"Erik Moeller" erik_moeller@gmx.de schrieb:
Andre- (regarding the commons and similar ideas)
I'll try to remain calm...
- This is our best opportunity to get single sign-on working, a feature
which we desperately need. Because the Commons effectively requires access to a shared database, this is a natural extension. But starting with a separate login system makes single sign-on a *separate* goal. This is not just a technical issue of yet another redundant user table. It's also a social issue of not being able to use the synergy from the launch of the commons to promote single sign-on (which will likely have some initial hurdles to overcome) and vice versa. It's difficult to generate excitement about small, evolutionary steps.
I think the effect will rather be opposite. By introducing many things at once, it is likely that some will not be used that would be if presented separately.
Also, I think we can diide the users of Wikicommons in two groups - those directly interested, and those who are interested because it helps them with another project. The first group can be got without extra features. The second group will more likely be caught with content than with features. If that idea is correct, the best way would be to start now with the first group, and capture the second one when the direct upload and reference from Wikipedia/Wikibooks/whatever is created, by showing them that there is something they can actually use - a collection of pictures, already divided into galleries.
- The initial edits on a wiki lay the foundation of what that wiki will
become. If just a few people get involved in this project, because it offers no really cool, exciting possibilities, then the project foundation may well not be as solid as it could be. For example, people may decide to create image categories and upload requirements in the first two weeks. This structure will then become harder and harder to change as it seeps in, and when we add all the new cool features which attract more people -- a better upload form, transparent use of commons media from all wikis, single sign-on -- it may already be too late to quickly and effectively fix certain problems. Too much may have grown into the structure already.
Again, the cool, exciting features are I think not what draws people to the project. Their own wish for a project like this, and the content of the project are the more likely elements.
Problems like you describe will definitely happen, but I think they will happen just as much if we wait as when we don't.
These concerns outweigh my desire to have something usable as soon as possible.
I still feel it differently. Apart from having a long lasting desire to just do this, even if there aren't any extras, I also think that having a database and a community already in existence will help, not hinder in getting the features working and used.
Andre Engels
Andre-
I think the effect will rather be opposite. By introducing many things at once, it is likely that some will not be used that would be if presented separately.
I find it difficult to believe that we would generate a lot of interest with an announcement that we have now a shared media repository, but that it isn't possible to use images from there anywhere without re-uploading them, that there is no improved upload form, no transparent inclusion of images, etc. I think it would generate about the same interest that Wikisource did, with a few people like yourself starting to put up what they've been wanting to put somewhere for a long time and creating the basic structure (with the associated problems I have described below).
On the other hand, when we launch the Commons in one fell swoop, with all the changes - the brandnew upload form, the single login, the transparent inclusion if images, perhaps a "Move to commons" button on image pages - that will certainly generate a lot of interest in "What's going on over there?" and thanks to single sign-on, people can try it out immediately without having to set up yet another account.
Also, I think we can diide the users of Wikicommons in two groups - those directly interested, and those who are interested because it helps them with another project. The first group can be got without extra features. The second group will more likely be caught with content than with features.
I think the first group is very small, and I think the second group will be initially interested, but turned away by the samll things like having to create a new account, having to re-upload files, etc. Most people have a very low tolerance of frustration, especially when working on hobby projects. That's why usability is so essential, and the features we want are really usability features. For example, I also think that participation on Meta would be much greater if we had single sign-on.
- The initial edits on a wiki lay the foundation of what that wiki will
become. If just a few people get involved in this project, because it offers no really cool, exciting possibilities, then the project foundation may well not be as solid as it could be. For example, people may decide to create image categories and upload requirements in the first two weeks. This structure will then become harder and harder to change as it seeps in, and when we add all the new cool features which attract more people -- a better upload form, transparent use of commons media from all wikis, single sign-on -- it may already be too late to quickly and effectively fix certain problems. Too much may have grown into the structure already.
Again, the cool, exciting features are I think not what draws people to the project. Their own wish for a project like this, and the content of the project are the more likely elements.
See above.
Problems like you describe will definitely happen, but I think they will happen just as much if we wait as when we don't.
Why do you think that?
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller (Eloquence) wrote in part:
I find it difficult to believe that we would generate a lot of interest with an announcement that we have now a shared media repository, but that it isn't possible to use images from there anywhere without re-uploading them, that there is no improved upload form, no transparent inclusion of images, etc.
I haven't been involved in planning Wikicommons (your version or Andre's), but I for one would make use of even Andre's substandard first version. I would upload all of the images that I've used onto the Commons, and I would check the Commons for future images that I may be looking for. (Then if I find one, I'll copy it to whichever wiki I want to use it in.)
Having a central repository for images means that I don't have to search all of the individual wikis -- which I would never bother to do anyway. People just need to upload their images twice -- once to the Commons and once to whatever wiki they got the image for in the first place. Most people won't do that -- too bad, but I'm not worse off than before. Some people /will/ do that (like me, and like Andre presumably) -- then I'm in much better shape!
On the other hand, when we launch the Commons in one fell swoop, with all the changes - the brandnew upload form, the single login, the transparent inclusion if images, perhaps a "Move to commons" button on image pages - that will certainly generate a lot of interest in "What's going on over there?" and thanks to single sign-on, people can try it out immediately without having to set up yet another account.
This will be fantastic. I completely understand if setting up a Commons now takes away from development that you'd rather spend on the superior design. After all, if the developers are busy, then Andre can't demand anything! ^_^ OTOH, if the inferior Commons is ready now, then I will use it if it appears, while anticipating the superior upgrade with relish.
I don't know what the situation is from the developers' point of view. But this is how one Wikipedia editor would react to a WikiCommons.
-- Toby
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org