MZMcBride wrote:
geni wrote:
2)Large number of semi automated deletion notices. This is going to happen whatever you do unless you ban all uploads from people who aren't qualified intellectual property lawyers. Eh just look at your average en.wikipedia talk page for a semi active editor.
An alternate solution would be to ban automated notices. :-) Or at least make them far less obnoxious. Saying "if you look over here, you'll see the same or worse" is a pretty poor argument, in my opinion.
Aye. I am a not malicious user, but I had over a handful of automated notices at Commons. To keep my user talk page readable, I had to redact them (replace each such notice with one line of plain text with links to relevant documentation).
Would we consider (truly) semi-automating the process? :-)
Let's use talk page canned responses. That's what this set of unofficial JS-free tools is doing for reviewing draft submissions at English Wikipedia, including communication at the draft talk page and the author talk page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gryllida/draft/under-review
For instance, the text field with canned responses may look like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%20talk:Foo&action=edit%...
Notice that it's characteristic of this message: a) it doesn't look like a banner. It looks like a normal message. b) it has free space for the reviewer to leave a personal comment to the user, which means a more human approach.
There are some overheads. 1) It would be much easier to use as a banner shown only to reviewers during page edit. I don't know how to do that. 2) It would be much easier to use if preloadparams=[] thing from URL reflected on not only page content, but also on page edit banner. It does not, which introduces an overhead with the username parameter.
Hope that helps. (I don't have the past context of this conversation to have confidence in that I'm bringing up a relevant point.)
MZMcBride wrote:
For Commons, my personal view is that I'd like to see its search
functionality suck a lot less.
+1
MZMcBride wrote:
As much as the term is an awful buzzword, Commons could also do with additional gamification, from what I've seen. If we can set up an easy keyword/tagging system, having users help us sort and tag media would be amazing.
We already have such system. It's called categories. If we would like to build a prettier interface for it, I'm all ears (although I wouldn't call it a game).
-- svetlana