We currently have a /tmp aka 'stash' and I think that has mostly been a miss for UW users. The original idea behind the UW was to put it bluntly: 'get uploads in fast, before people give up'. People's primary goal is to upload, so let them upload first and then pull them into the 'tough part' that is required for publication (because it is tough, esp on Commons and it is tough for a very good reason).
I have always thought that what was really needed here was 'drafts'. Just allow everyone to upload quickly. After upload, inform the user that the image is not yet ready for usage and that he needs to complete the publication process for each of them. He has a two week window, where he needs to make sure to have passed all the required steps for an image. Provide a dashboard showing your draft space and the progress the user has made on each of the items. Provide a prominent: "request assistance" option that allows experienced community members to help a newcomer.
As soon as an image has passed all publish requirements, it is indexable by Google, visible to non-community members and embeddable. Otherwise the user get's a notification that the image was deleted (possibly with restore options for another 8 weeks, think OTRS).
Next to that provide a "New File Patrol" dashboard for experienced community members that helps them to mark images as patrolled, meaning that basically an experienced community member has reviewed and approved the correctness of the copyright/author/license information that has been uploaded trough the "Upload Wizard". Images uploaded trough alternative 'complex' methods or by users with 'trust' flags would be auto patrolled. If enough of your images have passed review, you would automatically become trusted. Images that are rejected by community members do not lead to unpublication, but do leave a notification with the user and end up back in their dashboard. After being unaddressed for a set amount of time, this becomes a "file for deletion"-discussion.
Anyway, that is MY long term vision, and that just doesn't fit in a couple of sprints :)
Also note that this only works by tackling issues with both target groups. I feel that this is something we often do wrong with 'edit' features. We pick 1 audience (usually readers) and drive a change for that audience, without considering the work that the community has to do to support that change.
DJ
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gergo Tisza gtisza@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
Yes. But is this a given fact, or something that might change?
We do intend to change it. You can see out plans (in a somewhat undigested form) at http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/design-multimedia-uploader But usage metrics from the current interface can still be helpful for designing a different one.
So how much energy and resources are we spending on making it slightly better, rather than designing something very different?
That's the million dollar question... given that small improvements will have instant effect (but is wasted time in the long run), while a big redesign will take several months (I am being optimistic here...), we will have to do some mix of the two, but exactly what mix that will be is an open question.
Multimedia mailing list Multimedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia