Commons:Upload Wizard proposals

Not to be confused with Oz, loads of Wizard proposals.

The Wizard has increased the instances of copyvios and poorly described pictures by a magnitude. First time uploaders just click on 'own work' in order to get their image uploaded without realizing that scanning, downloading or resizing an image does not make it own work. A few simple additional questions on the Wizard can avoid this, whilst at the same time directing first time uploaders to experienced editors that can give quick advice. It does make uploading slightly more time consuming but has the advantage that WC will have less Commons:license laundering issues. It can offer guidance to first time contributers that find Commons to have a rather steep a learning curve to navigate without help. For first time uploaders it is almost impossible to tell what is and is not a copyvio. When they upload an image with little or no description and an invalid license, it takes even seasoned editors loads of time to ascertain that an image is indeed a copyvio, while uploading a copyvio can be done in seconds. This is keeping editors from doing work that actually matters.

Currently, many copyvios can only be put up for deletion if the reviewer is an experienced photographer themselves, so they can recognize a professional style, guesstimate the probable source, and is both willing and has the spare time to dig deeper. Experience has shown that most first time uploaders that upload copyvios have a close interest with the subject and thus are familiar with the subject's websites. Those webmasters rightfully try to protect images by not allowing robots from Google Images, Tineye and others to index their photos. The original source and rightful copyright owners are thus hidden from our view.

It is surprising but true, that before uploading images to Wikipedia one has to be auto-confirmed. Not so for WC. So first time experimenters can and many do upload here first. Then, before understanding what 'non-free' means, start transferring non-free over from WP. And why wouldn't they when they find it is so much easier because their image shows up immediately and thus this encourages them to keep uploading more... - until they get blocked! This not only gets us frustrated but the new uploaders as well - who may have access to free images that they haven't thought about uploading yet. It looks statistically that well over 50% of new uploaders are contributing copyvios to WC.

We didn't nick this from https://www.wikiportret.nl/. But now that I know about that site I'll try to implement their stuff into the questions below. Clearly, the Dutch DID see the problem with the copyvios and they solved it locally, leaving Commons drowning in copyvios. And guess who was the main contributor to this proposal? Juist ja, goed geraden.

(not) own work, file description

The following is designed to replace the "This file is my own work." / "This file is not my own work." question in the Wizard. It may also replace the cartoon. The upload step before and the steps of adding a license/description are not affected. The single "own work" / "not own work" question is replaced by a maximum (depending on the answer) of six simple multiple choice questions. The user will never be shown this whole list at once. For these questions, it should be possible to click the right answer to continue (without having to click "next"), except for question 5.

Media type

1.1 What type of media is this?

1. Photo (go to 2.1)
2. Scan (go to 2.6)
3. Painting, drawing, logo, flag or similar artwork (go to 2.2)
4. Schematic/diagram (go to 2.3)
5. Music (go to 2.4)
6. Audio containing an interview, spoken word, speech or similar (go to 2.5)
7. Video from a conference, containing a speech or similar (go to 2.6)
8. Video other (howto, commercial, cartoon, live action) (go to 2.7)

Some options can probably be automatically ruled out based on file type.

Who created this work?

Photo

2.1 Who took it?

1. Somebody else took this picture. (go to "not my own work")
2. I took this picture and operated the camera myself. (go to 3.1)

Painting/drawing/etc

2.2 Who drew it?

1. Somebody else drew it, it is a logo for a company or organization. (add {{Trademarked}}, go to "not my own work")
2. Somebody else drew it. (go to "not my own work")
3. I drew this picture myself. (go to "own work")

Schematic

2.4 Who made it?

1. This picture contains nothing but text and the text has no creative nature, for example a receipt or list of components. (add {{PD-text}}
2. Somebody else made it. The graphics of this schematic or diagram are utilitarian in nature and the data in it based on facts or measurements. (add {{PD-shape}} and go to "not my own work")
3. Somebody else made it. The graphics of this schematic or diagram are utilitarian in nature and the data in it is based on research results. (possible database rights issue?)
4. Somebody else made it. It is graphically appealing and not utilitarian. (go to "not my own work")
5. I made this schematic or diagram. (go to "own work")

Music

2.5 Who is the artist?

1. I recorded this music myself, played any instruments myself and did any singing myself. (when selected, give the user a link Commons:Project scope so they can check if this falls within the scope. it could, so do not block the upload.) (go to "own work")
2. This music was in whole or in part created by somebody else.

Scan

2.6 Consider this image as that what is shown. (like a photo or drawing) (go to 1.1)

Photo, taken by user

3.1 What does this photo show?

1. This is a profile picture. (If the user has less than 10 contributions consider slapping them with {{No profile pics}}. Otherwise go to "own work")
2. This is a photo of a computer display or television showing something. (add a category (which one?), tell the user to consider this image as that what is shown, not as a photo, and go to 1.1)
3. This is a photo of painting, book cover, movie poster, newspaper article, etc. (add {{Self-scanned}} and tell the user to consider this image as that what is shown, not as a photo, and go to 1.1)
4. This photo shows a public place. (provide link to COM:Panorama and go to "own work")
5. This photo shows one or more items or animals, for example example a chair, bottle, spoon, car or a parrot. (go to 4.1)
6. People other than me. (provide link to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people, go to "Own work")
7. Other. (tag file to be checked by an experienced user, go to "own work")

Photo, taken by user, item

4.1 What do we see on this photo?

1. Building (consider additional question to see if copyright on architecture could be a problem, go to "Own work")
2. This photo shows currency. (warn user most currency is already here, provide link to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Country, tag file to be checked by an experienced user, go to "not my own work")
3. Packaging. (provide link to COM:Packaging, add category, go to "own work")
4. Other. (go to 5.1)

Photo, taken by user, item, other

5.1 What is or are the most prominent thing(s) that can be seen in this photo? (more than once answer possible)

1. One or more animals (add category, go to "Own work")
2. Natural environment (forest, mountains, clouds, etc) (add category, go to "Own work")
3. Equipment (add category, go to 6.1)
4. Means of transportation (motorcycle, car, train, airplane, etc) (add category, go to 6.1)
5. Food (add category, go to "own work")
6. Abstract image
7. Other (tag file to be checked if the description entered is short, go to "own work")

Branding

6.1 Is the brand of the item visible in the picture?

1. Yes (add {{Trademarked}}, go to "own work")
2. No (remind user to add the brand (if applicable) to the description, go to "own work")

Ask for a short description before asking the above

It could be considered to ask the user before this in a text field to enter a description in a few words for the image, which will actually be the filename. (but do not tell the user that, it will confuse them and make them enter DCIM0000..) In that case the filename will already be filled out later on and the description could be used to try and eliminate some of the questions. Give the user some examples of good descriptions! Possible examples: "Bronze statue of Mozart in London on Ebury street", "Two squirrels fighting for a nut", "Children in classroom, learning how to read", "Junkyard in Nebraska with crane".

Note on rejecting licenses when description is nonsense

What may be interesting is that if a user uploads a file as "own work" with a CC-license, but they clearly failed to identify what they have uploaded (for example: a picture of a house, but the user has only selected "equipment"), it should be assumed the user (when they don't attempt to correct their error) is not legally competent. (or did not understand the language in which they used the Wizard) So we don't have to go on a wild goose chase to try and figure out what they uploaded and where it came from because the file doesn't have a valid license to begin with. This is just a note, the actual determination of the description being wrong and rejection happens after the upload.

Change how a license for own work is picked

Currently the Wizard just picks the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license by default and provides a link to select a different license. For many users it will feel like they should go with this default option and this is recommended by Wikimedia. The description of the license is rather tiny. (sure there is a link, but we should not assume people are going to follow that link)

Proposal: the following, without any prechecked option. I, [NAME], the copyright holder of this work, irrevocably grant anyone the right to:

[ ]use, share or remix this work as they please. I don't mind if I'm not credited. (Creative Commons CC0 Waiver, legal code)

[ ]use, share or remix this work, as long as they credit me. They don't have to use the same license. (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license, legal code)

[ ]use, share or remix this work, as long as they credit me and share any derivative work under this same license. (Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 license, legal code)

Create short instructional animations/videos

Create a series of short (2 minutes or less) clips that explain in an amusing way the message from File:Licensing tutorial en.svg. A user should not be forced to watch them, but if they are made they should be just one click away in the upload wizard. For example "Choosing the right license", "Is my photograph in-scope", "Respecting privacy" and "Where to find help and information".

Category for files uploaded by new users

A 'new uploader' confirmation category so files uploaded by new users can be identified more easily as they are more likely to be copyvio.