and ones that are just too little to matter... Not without offending somebody, and in a consensus-driven organization, that's a problem.
As an example of this problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Booksources and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:GeoTemplate
(These are enwp, but I'm sure other projects with similar things have similar issues)
These two pages aim to provide something vaguely like the social-sharing links - in the first case, resolving an ISBN to a particular source for a book; in the second, resolving a set of coordinates to a mapping service. Both began with a handful of major services and rapidly grew; inevitably, there were kludgy attempts to come up with "most important" ones, arguments over how to order them, etc.; and by now, both are pretty unenticing to use.
"Booksellers" is obviously a bigger pool than social networking sites or microblogging services or what have you, but I can certainly see Paul's point here that it's opening us up to a lot of potential hassle, and a lot of fuss from people who have very strong incentives to get their service listed.
Please please please...
It's really disturbing to see icons here and there... could you test it on a test wiki before ?
Because I know it's really great, I was the first for the translation...
But Commons is not an alpha software...
I don't want to play at " Where is Wally ?" on commons.
Sorry and Good job.
Florian Farge aka Otourly Sur lesprojets wikimédiens et l'Association française,sur OxyRadio, OSM, et sur MOVIM
On 10/7/2010 6:09 PM, Andrew Gray wrote:
"Booksellers" is obviously a bigger pool than social networking sites or microblogging services or what have you, but I can certainly see Paul's point here that it's opening us up to a lot of potential hassle, and a lot of fuss from people who have very strong incentives to get their service listed.
Hell yeah!
Looking up an ISBN code is an absolute nightmare on Wikipedia. Maybe I'm just a sell-out, but I usually go straight to AMZN, or maybe, just maybe, WorldCat so I can see if it's the public or Uni library in my town.
Same thing with the maps... Geodata in wikipedia is often crazy-wrong because nobody's gotten into the habit of looking at the points on maps. At Ookaboo
I display selected points from a dbpedia/freebase/wikipedia merge, and there are plenty of crazy errors (for instance, there's a faint mirror image of continental Europe with the sign of the longitude reversed off the coast of the British Isles, towns mingling with the shipwrecks.) If there was more of a focus on doing things one way correctly instead of not picking favorites, wikipedia users would be the winners.
Paul Houle a écrit:
I was just browsing wikimedia.org and saw some new icons on the side of the image on:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Marmolejo_summit_cone_on_the_edge_of_... g
These say "Download", "Use this file", etc... They look really nice and I think they're a usability win.
Translations can be done: ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Stockphoto.js#Translation ) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Stockphoto.js/fr http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Stockphoto.js/it http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Stockphoto.js/pl
Feel free to translate or request for translation in your languages
Thank you very much to the persons who make all this great stuff :)
Florian Farge aka Otourly Sur lesprojets wikimédiens et l'Association française,sur OxyRadio, OSM, et sur MOVIM
_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l