On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 4:36 PM, aude
<aude.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I don't know if anything changed with the
license selector part of the
code
and interface, but I tried uploading some maps
(from OpenStreetMap) with
the upload wizard. More than once, I completely missed the license
selection part (e.g. not see it, not fill it out).
Checking your recent uploads on Commons, I see two:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Location_map_Washington_DC.png
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Locator_Map_of_Washington_DC,_May_2…
I deleted a few others that were mistakes (wrong map extents), and the
second one above is also a mistake.
One was not uploaded through UW but through the "upload new file"
mechanism. The other was uploaded without license with the license
provided later.
You cannot skip the "Release rights" step, but you can choose
"I believe this work is freely licensed or legally in the public
domain. I understand that if I do not add the necessary licensing
information in a timely fashion, the file may be deleted."
Okay, that's what happened. I think just intuitively I was looking for
form fields to fill out (text boxes, select/combo boxes) and was expecting
to see a drop down box for license selection.
Maybe the current layout works for some people though.
Now that I look again, I see the "copyright tags" link for expert users.
(missed it before) That's helpful and allows skipping a couple steps.
Maybe it could be bold?
This will lead to {{subst:uwl}} on the description page, which what I see
here.
I don't necessarily mind this for the expert
option, but since we know
the
source is
openstreetmap.org (from what I put in
the source field),
wouldn't
it be nice if it automatically suggested CC-BY-SA
2.0 license. Or if the
source is .gov, then suggest public domain. [of course, also be able to
override it like a combo box]
Perhaps. Detecting common cases would be nice -- but each one requires
special care. Go ahead and file a bug for OSM license detection; we
might be able to get to it at least in the long run.
It would be nice to have for sure.
Also knowing to put a link in the source field (if it's something obtained
online) is not obvious unless you know from experience of how the
information is turned into the template.
Cheers,
Katie
--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
--
Board member, Wikimedia District of Columbia
http://wikimediadc.org
@wikimediadc / @wikimania2012