![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
This is a draft of an experimental new file upload wizard that I believe might improve our uploading process, especially for newcomers (who typically don't understand the present system, at all.)
I now need to get some Javascript written that will do the following things:
Damn. I'm crap at writing Javascript. Any help welcome. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
So, let's say this is now in alpha stage.
Some of the workflow also needs to be reviewed. I'm not sure about the whole "work type" section being put in front of the free file options. On the one hand, it's important to catch these misunderstandings (e.g. a screenshot from television is "my own work"), but on the other hand the presence of the many dead ends in that part of the wizard may come across as confusing.
Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Rather than refer to "Fair Use" wouldn't it be better to refer to Wikipedia's non-free content criteria? So: ...but I believe it meets all of Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. – ukexpat ( talk) 16:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Tried a text but the licence I chose a cc attribution licence did not come through on the sandbox page. It showed "undefined". Otherwise I like the concept of making the upload more friendly yet more exact, so copyvios cannot be so easily uploaded or information left out. Good work. ww2censor ( talk) 16:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
When I click on "Start the Upload Form", it does not start the Upload form; the "Start the Upload Form" link disappears, but it stays on the same page. — teb728 t c 08:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the non-free section:
— teb728 t c 19:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Just as a background for possible later testing: here's the sad statistics of the dysfunctionality of our current upload system. I took a sample of 1,000 file uploads from 1,000 different uploaders during January 2012. 37% of these files had been deleted by mid-February (plus a few more still being nominated). 26% of all files were deleted for licensing/copyvio issues (per PUF or speedy for bad license, lack of info, lack of evidence or obvious copyvio). 17% of all files had obviously bad description pages at the time they were deleted or first edited by somebody other than the uploader (either completely blank, or with preloaded standard templates but crucial fields or all fields left blank).
For new uploaders, the figures are dramatically worse: almost 70% deletions, 57% licensing/copyvio deletions, 38% bad description pages.
Just so we have a benchmark against which to compare stuff, in case we get to test the new system on real newcomers some time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
user contribs before upload [1] | total | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
<30 | <100 | >=100 | ||
total uploads (January 2012) [2] | 14,310 | |||
total new files (January 2012) | 10,623 | |||
total in sample | 205 | 200 | 595 | 1,000 |
survived [3] | 48 | 89 | 443 | 580 |
deleted [4] | 143 | 100 | 128 | 371 |
other outcomes [5] | 14 | 11 | 24 | 49 |
% deleted | 69.8 | 50.0 | 21.5 | 37.1 |
copyvio/licensing deletions [6] | 116 | 81 | 66 | 263 |
% licensing deletions | 56.6 | 40.5 | 11.1 | 26.3 |
NFC speedies [7] | 10 | 4 | 17 | 31 |
other deletions [8] | 17 | 15 | 45 | 77 |
tagged for deletion [9] | 80 | 67 | 101 | 248 |
completely blank description page | 53 | 34 | 18 | 105 |
blank template [10] | 24 | 18 | 27 | 69 |
%incomplete/blank description | 37.6 | 26.0 | 7.6 | 17.4 |
I don't knoiw what you did recently but when I clicked on the upload button I got a message about could not move something and my whole browser locked up solid, so I had to force quit the browser and did not try again. I'm using Firefox Mac v 10.0.2. Cheers ww2censor ( talk) 12:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
As it is now the notice about Commons is very small and you get the notice to late. I think the number of free files uploaded to en-wiki instead of to Commons will be much bigger with the new version.
If the photo is free then uploader should be forwarded to Commons unless they specificly chooses "No I do not want the file on Commons" and if they choose that they should be send to a manual upload page. It should be much easier for users to upload free files on Commons than on en-wiki so we should not make the upload of free files on en-wiki easy. -- MGA73 ( talk) 17:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Maybe to put your mind to rest a bit: this thing has now been online for about two hours. During this time, only two images marked as free have been uploaded through it (one a copyvio, one apparently legit). That's a pretty low rate. Of course we don't know how many uploaders came here and decided not to upload, and why (realized it wasn't legit? went to Commons instead? Didn't understand the form and gave up?) But if this first impression is representative, then perhaps the system is actually more successful at avoiding unwanted uploads than you'd have thought. – One thing we might do to get better data, but I'm not sure if there'd be consensus for that, is this: when the user presses the "go to Commons" link, it could cause their account to first automatically make a log edit somewhere, registering the intended filename, so we could track how many people actually went to Commons from here. I'm just not sure if that would be okay, "ethically", because it would mean making an automated edit that the user didn't explicitly authorize, through their account. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the comment above "First priority is to reduce the copyvios; second priority is to reduce the local files. The old system failed to achieve either; that much is certain."
People are going to upload copyvios no matter what wizard we use, and no matter where we shoot people to. This is because a good number of people are stupid don't read or follow basic instructions. Under this system, most of the uploads, both truly free and copyvio, will wind up here. This creates the dual problem of having to deal with copyright violations and having to transfer over the free files (we get between 50 and 100 a day). Instead, we should try to direct all of the images people are claiming to be free over to Commons. Yes, that means that commons will have to deal with the copyvios, however this is actually the ideal solution. This is because Commons has 250 reviewers and 300 admins, all of whom are willing and able to deal with files that aren't as free as they claim to be. Wikipedia has about a dozen users in total, a third of whom are admins, that do file work of any type at all. In short, there are going to be copyvios no matter what we do, we might as well send them to the place where they will actually be found and dealt with. That's Commons, not Wikipedia.
Sven Manguard
Wha?
18:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
It was suggested above that we do not select the file to upload before we are sure the file is ok. I think that in most of the cases where uploader aborts it is because (s)he finds out that the file is not ok for Wikipedia/Commons and not because it is not stored on her/his pc so swapping sounds ok to me.
As for the notice to get users to upload to Commons we could change the notices to
Then the Commons option is more visible. -- MGA73 ( talk) 09:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Clicked to start and it returned to same page. Used the old form instead. REVUpminster ( talk) 21:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Using FF 10.0.2 - Needed to "Choose your file" 3x before it "took" - rest of the materials were correct, wasn't picking up that field. Also, at the completion of the upload, the preview image was about 30px X 30px, too small to determine success or not! Skier Dude ( talk) 02:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I have a photo to upload that was given to me by its owner. My impression is that he is only granting permission for me to use this on the specific Wiki page that I'm currently putting together rather than offering it for everyone to use. I'm not sure if any of the 3 categories currently listed on the file upload wizard pertain and would love it if someone could let me know how best to proceed on this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canamets ( talk • contribs) 22:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for the quick reply. The photo in question is a shot of the cover of a piece of music published perhaps 100 years ago that this person I'm assuming took on his own. He owns the music outright and, to the best of my knowledge, the publisher is long since defunct. It may well be that the owner will allow it to be used as you say in a more far-reaching way. If this turns out to be the case, what would you suggest would be the best way for me to so indicate this when I try and upload it? Would I need a document from the owner, an email, or something else perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canamets ( talk • contribs) 01:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Terrific. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canamets ( talk • contribs) 15:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Apparently everywhere {{ en}} is added. That is not good. Dates should be entered simply in ISO (yyyy-mm-dd) notation. The author field does not really need the "english" tag. That is just what I noticed just now. I would only add the "en" to the description. Cheers -- Saibo ( Δ) 23:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Here - I had guessed that this is not possible with this wizard. Even the source does not show up (apparently syntax errors). -- Saibo ( Δ) 00:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
For COM-Uploads. Are there no ones added usually? Does the user has no chance to? If possible then {{subst:unc}} should be added. A sidenote: please have a look in the COM:VP section. -- Saibo ( Δ) 12:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
{{own|[[User:Nixenzo|Nixenzo]]}} e.g. at commons:File:CCP Tanghalang Nicanor Abelardo.jpg. That is probably not intended. ;) -- Saibo ( Δ) 12:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Quite often confusing licensing info like in commons:File:Asiel Snow Founder of Snowville,VA.jpg - but at least it is not simply labeled "own work" without any other information... that makes it obvious and easy to detect problematic files. However, from today's uploads in commons:Category:Uploaded_with_en.wp_upload_wizard it gets obvious that this uploadwizard does not really lead to a good upload. ;-) My first impression. -- Saibo ( Δ) 13:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
File upload seems to be broken at the moment. When I click the "Click here to Start the Upload Form", nothing happens. Banaticus ( talk) 21:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Please use subst:OP instead of OTRS pending Cheers -- Saibo ( Δ) 00:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Please return me to the normal page, please? I want to upload a file, thanks.-- ♫GoP♫ T C N 13:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure that many people spent many long hours to create this, for which I sincerely thank you. My reaction is: I hope I never have to actually use it again. (and this comes from am "early adopter" type of person). Something simple has been turned into something complex. I can tell it is designed for the newbie user, but even so it has too many "fill in the blanks" that aren't explained until after clicking the button. The previous "complete the pre-filled template" method seems superior to me. Hope you find the comments helpful. Senator2029 ( talk) 21:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I tried to upload an image called "Office of HIV/AIDS Network Coordination". Things seemed to work but then it gave me a bogus link to my file and I could not find it. Eventually I found it as File:AIDS Network Coordination.gif, so it seems to have ignored what came before the slash. I sorted this issue for myself, but maybe others will have this problem too. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Trying to upload an image, I've filled in everything I need to, and the upload button is still unclickable. It shows the Upload button but it doesn't let me actually press it. Benjamin7887
I'm also unable to upload an image, and I have had an account for quite some time. Richiekim ( talk) 19:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I really do not like this. I also do not like that everything is cluttered up on a single page, making the upload process seem more difficult than it is. I really see no reason this isn't modeled on the new Commons uploader, with just the addition of a page for Fair Use and an option to insert your own templates under both the summary and licensing. (This is essential to being able to replace an image with another filetype: it's annoying to have to retype the entire fair-use rationale.) Distinct sections make the process look easier. — trlkly 04:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
hello,
when will the "beta version" period end? Regards.-- ♫GoP♫ T C N 10:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I was going to upload a photograph, but having spent some time looking through all this palaver I shan't bother. I don't upload to the Commons, much too complicated for an old dear like me. I learned to upload to enwikipedia but refuse to learn how to do something more complicated. Wikipedia's loss, not mine. J3Mrs ( talk) 15:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
After observing the incoming files, I deactivated the first subsection under "free files" with its questions about various types of derived works. This section appears to have added too much complexity for too little benefit and rarely produced good output.
I apologize for likely browser cache problems that will be experienced by people who have visited the form before and reload it now; they will initially see a few error messages. Please make sure to purge your browser cache after clicking on the start button. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
January sample (1–31 January; 1,000 out of 10,623 files) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Newcomers [1] | Other editors | Total |
![]() | ||||||
N | % | N | % | N | % | approx. per day [2] | |||
Free | bad | 194 | 48.0 | 83 | 22.0 | 277 | 27.7 | 94.9 | |
ok | 85 | 21.0 | 131 | 22.0 | 216 | 21.6 | 74.0 | ||
Non-free | bad | 58 | 14.4 | 55 | 9.2 | 113 | 11.3 | 38.7 | |
ok | 52 | 12.9 | 312 | 52.3 | 364 | 36.4 | 124.7 | ||
Other | 15 | 15 | 30 | ||||||
Total | 404 | 596 | 1000 | 342.7 | |||||
Sample from Wizard test run (26 February – 4 March, 1,016 out of 2,050 files) | |||||||||
Editors using the File Upload Wizard |
![]() | ||||||||
Free | bad | 42 | 16.3 | 8 | 2.9 | 50 | 9.3 | 16.4 | |
ok | 85 | 33.1 | 55 | 19.8 | 140 | 26.2 | 45.9 | ||
Non-free | bad | 34 | 13.2 | 15 | 5.4 | 49 | 9.2 | 16.1 | |
ok | 94 | 36.6 | 184 | 66.2 | 278 | 52.0 | 91.2 | ||
Other | 2 | 16 | 18 | ||||||
Total | 257 | 278 | 535 | 175.6 | |||||
Editors using the wizard's "upload to Commons" button [3] | |||||||||
bad | 112 | 22.0 | 16.0 | ||||||
ok | 396 | 78.0 | 56.6 | ||||||
Total | 508 | 72.6 | |||||||
Editors using the old upload methods |
![]() | ||||||||
Free | bad | 75 | 36.6 | 26 | 8.9 | 101 | 20.3 | 33.1 | |
ok | 71 | 34.6 | 72 | 24.6 | 143 | 28.7 | 46.9 | ||
Non-free | bad | 19 | 9.3 | 16 | 5.5 | 35 | 7.0 | 11.5 | |
ok | 40 | 19.5 | 176 | 60.1 | 216 | 43.4 | 70.9 | ||
Other | 0 | 3 | 3 | ||||||
Total | 205 | 293 | 498 | 163.4 |
So, here's my evaluation of the statistics above.
long discussion of figures
|
---|
For comparison, I had taken a sample of 1,000 files uploaded by 1,000 distinct editors during the month of January, before the introduction of WP:FUW, representing approximately 10% of all new uploads (10,623) of that month (see section above). During the first week of operation of FUW, after the first bugs were ironed out (26 February – 4 March, 16:00 UTC), a total of 2,950 files were uploaded on en-wp, by 1,016 distinct editors. To keep the samples comparable, I again used a sample with only one file per editor, i.e. 1,016 files. [note 1] During the same week, 508 files were uploaded to Commons using FUW's "upload to Commons" button (recognizable by the "{{subst:Upload marker added by en.wp UW}}" string in the upload summary). These were all included in the sample above. Obviously, the number of uploaders who went to Commons directly or on being asked to do so at the beginning of the upload process is unknown, both for the old and for the new system. In all the tables, "bad" files are those that had been deleted or were tagged for deletion at the time of the survey, for any reason other than "move to Commons"; all others were counted as "ok". Files were counted as (claimed to be) "free" if they were not explicitly tagged as non-free. "Other" refers to files having partial problems, such as non-free files having their initial file versions deleted for size reduction. "Newbie" editors are those with edit counts lower than 100 at the time of upload. The bar diagrams represent proportions of "bad" and "ok", "free" and "non-free" files drawn to a common scale representing estimated total figures per day. During the test run, slightly over one half of all uploaders opted for using the new wizard; the others opted for the traditional upload forms or some other means of upload (bots etc.) Taking into account those that used the "upload to Commons" button, the number of FUW users is approx. 60%. The figure is somewhat higher for new users than for old users. Approximately 54% of those who were uploading free files through the FUW opted for the "Commons" upload button. Comparing proportions of bad to good files across the three samples, it appears that the FUW has been reasonably successful at reducing the number of copyvios and other problem files, compared to the dysmal picture of the January sample. In January, 39% of all uploads were bad. Among free files uploaded by newbies, the rate of bad ones was as high as 70%. For non-free files by newbies, it was 53%. Bad files from newbies together accounted for 25% of the total of all files uploaded. In comparison, among the files uploaded with FUW, the rate of bad files has been cut to half. The total rate of bad files is down from 39% to 18.5%; that among free files from newbies is down from 70% to 33%; that among non-free files from newbies is down from 53% to 27%. The rate of bad files among those sent to Commons is comparable to that among the local uploads. Even for those editors who did not use FUW, performance is somewhat better than before: total rate of bad files 27%, bad files among free files from newbies 51%. In terms of absolute numbers of uploads per day, the figures show a virtually unchanged total number of new files (342.2 files/day in January vs. 339 files/day during the test period, [note 1] combining all methods of upload.) Breaking this down to estimated absolute upload rates of different types of files, it appears that the number of good files from experienced uploaders, both free and non-free, has been virtually unchanged. In contrast, the number of good files from newbie uploaders, both free and non-free, has increased. The number of bad files, in all categories, has decreased by between one third and half. While the reduction of bad files can certainly be ascribed to a success of the FUW, there are different potential explanations for the changes in the number of good free files. An increase in such files might partly be due to better instruction through the FUW, leading to a larger number of potentially good files surviving that would have been lost through poor tagging in the earlier system. Alternatively, it might also be due to a poorer performance of the FUW in inviting uploaders to Commons. Yet another theoretical possibility is that it might be an artifact of more copyvios being concealed more efficiently and slipping through. Based on my observations from patrolling files (see below), I believe this latter explanation can be ruled out. Given the fact that the number of good free files with experienced uploaders has remained stable, and that the increase with newbie uploaders has affected both free and non-free files alike, I would argue that the first explanation – better instruction – is the most likely factor, and that the new system's efficiency in directing people to Commons is likely equal if not better than that of the old one (although this cannot be tested with certainty.) Looking at the quality of file descriptions produced with the FUW, I believe we can see another advantage: even the bad uploads produced with the FUW are easier to deal with than the bad uploads produced in other ways. This is because even editors who upload bad files are now typically led to include more information than before and thus make the problem much more obvious and easier to understand. For instance, an editor who in good faith has failed to understand what a "free license" is, and therefore misuses the "from a free website" upload option for a "found it somewhere on the web" file, will still try to follow the instructions and add a link to the source website. In such a case, one look at the claimed source is sufficient to determine that the uploader was mistaken, and thus the file can be immediately speedied as an obvious copyvio, rather than having to waste time with the "no permission" tagging procedure, which would only confuse the uploader further. In this way, bad uploads produced through good-faith errors can be far better distinguished from copyvios produced through intentional cheating.
|
tl;dr summary: In conclusion, I believe the first week's results show that the new WP:File Upload Wizard has an overall beneficial effect increasing the quality of our uploads and decreasing the number of problematic uploads. I therefore propose leaving it in place as the default upload entry point for the time being. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
This is a draft of an experimental new file upload wizard that I believe might improve our uploading process, especially for newcomers (who typically don't understand the present system, at all.)
I now need to get some Javascript written that will do the following things:
Damn. I'm crap at writing Javascript. Any help welcome. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
So, let's say this is now in alpha stage.
Some of the workflow also needs to be reviewed. I'm not sure about the whole "work type" section being put in front of the free file options. On the one hand, it's important to catch these misunderstandings (e.g. a screenshot from television is "my own work"), but on the other hand the presence of the many dead ends in that part of the wizard may come across as confusing.
Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Rather than refer to "Fair Use" wouldn't it be better to refer to Wikipedia's non-free content criteria? So: ...but I believe it meets all of Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. – ukexpat ( talk) 16:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Tried a text but the licence I chose a cc attribution licence did not come through on the sandbox page. It showed "undefined". Otherwise I like the concept of making the upload more friendly yet more exact, so copyvios cannot be so easily uploaded or information left out. Good work. ww2censor ( talk) 16:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
When I click on "Start the Upload Form", it does not start the Upload form; the "Start the Upload Form" link disappears, but it stays on the same page. — teb728 t c 08:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the non-free section:
— teb728 t c 19:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Just as a background for possible later testing: here's the sad statistics of the dysfunctionality of our current upload system. I took a sample of 1,000 file uploads from 1,000 different uploaders during January 2012. 37% of these files had been deleted by mid-February (plus a few more still being nominated). 26% of all files were deleted for licensing/copyvio issues (per PUF or speedy for bad license, lack of info, lack of evidence or obvious copyvio). 17% of all files had obviously bad description pages at the time they were deleted or first edited by somebody other than the uploader (either completely blank, or with preloaded standard templates but crucial fields or all fields left blank).
For new uploaders, the figures are dramatically worse: almost 70% deletions, 57% licensing/copyvio deletions, 38% bad description pages.
Just so we have a benchmark against which to compare stuff, in case we get to test the new system on real newcomers some time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
user contribs before upload [1] | total | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
<30 | <100 | >=100 | ||
total uploads (January 2012) [2] | 14,310 | |||
total new files (January 2012) | 10,623 | |||
total in sample | 205 | 200 | 595 | 1,000 |
survived [3] | 48 | 89 | 443 | 580 |
deleted [4] | 143 | 100 | 128 | 371 |
other outcomes [5] | 14 | 11 | 24 | 49 |
% deleted | 69.8 | 50.0 | 21.5 | 37.1 |
copyvio/licensing deletions [6] | 116 | 81 | 66 | 263 |
% licensing deletions | 56.6 | 40.5 | 11.1 | 26.3 |
NFC speedies [7] | 10 | 4 | 17 | 31 |
other deletions [8] | 17 | 15 | 45 | 77 |
tagged for deletion [9] | 80 | 67 | 101 | 248 |
completely blank description page | 53 | 34 | 18 | 105 |
blank template [10] | 24 | 18 | 27 | 69 |
%incomplete/blank description | 37.6 | 26.0 | 7.6 | 17.4 |
I don't knoiw what you did recently but when I clicked on the upload button I got a message about could not move something and my whole browser locked up solid, so I had to force quit the browser and did not try again. I'm using Firefox Mac v 10.0.2. Cheers ww2censor ( talk) 12:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
As it is now the notice about Commons is very small and you get the notice to late. I think the number of free files uploaded to en-wiki instead of to Commons will be much bigger with the new version.
If the photo is free then uploader should be forwarded to Commons unless they specificly chooses "No I do not want the file on Commons" and if they choose that they should be send to a manual upload page. It should be much easier for users to upload free files on Commons than on en-wiki so we should not make the upload of free files on en-wiki easy. -- MGA73 ( talk) 17:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Maybe to put your mind to rest a bit: this thing has now been online for about two hours. During this time, only two images marked as free have been uploaded through it (one a copyvio, one apparently legit). That's a pretty low rate. Of course we don't know how many uploaders came here and decided not to upload, and why (realized it wasn't legit? went to Commons instead? Didn't understand the form and gave up?) But if this first impression is representative, then perhaps the system is actually more successful at avoiding unwanted uploads than you'd have thought. – One thing we might do to get better data, but I'm not sure if there'd be consensus for that, is this: when the user presses the "go to Commons" link, it could cause their account to first automatically make a log edit somewhere, registering the intended filename, so we could track how many people actually went to Commons from here. I'm just not sure if that would be okay, "ethically", because it would mean making an automated edit that the user didn't explicitly authorize, through their account. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the comment above "First priority is to reduce the copyvios; second priority is to reduce the local files. The old system failed to achieve either; that much is certain."
People are going to upload copyvios no matter what wizard we use, and no matter where we shoot people to. This is because a good number of people are stupid don't read or follow basic instructions. Under this system, most of the uploads, both truly free and copyvio, will wind up here. This creates the dual problem of having to deal with copyright violations and having to transfer over the free files (we get between 50 and 100 a day). Instead, we should try to direct all of the images people are claiming to be free over to Commons. Yes, that means that commons will have to deal with the copyvios, however this is actually the ideal solution. This is because Commons has 250 reviewers and 300 admins, all of whom are willing and able to deal with files that aren't as free as they claim to be. Wikipedia has about a dozen users in total, a third of whom are admins, that do file work of any type at all. In short, there are going to be copyvios no matter what we do, we might as well send them to the place where they will actually be found and dealt with. That's Commons, not Wikipedia.
Sven Manguard
Wha?
18:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
It was suggested above that we do not select the file to upload before we are sure the file is ok. I think that in most of the cases where uploader aborts it is because (s)he finds out that the file is not ok for Wikipedia/Commons and not because it is not stored on her/his pc so swapping sounds ok to me.
As for the notice to get users to upload to Commons we could change the notices to
Then the Commons option is more visible. -- MGA73 ( talk) 09:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Clicked to start and it returned to same page. Used the old form instead. REVUpminster ( talk) 21:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Using FF 10.0.2 - Needed to "Choose your file" 3x before it "took" - rest of the materials were correct, wasn't picking up that field. Also, at the completion of the upload, the preview image was about 30px X 30px, too small to determine success or not! Skier Dude ( talk) 02:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I have a photo to upload that was given to me by its owner. My impression is that he is only granting permission for me to use this on the specific Wiki page that I'm currently putting together rather than offering it for everyone to use. I'm not sure if any of the 3 categories currently listed on the file upload wizard pertain and would love it if someone could let me know how best to proceed on this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canamets ( talk • contribs) 22:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for the quick reply. The photo in question is a shot of the cover of a piece of music published perhaps 100 years ago that this person I'm assuming took on his own. He owns the music outright and, to the best of my knowledge, the publisher is long since defunct. It may well be that the owner will allow it to be used as you say in a more far-reaching way. If this turns out to be the case, what would you suggest would be the best way for me to so indicate this when I try and upload it? Would I need a document from the owner, an email, or something else perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canamets ( talk • contribs) 01:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Terrific. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canamets ( talk • contribs) 15:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Apparently everywhere {{ en}} is added. That is not good. Dates should be entered simply in ISO (yyyy-mm-dd) notation. The author field does not really need the "english" tag. That is just what I noticed just now. I would only add the "en" to the description. Cheers -- Saibo ( Δ) 23:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Here - I had guessed that this is not possible with this wizard. Even the source does not show up (apparently syntax errors). -- Saibo ( Δ) 00:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
For COM-Uploads. Are there no ones added usually? Does the user has no chance to? If possible then {{subst:unc}} should be added. A sidenote: please have a look in the COM:VP section. -- Saibo ( Δ) 12:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
{{own|[[User:Nixenzo|Nixenzo]]}} e.g. at commons:File:CCP Tanghalang Nicanor Abelardo.jpg. That is probably not intended. ;) -- Saibo ( Δ) 12:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Quite often confusing licensing info like in commons:File:Asiel Snow Founder of Snowville,VA.jpg - but at least it is not simply labeled "own work" without any other information... that makes it obvious and easy to detect problematic files. However, from today's uploads in commons:Category:Uploaded_with_en.wp_upload_wizard it gets obvious that this uploadwizard does not really lead to a good upload. ;-) My first impression. -- Saibo ( Δ) 13:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
File upload seems to be broken at the moment. When I click the "Click here to Start the Upload Form", nothing happens. Banaticus ( talk) 21:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Please use subst:OP instead of OTRS pending Cheers -- Saibo ( Δ) 00:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Please return me to the normal page, please? I want to upload a file, thanks.-- ♫GoP♫ T C N 13:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure that many people spent many long hours to create this, for which I sincerely thank you. My reaction is: I hope I never have to actually use it again. (and this comes from am "early adopter" type of person). Something simple has been turned into something complex. I can tell it is designed for the newbie user, but even so it has too many "fill in the blanks" that aren't explained until after clicking the button. The previous "complete the pre-filled template" method seems superior to me. Hope you find the comments helpful. Senator2029 ( talk) 21:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I tried to upload an image called "Office of HIV/AIDS Network Coordination". Things seemed to work but then it gave me a bogus link to my file and I could not find it. Eventually I found it as File:AIDS Network Coordination.gif, so it seems to have ignored what came before the slash. I sorted this issue for myself, but maybe others will have this problem too. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Trying to upload an image, I've filled in everything I need to, and the upload button is still unclickable. It shows the Upload button but it doesn't let me actually press it. Benjamin7887
I'm also unable to upload an image, and I have had an account for quite some time. Richiekim ( talk) 19:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I really do not like this. I also do not like that everything is cluttered up on a single page, making the upload process seem more difficult than it is. I really see no reason this isn't modeled on the new Commons uploader, with just the addition of a page for Fair Use and an option to insert your own templates under both the summary and licensing. (This is essential to being able to replace an image with another filetype: it's annoying to have to retype the entire fair-use rationale.) Distinct sections make the process look easier. — trlkly 04:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
hello,
when will the "beta version" period end? Regards.-- ♫GoP♫ T C N 10:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I was going to upload a photograph, but having spent some time looking through all this palaver I shan't bother. I don't upload to the Commons, much too complicated for an old dear like me. I learned to upload to enwikipedia but refuse to learn how to do something more complicated. Wikipedia's loss, not mine. J3Mrs ( talk) 15:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
After observing the incoming files, I deactivated the first subsection under "free files" with its questions about various types of derived works. This section appears to have added too much complexity for too little benefit and rarely produced good output.
I apologize for likely browser cache problems that will be experienced by people who have visited the form before and reload it now; they will initially see a few error messages. Please make sure to purge your browser cache after clicking on the start button. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
January sample (1–31 January; 1,000 out of 10,623 files) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Newcomers [1] | Other editors | Total |
![]() | ||||||
N | % | N | % | N | % | approx. per day [2] | |||
Free | bad | 194 | 48.0 | 83 | 22.0 | 277 | 27.7 | 94.9 | |
ok | 85 | 21.0 | 131 | 22.0 | 216 | 21.6 | 74.0 | ||
Non-free | bad | 58 | 14.4 | 55 | 9.2 | 113 | 11.3 | 38.7 | |
ok | 52 | 12.9 | 312 | 52.3 | 364 | 36.4 | 124.7 | ||
Other | 15 | 15 | 30 | ||||||
Total | 404 | 596 | 1000 | 342.7 | |||||
Sample from Wizard test run (26 February – 4 March, 1,016 out of 2,050 files) | |||||||||
Editors using the File Upload Wizard |
![]() | ||||||||
Free | bad | 42 | 16.3 | 8 | 2.9 | 50 | 9.3 | 16.4 | |
ok | 85 | 33.1 | 55 | 19.8 | 140 | 26.2 | 45.9 | ||
Non-free | bad | 34 | 13.2 | 15 | 5.4 | 49 | 9.2 | 16.1 | |
ok | 94 | 36.6 | 184 | 66.2 | 278 | 52.0 | 91.2 | ||
Other | 2 | 16 | 18 | ||||||
Total | 257 | 278 | 535 | 175.6 | |||||
Editors using the wizard's "upload to Commons" button [3] | |||||||||
bad | 112 | 22.0 | 16.0 | ||||||
ok | 396 | 78.0 | 56.6 | ||||||
Total | 508 | 72.6 | |||||||
Editors using the old upload methods |
![]() | ||||||||
Free | bad | 75 | 36.6 | 26 | 8.9 | 101 | 20.3 | 33.1 | |
ok | 71 | 34.6 | 72 | 24.6 | 143 | 28.7 | 46.9 | ||
Non-free | bad | 19 | 9.3 | 16 | 5.5 | 35 | 7.0 | 11.5 | |
ok | 40 | 19.5 | 176 | 60.1 | 216 | 43.4 | 70.9 | ||
Other | 0 | 3 | 3 | ||||||
Total | 205 | 293 | 498 | 163.4 |
So, here's my evaluation of the statistics above.
long discussion of figures
|
---|
For comparison, I had taken a sample of 1,000 files uploaded by 1,000 distinct editors during the month of January, before the introduction of WP:FUW, representing approximately 10% of all new uploads (10,623) of that month (see section above). During the first week of operation of FUW, after the first bugs were ironed out (26 February – 4 March, 16:00 UTC), a total of 2,950 files were uploaded on en-wp, by 1,016 distinct editors. To keep the samples comparable, I again used a sample with only one file per editor, i.e. 1,016 files. [note 1] During the same week, 508 files were uploaded to Commons using FUW's "upload to Commons" button (recognizable by the "{{subst:Upload marker added by en.wp UW}}" string in the upload summary). These were all included in the sample above. Obviously, the number of uploaders who went to Commons directly or on being asked to do so at the beginning of the upload process is unknown, both for the old and for the new system. In all the tables, "bad" files are those that had been deleted or were tagged for deletion at the time of the survey, for any reason other than "move to Commons"; all others were counted as "ok". Files were counted as (claimed to be) "free" if they were not explicitly tagged as non-free. "Other" refers to files having partial problems, such as non-free files having their initial file versions deleted for size reduction. "Newbie" editors are those with edit counts lower than 100 at the time of upload. The bar diagrams represent proportions of "bad" and "ok", "free" and "non-free" files drawn to a common scale representing estimated total figures per day. During the test run, slightly over one half of all uploaders opted for using the new wizard; the others opted for the traditional upload forms or some other means of upload (bots etc.) Taking into account those that used the "upload to Commons" button, the number of FUW users is approx. 60%. The figure is somewhat higher for new users than for old users. Approximately 54% of those who were uploading free files through the FUW opted for the "Commons" upload button. Comparing proportions of bad to good files across the three samples, it appears that the FUW has been reasonably successful at reducing the number of copyvios and other problem files, compared to the dysmal picture of the January sample. In January, 39% of all uploads were bad. Among free files uploaded by newbies, the rate of bad ones was as high as 70%. For non-free files by newbies, it was 53%. Bad files from newbies together accounted for 25% of the total of all files uploaded. In comparison, among the files uploaded with FUW, the rate of bad files has been cut to half. The total rate of bad files is down from 39% to 18.5%; that among free files from newbies is down from 70% to 33%; that among non-free files from newbies is down from 53% to 27%. The rate of bad files among those sent to Commons is comparable to that among the local uploads. Even for those editors who did not use FUW, performance is somewhat better than before: total rate of bad files 27%, bad files among free files from newbies 51%. In terms of absolute numbers of uploads per day, the figures show a virtually unchanged total number of new files (342.2 files/day in January vs. 339 files/day during the test period, [note 1] combining all methods of upload.) Breaking this down to estimated absolute upload rates of different types of files, it appears that the number of good files from experienced uploaders, both free and non-free, has been virtually unchanged. In contrast, the number of good files from newbie uploaders, both free and non-free, has increased. The number of bad files, in all categories, has decreased by between one third and half. While the reduction of bad files can certainly be ascribed to a success of the FUW, there are different potential explanations for the changes in the number of good free files. An increase in such files might partly be due to better instruction through the FUW, leading to a larger number of potentially good files surviving that would have been lost through poor tagging in the earlier system. Alternatively, it might also be due to a poorer performance of the FUW in inviting uploaders to Commons. Yet another theoretical possibility is that it might be an artifact of more copyvios being concealed more efficiently and slipping through. Based on my observations from patrolling files (see below), I believe this latter explanation can be ruled out. Given the fact that the number of good free files with experienced uploaders has remained stable, and that the increase with newbie uploaders has affected both free and non-free files alike, I would argue that the first explanation – better instruction – is the most likely factor, and that the new system's efficiency in directing people to Commons is likely equal if not better than that of the old one (although this cannot be tested with certainty.) Looking at the quality of file descriptions produced with the FUW, I believe we can see another advantage: even the bad uploads produced with the FUW are easier to deal with than the bad uploads produced in other ways. This is because even editors who upload bad files are now typically led to include more information than before and thus make the problem much more obvious and easier to understand. For instance, an editor who in good faith has failed to understand what a "free license" is, and therefore misuses the "from a free website" upload option for a "found it somewhere on the web" file, will still try to follow the instructions and add a link to the source website. In such a case, one look at the claimed source is sufficient to determine that the uploader was mistaken, and thus the file can be immediately speedied as an obvious copyvio, rather than having to waste time with the "no permission" tagging procedure, which would only confuse the uploader further. In this way, bad uploads produced through good-faith errors can be far better distinguished from copyvios produced through intentional cheating.
|
tl;dr summary: In conclusion, I believe the first week's results show that the new WP:File Upload Wizard has an overall beneficial effect increasing the quality of our uploads and decreasing the number of problematic uploads. I therefore propose leaving it in place as the default upload entry point for the time being. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)