I felt kind of meh about the previous thread, so I'm forking it.
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.
3)Lack of positive feedback. I'm not sure there is
any way around this.
Automated notices that image you uploaded is being used on project Y would
get annoying for some users. I guess having it as a well advertised
feature that people could turn on would be an option.
It's a great option if we want most users to not use the feature. User
defaults are _hugely_ important. Most users (probably over 90%) have few
uploads, so consequently looking at the default from this perspective
alone, it makes sense to enable media usage notifications by default (at
least in-site notices, maybe not e-mail notices). We could even (smartly)
disable media usage notifications at a particular upload threshold (e.g.,
if you have greater than 1,000 uploads, you probably don't want the
notices). There are a few edge cases here, such as an image being added to
a template, but these are likely solvable.
Use by third parties is even harder to track. Short of
googling your nic+
"CC-BY-SA" and the like. Even that only turns up a limited subset of
users mind.
Eh, if they're hotlinking from Commons, we presumably have HTTP referers
in the server access logs. Otherwise, there are services (Google Images,
TinEye, etc.) that can perform reverse image searches. These aren't
trivial technical problems, but they're also not insurmountable. Now,
whether investing in such a "thanks for your upload, look where it's being
used!" service is worth the cost, given the benefit, is a separate
question, as always.
For Commons, my personal view is that I'd like to see its search
functionality suck a lot less. Commons search needs:
* search by tag (which we have already with categories, but we're
apparently supposed to wait until the magical future of Wikidata);
* search by color; and
* search by file size and type.
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. Building up and tearing down a queue is still not trivial. :-(
Commons also needs at least four in-browser editors (for rasterized
images, vector graphics, audio files, and videos) and additional supported
file upload types (e.g., .ico would be great to have). And much more.
Currently we have a database of free media, but I think it'd be really
cool if we made it dramatically easier to find, re-use, and re-mix this
media. And, for better or worse, we know we cannot hope that the
Wikimedia Foundation alone will fix these problems.
4)third parties choosing other projects. Thing is for
large dumps of
poorly curated content with messy copyright issues things like the
internet archive are probably a better match.
This is a nasty cop-out. We already do this in a limited fashion, but we
need to get better about soliciting and accepting donations to Commons.
There's definitely a shared interest in preserving and promoting all kinds
of media that we're not doing very well to capture and utilize. There are
at least two broad categories I see that could make donations: GLAMs and
individuals who have an article that currently has no image or a bad image.
5)Some commons admins are behaving problematically. Yes
but I'm not sure
what to do about that.
Eh, I think Commons certainly has its share of bad admins, but I'm not
sure it's the admins who are the problem. As you say, broader
clarification about what is and isn't acceptable at Commons would probably
be helpful to have.
It's likely better to spend time and energy focused on the tasks discussed
in this e-mail or elsewhere across Wikimedia. I think doing so will
actually move Commons forward. Not that it's bad to occasionally vent
frustrations, but we can do better (in more ways than one!).
MZMcBride