Last modified: 2013-08-29 16:41:27 UTC
I have several hundred restorations I did for Wikipedia, before leaving. However, if you search for my name on Commons, all credit for this is denied me. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=cuerden&title=Special%3ASearch You need to include uploaders in the search text, or you deny content creators credit.
Made the title more neutral instead of the quite hostile 'denies credit to creators'.
Looks like this should be done in MW core.
Gerrit change #14675
(In reply to comment #1) > Made the title more neutral instead of the quite hostile 'denies credit to > creators'. And messed things up: If someone makes a minor edit to an image, you would deny the original uploader credit if you did what you suggest.
Quite simply, only crediting the last uploader means that, if I upload an image and put 60 hours work in it, then someone else recrops it, then a third person reverts back to my version, the person who reverted back is both the only person who A. did nothing to the image. and B. gets credit.
I don't think the last uploader is really the most relevant. It would usually be the first one or all of them (yes, last uploader is easier to check). However, I don't see why it needs to be credited in Special:Search. The author is credited in the image page, just as the license is listed, the date or the description. The description page also shows the authoship better. I guess your problem is that the page doesn't appear when searching by the uploader name?
The thumbnail shown is the last upload, so it makes no sense to credit anyone else. Either way, I'm not going to help with your stupid title. It stays or I'll make that someone else will have to redo the code I've already written for this.
I disagree. The copyright belongs to all the authors. In images, it is much more likely that the later version holds little to no copyright than the first one. Not to mention the cases where the uploader is a bot, or a user simply transfering it. I don't think Special:Search is the right place for adding credits, though.
You're probably right. Is this bug RESOLVED WONTFIX then?
I think he may have wanted the uploader name added to the indexed text. Still, it's clearly possible to get those files in a different way http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Adam_Cuerden so it'd need to be evaluated if that's an appropiate change or not.
If someone searches my name, I think it should come up, and shouldn't disappear just because someone cropped a border or something. But the title got changed to a completely inaccurate one, and, frankly, this is pretty typical of how Wikipedia thinks its users are disposable and don't need credit for their work.
But then, if you can't tell, I'm terribly disillusioned with Wikipedia.
Hmm, I'm not so sure about this. We don't index article content by writers either do we ? I mean we could of course, and i'm sure that it might be handy for some of the editors, but it would also be very unhandy for a majority of people using search. (So should perhaps only be done in "everything" mode of search). Authors of files (and copyrightable changes) should be listed in the information template or in the license attribution, but that is indexed just fine if I'm not mistaken, so not a WMF search configuration problem. So I'm sure we can have improvements in the search indexed information that we expose, but I think Adam's reasoning here is too shortsighted and too focused on his own experience with several other wiki(p|m)edians. A more focused approach towards increasing the searchability of our content is indeed required, but there is a reason why WMF is looking for a Lucene expert to be added to the WMF team http://hire.jobvite.com/Jobvite/Job.aspx?j=oC5fWfwC&c=qSa9VfwQ
(In reply to comment #11) > If someone searches my name, I think it should come up, and shouldn't disappear > just because someone cropped a border or something. But the title got changed > to a completely inaccurate one, and, frankly, this is pretty typical of how > Wikipedia thinks its users are disposable and don't need credit for their work. Believe it or not this is a bug for MediaWiki core. Your images are on Wikimedia Commons. Wikipedia is completely irrelevant here. RESOLVED INVALID. Requester is clearly just here to moan and doesn't know what he's talking about.
@Krenair, I'd appreciate a bit of a nicer tone from one commenter to another commenter.
*** Bug 42530 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Can we have a productive discussion on this that doesn't end in someone closing it out of a pissy fit?
As I had said, however, I think all uploaders need listed. There was a long-standing, if not exactly policy, default of using templates that reference the upload list on Commons. For example, http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:CC-self&oldid=7019569 was very common, as were other self-referential templates, many of which are still in use, e.g. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Restored and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Retouched The ones still in use don't automatically give credit, and the older ones, so far as I know, were not always updated with the names of creators. So, after years of encouraging contributors not to list their names in files, it's somewhat worrying that you think that they shouldn't be searchable.
(In reply to comment #15) > @Krenair, I'd appreciate a bit of a nicer tone from one commenter to another > commenter. So would I. (In reply to comment #17) > Can we have a productive discussion on this that doesn't end in someone > closing > it out of a pissy fit? We can, but this bug was closed because it was opened 'out of a pissy fit'. I would suggest that you don't make a new one again. There are still problems to be solved before this can be implemented - which versions of each file need to have their author listed on the search results? * We can't list the uploader of every version obviously, it could turn out to be a huge list. * We can't always just show the uploader of the first version because it's probably been changed since. * We probably shouldn't always just show the uploader of the latest version because it's even more unlikely to be the author of the file.
The use case here is covered by the new Special:ListFiles/Special:AllMyUploads, as far as I can see (bug 30607). There doesn't seem to be agreement on the usefulness of adding authors to the search page. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 30607 ***
