A friend of mine ran into a series of really annoying/frustrating problems today which ended up greatly discouraging him from contributing.
This is meant to be constructive criticism, please make of it what you will.
He downloaded an image file from Wikipedia without realising that it was actually hosted on Commons. This is perfectly reasonable because Wikipedia explicitly tries to cover up the distinction for normal users.
He then tried to upload his improved version of the image.
Problem #1: He couldn't because it was hosted on Commons. The error message suggested to use a different filename.
Short-term solution: The message should have mentioned that he can replace the image on Commons.
Long-term solution: Replacing the image should be transparent. He should not have to care where it is hosted, it should just be replaced wherever it is.
Problem #2: He didn't have an account on Commons.
Solution: Fix the single sign-on for good. No more single-site accounts.
Problem #3 (and this is the main reason I'm posting this): Commons didn't let him replace the image because his account was "too new".
This is completely unacceptable. I am not convinced that this detracts absolutely any vandals or other malicious users, and it only serves to prevent honest/legitimate contributions. This restriction results in a net loss, not gain, of useful contribution to Commons.
Thanks for listening! Timwi
He then tried to upload his improved version of the image.
[..]
Long-term solution: Replacing the image should be transparent. He should not have to care where it is hosted, it should just be replaced wherever it is.
Apart from the valid points, I believe this is a fringe case. The case in which you should upload over existing images are few. The alternative of uploading with a new filename doesn't seem so counterintuitive to me that it should deterr a lot of contributors. But I could be wrong here.
Timwi wrote:
A friend of mine ran into a series of really annoying/frustrating problems today which ended up greatly discouraging him from contributing.
This is meant to be constructive criticism, please make of it what you will.
He downloaded an image file from Wikipedia without realising that it was actually hosted on Commons. This is perfectly reasonable because Wikipedia explicitly tries to cover up the distinction for normal users.
He then tried to upload his improved version of the image.
Problem #1: He couldn't because it was hosted on Commons. The error message suggested to use a different filename.
Short-term solution: The message should have mentioned that he can replace the image on Commons.
Long-term solution: Replacing the image should be transparent. He should not have to care where it is hosted, it should just be replaced wherever it is.
Problem #2: He didn't have an account on Commons.
Solution: Fix the single sign-on for good. No more single-site accounts.
Now, that's a nice structured message. A pity i see it after the more cryptic ones on wikitech :) However, thetre's little to do at commons for your friend. #1 Short-term is a message to be changed on the wikipedias or mediawiki localisation.
#1 Long-term is a feature request for the devs, but i see it unlikely, as the shared repository might not be a wiki, you may not have credentials, etc. Not that images on commons showed on local projects don't show the link "Upload a new version of this file".
Problem #3 (and this is the main reason I'm posting this): Commons didn't let him replace the image because his account was "too new".
This is completely unacceptable. I am not convinced that this detracts absolutely any vandals or other malicious users, and it only serves to prevent honest/legitimate contributions. This restriction results in a net loss, not gain, of useful contribution to Commons.
Thanks for listening! Timwi
New users often want to *upload new files*, not modify current images. They are also often the most clueless, so not letting them change existing images until autoconfirmed is a good idea. Specially because that avoids vandals creating new accounts on commons and replacing with penis images the ones on article X.
Moreover, the configuration on all WMF sites -not just commons- is to only allow reuploading images to autoconfirmed users (unless you were the original uploader).
2008/7/26 Platonides Platonides@gmail.com:
New users often want to *upload new files*, not modify current images. They are also often the most clueless, so not letting them change existing images until autoconfirmed is a good idea. Specially because that avoids vandals creating new accounts on commons and replacing with penis images the ones on article X.
It also helps discourage accidental overwriting, which used to be reasonably common - someone would upload something with a fairly generic filename, not realise they were overwriting an existing image, and we'd realise a few days later that the Belgian prime minister's article on several projects was displaying a large photograph of a train.
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 1:43 AM, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
Timwi wrote:
[...]
Problem #3 (and this is the main reason I'm posting this): Commons didn't let him replace the image because his account was "too new".
This is completely unacceptable. I am not convinced that this detracts absolutely any vandals or other malicious users, and it only serves to prevent honest/legitimate contributions. This restriction results in a net loss, not gain, of useful contribution to Commons.
Thanks for listening! Timwi
New users often want to *upload new files*, not modify current images. They are also often the most clueless, so not letting them change existing images until autoconfirmed is a good idea. Specially because that avoids vandals creating new accounts on commons and replacing with penis images the ones on article X.
Moreover, the configuration on all WMF sites -not just commons- is to only allow reuploading images to autoconfirmed users (unless you were the original uploader).
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
A generally efficient "emergency fix" would be to have a clearly displayed link to a way to contact experienced users of Commons interactively (IRC for instance). They would be able to answer questions and perform some technical actions. Wasn't here some sort of instant messaging system at some point? -- Rama
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 9:24 AM, Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
A generally efficient "emergency fix" would be to have a clearly displayed link to a way to contact experienced users of Commons interactively (IRC for instance). They would be able to answer questions and perform some technical actions. Wasn't here some sort of instant messaging system at some point? -- Rama
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Maybe we should have some bot that notifies #wikimedia-commons once a post to Commons:Help_desk is made. This way very quick responses could be possible.
Bryan