"Erik Moeller" erik_moeller@gmx.de schrieb:
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).
Perhaps. I'd say it's worth the try. And I don't think that waiting until we have all that will make the enthousiasm any larger. At least when we put it up, _something_ will be made. And in a few month's time, it may well be something useful. The alternative is to wait a few months, then set something, and a few month's time from _then_ have something useful.
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.
And what do they find? Another wiki where they can login and upload images to. Hurray! That's going to generate a lot of interest! Now when I push this button it does not go to wikipedia but to wikicommons. Let's see what it is. Hey! An image description page! Wow! Now my image description page is on another Wiki!
That's not what is going to interest people for this. What gets people interested is _content_. Thousands of pictures, and a method to easily find one that you need to complete your article.
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.
They will not get turned away by those things. They will get turned away by lack of content, by lack of usefulness of the WikiCommons for their own projects, like a Wikipedia article series. And the solution for that is not to make things easier, but to make them more useful.
- 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.
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?
Why do you think they will not? Are people going to make a better site structure because they don't need to login? Are people going to make better descriptions of their pictures because they can use them without re-uploading? That's ridiculous!
There's one thing I'm certain of, though. There is one way to be certain that noone is going to be interested in something, and that is by not offering it in the first place. And three months of having the thing with little interest will still create more useful content than three months of not having it at all.
Andre Engels
Andre-
Perhaps. I'd say it's worth the try. And I don't think that waiting until we have all that will make the enthousiasm any larger. At least when we put it up, _something_ will be made.
Something will be made, yes, but that something may be difficult to build upon - in terms of content, functionality, structure, policies - and grow into something tremendously more useful. That is the crux of my argument.
If you can convince the others (vote, consensus etc.) that we should set up a blank wiki now and add all the other functionality later, regardless of all the problems that may ensue, then I will follow along, but my position remains that we should properly plan and develop a basic set of features before publicly launching this project with great fanfare, to make sure that we have a solid foundation to build on, and that we get the greatest possible interest in the important early stage of content development.
Regards,
Erik
[I apologise if you receive this twice. The mail bounced back to me reporting delivery failure, and the post doesn't show up on the archives.]
Erik Moeller (Eloquence) wrote in large part:
If you can convince the others (vote, consensus etc.) that we should set up a blank wiki now and add all the other functionality later, regardless of all the problems that may ensue, then I will follow along, but my position remains that we should properly plan and develop a basic set of features before publicly launching this project with great fanfare, to make sure that we have a solid foundation to build on, and that we get the greatest possible interest in the important early stage of content development.
I was saying earlier that it'd be nice to have the thing around, even before it really gets the software features that it needs. But I agree that it would be rather anticlimactic to advertise it, just to have people discover that it really isn't that neat (yet). Erik, your stories of disaster awaiting us make more sense now.
So perhaps the solution is to launch it ''without'' great fanfare???
Let's be very clear that founding the blank wiki now is a trial run, with problems that we expected all along and have plans to fix. This is very much in the spirit of Wikipedia's own founding, so I believe that folks will understand.
-- Toby
Toby-
I was saying earlier that it'd be nice to have the thing around, even before it really gets the software features that it needs. But I agree that it would be rather anticlimactic to advertise it, just to have people discover that it really isn't that neat (yet). Erik, your stories of disaster awaiting us make more sense now.
So perhaps the solution is to launch it ''without'' great fanfare???
Well, this doesn't address my technical concerns - makes single sign-on more difficult to add when an account database already exists, existing images will have to be duplicated again - and I fear that in terms of policy, it would make things even worse when only a small group of people sets the initial project policies.
Patience. This week we will formulate the Commons roadmap together. Maybe we can move up the creation of a wiki to a point when not all but only the most essential features exist; perhaps not a fully working version of single sign-on yet and just very basic image sharing. If the final version is ready in 3 months, maybe we can get a beta version up and running in 2 or 3 weeks. How does that sound?
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote in part:
Patience. This week we will formulate the Commons roadmap together. Maybe we can move up the creation of a wiki to a point when not all but only the most essential features exist; perhaps not a fully working version of single sign-on yet and just very basic image sharing. If the final version is ready in 3 months, maybe we can get a beta version up and running in 2 or 3 weeks. How does that sound?
For me, the faster it goes, the better it sounds, I guess. Since you are the developer that is doing the work here, I really don't have a basis for insisting that you rush things.
I'm looking forward to a central repository for images, so that I'll have a place to search for them when I need some. And I'm looking forward to being able to share those images directly, rather than having to copy them over when I decide to use one. And I'm looking forward to a single username system (although that is not as big a deal for me as the earlier items). And I'm looking forward to many more things in the pipeline.
So on the one hand, I don't want to see one of these things (X) delayed just because another of these things (Y) is not ready yet -- even if this means that X is clunky until Y comes along. But on the other hand, you and the rest of the developers need to programme these features in a way that works for you.
You know, in one or three years, I will be done with my PhD; and depending on just what sort of teaching jobs I can find, I hope to have a lot more free time in my evenings and weekends. If so, then I plan to start doing some work on MediaWiki (as well as, obviously, getting back to a good rate on articles). Maybe ''then'' I will be in a position to demand that development speed up, if I am actually doing some work to help with the development! ^_^
-- Toby
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org