Last modified: 2014-11-17 10:35:02 UTC
Upon pressing "Upload file" in Wikipedia (as an example) - the user should not only be confronted with a "Select file" and "Summary" box, but also a drop down box with licenses. This license box may be left blank for the user to fill in later - but if selected the license template will be added to the page automatically. More importantly, if a copyleft license is selected - GFDL, PD, CC, etc. - the image is not uploaded to the Wikipedia project in which the user is operating, but to Commons. Conversely, all non-copyleft images are only uploaded to that local project. This file may be a form of metafile, in which case the user could over-ride the upload to commons, and instead simply locally upload it.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Kostel_Panny_Marie_Snezne_01_2003-12-22.jpg is how it could look for starters. thanx Paddy --~~~~
(In reply to comment #0) > Upon pressing "Upload file" in Wikipedia (as an example) <..> > a drop down box with licenses. <..> > > More importantly, if a copyleft license is selected - GFDL, PD, CC, etc. - the image is not > uploaded to the Wikipedia project in which the user is operating, but to Commons. <..> If file is uploaded to commons, there will be issues with uploading user - login to commons somehow should be handled. As of drop-down box for licenses - it would be definitely good, but will be a need to somehow define set of licenses available to wikipedia - commons (and some other wikis) use many different licenses, but by default probabl smaller set should be provided (GFDL, PD, few more). So, the set of available licenses should be defined in some page or licenses can be moved to a different namespace (which will work just like Template: namespace, but will show that this template is a license description).
It would be nice to add this drop down box as a must for uploading - then all the uploaded files will have a copyright information.
Automatic upload into commons isnt a good way because the picture must be either categorized or put into a gallery, otherwise it will not be found again by others.
(In reply to comment #4) > Automatic upload into commons isnt a good way because the picture must be either > categorized or put into a gallery, otherwise it will not be found again by others. Isn't that the case where people manually upload images and then forget to categorise them, though?
The drop-down box for upload licensing seems to already exist... I think there would be too many variables to handle in order to auto-upload to the appropriate site. (Wikipedia -> Commons) For instance, username/password, categorizating, path-mapping... I think it might be best to display a warning instead. If the user selects a 'free' license, it should display a notice asking the user to instead upload it to commons, etc. By the way? Is there an extension for that license dropdown box, or is that an SpecialUpload.php hack?
This can be accomplished via JS, as upload forms don't need edit token. A simple proof of concept: adding the following lines to licenseSelectorCheck() in upload.js will result in automatic upload redirection: if (selector.selectedIndex > 2) { document.getElementById("upload").action="http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ Special:Upload"; } Of course, real application would be much more complicated, and ask a user if s/ he really wants to upload to Commons, but this feature would be really useful.
In response to Comment #6, the Commons user and password could be stored as a user preference in the local wiki. Then after uploading the image, the Commons Image page is shown so thís person can add the appropiate category, or description.
Broadening the scope of this bug: if we do it for WP & WB, we will do it for any WM website.
Single-Sign-on is in place, license drop-down is in place - the suggestion to automatically and always upload cc-by-sa and other commons-compatible works to commons seems to be a trivial step away! Please investigate whether this is not possible now to handle behind the scenes, rather than asking users to learn the complications of the separate repositories.
(In reply to comment #10) > Single-Sign-on is in place, license drop-down is in place - the suggestion to > automatically and always upload cc-by-sa and other commons-compatible works to > commons seems to be a trivial step away! Please investigate whether this is not > possible now to handle behind the scenes, rather than asking users to learn the > complications of the separate repositories. If it were trivial I would have done it by now.
From the Upload Wizard Q&A page: "One of our wishlist items is to integrate the upload wizard directly into the editing workflow on projects like Wikipedia, as opposed to requiring users to visit a separate website. However, the current separation actually makes sense while the projects maintain separate infrastructure for purposes such as user-to-user messaging and change notification. Until we have improved integration of this infrastructure, it would be too risky to simply transparently send uploads to Wikimedia Commons, as users would not see new message notifications or other change notifications, and the normal interaction with uploaders on Wikimedia Commons could break down."
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 20512 ***
The but 20512, of which this is assumed to be a duplicate is completely opaque to me. Is it wise to drop a well documented, well discussed bug thread in favor of a narrow, undocumented, technical one?
(In reply to comment #14) > The but 20512, of which this is assumed to be a duplicate is completely opaque > to me. Is it wise to drop a well documented, well discussed bug thread in favor > of a narrow, undocumented, technical one? There is no extra information needed here, progress to fix the bug has occured over at 20512, and will be fixed in 1.20 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 20512 ***
(I appreciate the often unpaid enthusiasm of you and all other developers, but I think it is problematic if you refuse to communicate with users of mediawiki ...)
