Commons: An initial notice to reduce surprises - Commons-l

Nathan

11 May 11 May

2:06 a.m.

Why not include the standard "Commons cannot guarantee that accessible media complies with all applicable regulations in every country or jurisdiction; if you are below the age of legal majority where you reside you should consult a parent or legal guardian before continuing." May not have any particular legal consequence, but its more or less the standard language used to convey the warning of "Beyond here be dragons!" and it's not bad PR cover. Nathan

Reply

Gnangarra

12 May 12 May

1:22 a.m.

Really all we need to do is impliment a review process for uploaded media that way we address not only scope but copyright, derivative wroks, FOP, permission and licensing issues before the image is available for use, something like a flagged revisions. Providing it has an auto review for approved contributors so as not to create unmanagable back logs it should be a relatively fast process. On 12 May 2010 03:04, Neil Kandalgaonkar <neilk(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

Note: replying to Commons-L as I am not on Foundation-L. Hi -- I'm one of the WMF staff programmers working on Commons Usability. And by "one of", I mean "the". ;) Reiterating arguments I made at the Village Pump, I'd like to note on this list that in my professional opinion, this would be a step backwards for usability. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#An_initial_notice_to… If you feel that the purpose of Commons is not obvious to visitors, I suggest a tagline that appears at the top of every page. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20010722.html My suggestion would be something like "A vast library of educational images, movies, and sounds that anyone can use or contribute to." -- Neil Kandalgaonkar ( <neilk(a)wikimedia.org> _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

-- GN. Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com

Reply

Gnangarra

1:45 a.m.

I've been reading all the discussion that have abounded across Commons, en and the lists, and think that the reations are doing more harm than the images themselves. The concern I'm seeing with warnings is that they will encroach into areas that they were never intended, they dont actually do anything to address the content and cause usability problems. The other side to the equation is that the warnings will become a challenge for younger people to go looking for these images drawing a greater focus onto them. Just saying Commons is not Censored is enough providing we do something positive to ensure that the images we host do meet our charter. On 12 May 2010 09:28, Krinkle <krinklemail(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Something like that ("review before uploaded media is public") I believe is already being taken into consideration by the Usability Initiative. However I don't quite see what that has to do with the subject ;-) It's not about preventing data from getting onto Commons. The warning is not an excuse like "Sorry, we haven't deleted all the bad stuff yet, there's a lot coming in every day". It would be a warning more like "Some of our content" -(which we will keep)- " may not be suited for minors etc. etc. sex, shocking w/e" - read the Village pump discussion. -- Greetings, Krinkle Op 12 mei 2010, om 03:22 heeft Gnangarra het volgende geschreven: Really all we need to do is impliment a review process for uploaded media that way we address not only scope but copyright, derivative wroks, FOP, permission and licensing issues before the image is available for use, something like a flagged revisions. Providing it has an auto review for approved contributors so as not to create unmanagable back logs it should be a relatively fast process. On 12 May 2010 03:04, Neil Kandalgaonkar <neilk(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

Note: replying to Commons-L as I am not on Foundation-L. Hi -- I'm one of the WMF staff programmers working on Commons Usability. And by "one of", I mean "the". ;) Reiterating arguments I made at the Village Pump, I'd like to note on this list that in my professional opinion, this would be a step backwards for usability. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#An_initial_notice_to… If you feel that the purpose of Commons is not obvious to visitors, I suggest a tagline that appears at the top of every page. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20010722.html My suggestion would be something like "A vast library of educational images, movies, and sounds that anyone can use or contribute to." -- Neil Kandalgaonkar ( <neilk(a)wikimedia.org> _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

-- GN. Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

-- GN. Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com

Reply

Neil Kandalgaonkar

5:11 a.m.

Re: Usability - we are planning on creating some sort of 'queue' or 'limbo', where works can remain in an unpublished state, but at least some users can still view them. Works might go into that state if the user wasn't sure how to license them, or if the license was suspect. I would like to get a more formal proposal out soon, before the end of this month. However, our main purpose wasn't to address the inappropriate-content problem. We'd have to think really carefully about this. Sue Gardner mentioned something the other day that I think is quite wise, a crisis is a terrible time to formulate new policy. I absolutely agree that no procedure should stop people of good faith from getting things done quickly, and getting quick satisfaction in adding an image to an article, for instance. *Especially* on their first try! There are some ideas we could borrow from other sites -- the proposal of having admins passively check up on new uploaders is similar to what Flickr does. It can work, if we think we have enough volunteers that there won't be a huge backlog. Another strategy might be to watch for images that gain unusual attention, or attention matching some criteria (such as incoming links from certain bulletin boards). On 05/11/2010 08:31 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:

...

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Really all we need to do is impliment a review process for uploaded media that way we address not only scope but copyright, derivative wroks, FOP, permission and licensing issues before the image is available for use, something like a flagged revisions. Providing it has an auto review for approved contributors so as not to create unmanagable back logs it should be a relatively fast process.

I haven't seen any evidence that we've got a significant eyeballs-to-images problem on commons. Can you suggest some? Lack of immediate gratification would be a big turn-off... e.g. at least a flagged revision change is atomic: you make your edit and forget about it. But for an upload, if you're planning on putting it in a specific article that would pretty much stink. Many of the recently deleted (but now restored) images came from users with long contribution histories. _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

-- Neil Kandalgaonkar ( <neilk(a)wikimedia.org>

Reply