Last modified: 2006-09-07 20:57:42 UTC
English Wikipedia has unanimous consensus to create a new Special:Upload page fitting the criteria listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Better_Upload_Page_to_Get_More_Images_Tagged. Below is the description of the new page and the existing conversation about it. Given the extreme level of support, we would be grateful for a quick implementation. Better Upload Page to Get More Images Tagged Over at the policy section, some people have crafted an idea for a better upload page to encourage people to tag their images or at least provide the information needed to tag them. You can go there for details, but basically we want a check box that says, "Is this a photograph you took yourself, or an image you created from scratch?" On the page where it says, "If you upload a file here to which you hold the copyright, you must license it under the GNU Free Documentation License or release it into the public domain. Alternately, you can upload your file to the Wikimedia Commons under a different free license." change it to "If you upload a file here to which you hold the copyright, you agree to license it under the GNU Free Documentation License, unless you specifically release it into the public domain. Alternately, you can upload your file to the Wikimedia Commons under a different free license." Then, say, "If not, do you have the image tag? If so, please enter it.". Then, "If you don't have a tag, please explain the source of this image in detail in the box below." Below can be the summary box that's always there. Server-side(not client JS) validation should ensure that either the first box is checked, the second contains text(preferably ensure there is a valid tag, but that's more difficult), or the third box contains text. If the first is checked: If there is nothing in the second, add {{GFDL-self}} to the summary. If there is something in the second, add The uploader owns the copyright to this image. By uploading it to Wikipedia, he or she agreed to license it under the GFDL, unless he or she released it into the public domain below. If the second is filled, Check whether the form of the field is {{*}}. If it is, just add it to the summary. Otherwise, add {{<FIELD>}} to the summary. If the third is filled, Add it to the summary. Can someone implement this, or at least provide feedback. If you are unsure what I am proposing, I can create an HTML mock-up. Superm401 | Talk 19:46, August 6, 2005 (UTC) I think this is a great idea, and would urge others to show support/criticism so this idea can hopefully be acted upon. Martin (Bluemoose) 08:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC) Great idea. - Omegatron 19:02, August 12, 2005 (UTC) Good thought; an element of a larger effort needed to shift more work onto the engine, in part by using form elements other than one giant editable text field. — Xiong熊talk* 21:07, 2005 August 14 (UTC) Agreed. --Workman161 Okay, then. Developers, can this be implemented without a change to the MediaWiki software? Superm401 | Talk 04:26, August 15, 2005 (UTC) Any objections from anyone? Superm401 | Talk 03:49, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Some hints: * http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Translation/New_upload_form * http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_plan#Upload_process * See also bug 1552. Important: There should always be the default option "unknown" for the licence field - otherwise we will be confronted with uncountable files wrongly tagged with any licence just because people are too lazy to read the instructions. The files marked and categorized as "unknown" could still be checked manually afterwards.
I think the tag field should be a drop-down menu of all allowable tags. This will obviously need to be updated, this could be done by reading templates from a category (meaning anyone can add or remove tags from it) or, if only admins should be able to add or remove tags then read it from a protected page in the MediaWiki: namespace. I'd personally prefer the first of these, but if protection is felt to be required then I'd accept the second. The drop-down option should either default to "unknown" or default to a non-valid "please select" and make "unknown" the first item in the list. If at all possible, a preview of the tag selected should be seen so that when someone selectes e.g. the cc-by-sa-2.5 tag they can see it to check it is the correct one. Templates that take a paramater (e.g. freeuseprovidedthat) might be problematical, but perhaps the parameter could be read from the box below. You would need instructions to this effect though.
I could accept something like http://www.ru-info.de/upload_neu.htm . I'd like to add a "Are you the original creator?" box though and if it's checked add a GFDL tag automatically.
I don't think that a GFDL tag should be added automatically. I have uploaded lots of pictures, and I use the GFDL for very few of them as I don't like the complexity of this liscence for reusers. Most of my pictures are cc-by-sa, and some are public domain, almost all my text is dual liscenced into the public domain. It should not automatically be assumed that I want to use the GFDL.
You are not officially allowed to upload pictures you have created to Wikipedia under the cc licenses, though Commons accepts them. Public domain images are accepted, and the version I originally proposed says it's only licensed GFDL if it's not public domain. Again, this is not my rule. The page currently says, "If you upload a file here to which you hold the copyright, you must license it under the GNU Free Documentation License or release it into the public domain." Of course, with any system doing automatic licensing, there would be a warning at the bottom saying, "By uploading an image you have created to Wikipedia, you agree to license it under the GFDL, unless you specifically release it into the public domain" or similar. We wouldn't be deceiving anyone or making hidden assumptions.
Marking bug as closed as the drop-down list of licenses has been implemented already. Any problems/changes with this should be new bugs imho.
