[Foundation-l] Re:Wikimedia Communs

Fri May 28 18:37:00 UTC 2004

"Erik Moeller" <erik_moeller at 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