Commons talk:Welcome to Commons brochure/discussion of final drafts

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

2013-07-22 draft[edit]

near-final draft (2013-07-24)

A new draft is up, incorporating as many of the suggested improvements as possible. There are still a few things left to fix, but this is getting pretty close to the final form. Please give any additional feedback you have for this version!--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on 2013-07-22 version[edit]

  • The title/subtitle will probably be switched back to the previous version: Illustrating Wikipedia: A guide to contributing content to Wikimedia Commons. This isn't completely final, so if you have an alternative title suggestion, feel free to post it.
  • Some of the Puzzly graphics still need to be updated, and the cartoon bonsai on page 3 is a placeholder; the original Puzzly artist will be doing a new one in the same style as the other illustrations.
  • The Main Page screenshot on page 4 will be replaced by one with a POTD that looks better with that crop.
  • The text on the inside cover, third paragraph will be revised to make a stronger and clearer case for why to contribute to Commons.

If you made a suggestion that we didn't implement in this version and you'd like to know why, just let me know.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the instructions for adding an image to Wikipedia, step 4 instructs you to simply "Drag the corner to resize it." At least on English Wikipedia, policy says that images shouldn't be resized without good reason, so you might want to be more careful about encouraging people to do so. This is especially true since that policy argues that images should only be resized by specifying an appropriate "upright" parameter, not a particular size in pixels. (Corner dragging currently specifies the image size in pixels.) --Avenue (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, the wikicode on page 7 should include the "upright" parameter instead of "size" (while warning that on enwiki you should have a good reason for changing the size), or simply omit both parameters. --Avenue (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right that it'll be better to leave out the resize instructions for the visual editor, although that's sort of a mismatch between the UI and current practice. But it's pretty easily discoverable anyway.
On page 7, the example is from Wikivoyage, where using the size parameter is standard (as far as I can tell). I'd sooner get rid of the size parameter altogether than than replace it with upright, but I think it's useful to keep it to help people understand the structure of wikitext image code.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to the upright parameter has been discussed recently on English Wikivoyage. My feeling was that there was some support for the change, but not enough to reach consensus, and that it wasn't the highest priority anyway. I'd sooner have both upright and size in the brochure than size alone, given that size is discouraged on one major wiki.
However, I am now wondering why we're placing that much emphasis on parameters which are usually unnecessary (size and right), while omitting the recommended alternative text parameter. The first example in w:WP:IMAGESYNTAX gives example syntax that I believe better matches best practice. --Avenue (talk) 05:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Avenue. I think adding the alt parameter would add too much length, and isn't readily understandable for newcomers. The size and position parameters, even if they aren't needed by default, are the most common ones users will encounter when they see pre-existing code (including code created by VisualEditor), so I think they are more relevant than the alternatives.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Thanks for explaining. --Avenue (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

another updated draft: 2013-07-23[edit]

Our designer sent along another draft last night, with a few more updates, including the update to the inside cover.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

near-final draft: 2013-07-24[edit]

I've put up another draft, which includes the credits and is near final. We'll be putting several sets of eyes on it for a final proof-reading tomorrow, and that may be the last round of revision. If you have any final suggestions or corrections, please let me know right away. Thanks again to everyone who gave feedback on this brochure!--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 01:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legal information[edit]

Hi, thanks for providing a new version of the brochure, adopting several changes. I tried to create this list of content that was used in this brochure:

Images in order of appearance

Articles in order of appearance

A rights statement in the form of (or similar):

Notion of adaption/derivative work if applicable, work title, copyright notice, name of author and/or attribution parties, URI to the licence, if applicable URI to a website if it contains copyright notice or licensing information for the Work

for every work used in this brochure is necessary to comply with the terms of CC licences (which most of the content above is made available under). Moreover it proves that we care about people's rights.

Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for compiling that list! That will save me some work. (I was going to wait until the last minute to figure out the credits, to avoid redoing too much as things changed.)--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And of course the brochure has to include the URI to the cc-by-sa full-text. Currently there is one to en:Wikipedia:CC-BY-SA but that does not seem to be linked (which would be nice and convenient). Furthermore it would be nice offering a further-reading for the Misconceptions about copyright licenses. -- Rillke(q?) 23:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since the primary purpose is a print brochure rather than a digital document, linking the URI isn't relevant for the current design. But we're interested in adapting it into an online wiki version as well, which could include more connections to relevant further reading.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be primarily helpful to reviewers. -- Rillke(q?) 14:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzy's thought bubble at the cover page[edit]

I don't know in which resolution you intend to present this but the font-size could be a tick larger IMHO. -- Rillke(q?) 23:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In print, I expect it will look about right, but we'll be getting physical print proofs to make sure of things like this before the final version.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracy in free license section[edit]

The first sentence on page 10 seems inaccurate to me. It's quite possible to create a work on behalf of an organisation without giving up your copyright, if you aren't employed by them, and you can lose your copyright as easily when employed by an individual as by an organisation. I suggest changing the part from "unless" onwards to read "unless they produced it for their employer or legally transferred the right to someone else." --Avenue (talk) 05:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think your suggested wording is probably slightly more accurate. I'll put in that change--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with explanation of free license requirements[edit]

Page 8 currently says: "For works with free licenses, you must follow the terms of the license — by providing attribution to the author and preserving the license." The second part of this sentence seems somewhat misleading to me. Many free licenses go further than that, at least if the work is modified (e.g. by cropping). The text also seems to imply that merely attributing the author and preserving the license would be enough to satisfy all free licenses, which isn't true. For instance, CC-BY-SA forbids effective technical measures to control a recipient's ability to exercise the freedoms granted by the license.
I suggest we replace that sentence with something like this: "For works with free licenses, you must follow the terms of the license — usually by at least crediting the author and preserving the license." --Avenue (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can address this by adding just "usually" (which parallels the similar bit in the inside front cover).--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is an improvement, and yes, the bit inside the front cover covers it well, for an initial overview. I think that a little more detail would be appropriate on page 8, though.
In my experience, it isn't so unusual for people to crop images or put them behind barriers to easy downloading/printing (maybe because that's the default on their website). I guess it's a judgement call how far the brochure should go in warning them that such things can violate the license or at least trigger additional requirements. IMO the words "at least" would also be a worthwhile addition, or maybe a footnote giving more detail instead. Keep in mind that people can lose all rights to use a work under some licenses if they get things wrong, even if they later correct it.
--Avenue (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upload file link[edit]

Ok, this is not tied to this brochure per se, but I feel sorry for users who will have to hunt for the “Upload file.” link (as described on page 4). For some time now I have been wondering about a more prominent call to action, like TranslateWiki “Start Translating” button on the main page. What do you think? Jean-Fred (talk) 07:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. :( --Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

StockPhoto display[edit]

Help:Gadget-Stockphoto is fully featured on page 8 (and can be spotted on page 5). But it is displayed on page 8 in its appearance for unlogged users (with big icons), not for logged-in (like in page 5). Can this might be confusing, since we suppose that at this point the user is logged-in?

(I somehow wish that StockPhoto would have had its design review, given its prominence [both feature wise & space-wise], especially before being printed out in such a brochure, but ah well…)

Jean-Fred (talk) 09:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that there were different views if you are not logged in. But since the icons and functionality are the same, I think it shouldn't be too confusing. And in many cases, people looking for that particular bit of instruction in the brochure won't be logged in.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have general concerns in regard to the stockphoto gadget. This Gadget does, in a lot of cases, not meet the licence requirements. In case of GFDL material there is no hint that a copy of the licence text must be locally provided by re-users; in case of CC-BY-SA material the link to the full licence text (a minimum requirement instead of a local copy of the licence) is replaced by a link to the (even always english) deed. The gadget completly fails or delivers an odd credit if uploaders did not follow the common standards for file descriptions Example. If the licence requirements are not met the licence terminates automatically. Are you really sure that you want to recommend this to re-users? In my personal view this gadget should even be switched off by WMF office action as long as the obvious and well-known bugs are not fixed. --Martina talk 13:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I didn't know that this was a problem, but as long as Commons itself is still providing the tool (which in my opinion is much better than nothing), it makes sense to point it out in the brochure. Even with its problems, the gadget leads to better license compliance than the fallback of letting users blunder through on their own.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a - nicely worded ;-) -hint that the gadget is not 100% reliable, and that the description site might offer addtional advices and recommendations for a correct re-usage, could be a solution. --Martina talk 13:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name of project[edit]

The brochure hesitates a lot between “Commons” and “Wikimedia Commons”. Not sure what is the best option here though. Jean-Fred (talk) 09:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initially, it was mostly just "Commons" throughout, except in a few places that introduce Commons in the context of other Wikimedia projects. We added in "Wikimedia" in many places in the latest revision to avoid potential confusion with Creative Commons. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there's a better option.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With such a large disambig page for "Commons" en:Commons (disambiguation), it should clearly be called "Wikimedia Commons". --Túrelio (talk) 10:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative cover[edit]

Hi! I started out trying to replace the bitmap commons logo on the cover, but I wound up making an entire alternative cover for the brochure (no offense to the original designer!).

—Love, Kelvinsong talk 20:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Welcome_to_Commons_brochure/discussion_of_final_drafts&oldid=101120583"