Page MenuHomePhabricator

Enhance image uploading process
Open, LowPublic


What is the problem you want to solve?

Normal way of uploading files using Special:Upload lacks of machine-readable metadata field. (i.e. Template:Information must be manually added and most of user are unaware of this template)

Users are confused on choosing the licenses and hence numerous images are wrongly licensed (e.g. fairuse image tagged as GFDL). This is mostly due to the confusing and text-heavy UI when choosing the licenses.

Which users would benefit? (editors, admins, Commons users, Wikipedia users, etc.)

Those who care about having correct machine-readable metadata in the images.

How is this problem being handled now?

Many wikis have their file uploading feature disabled and were redirected to Commons instead.

But similar to the case on local wikis, by redirecting uploading process to Commons, I observed that the users still upload fair-use image to Commons since they are not aware about file licensing stuffs and their purpose is merely to upload image, i.e. they will choose whatever license options available to enable them upload their image for usage in the article.

In, "FileUploadWizard" has been created to insert Template:Information to the image and hence there are machine-readable metadata.

But to the other wikis where JS developers are lacking, nothing can be done since the localization has been hard-coded in the JS codes. Moreover, the UI has not improved since it is heavily text-based (and as a result, looks like a Terms & Conditions page)

I'm not aware about other wikis, but in, localization effort of "FileUploadWizard" has been started but stalled due to the large effort needed in improving the UI.

What are the proposed solutions? (if there are any ideas)

Enable commons:Special:UploadWizard in local wikis, enhancing its features to adapt with local wiki rules, including the fair-use licenses.

Indonesian Wikipedia community has proposed this, but nothing has been done yet since this Phabricator task was not supported by the developers there. T88918: Enable Extension:UploadWizard on id.wikipedia

Kenrick95 (talk) 11:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

This card tracks a proposal from the 2015 Community Wishlist Survey:

This proposal received 1 support votes, and was ranked #98 out of 107 proposals.

Event Timeline

DannyH raised the priority of this task from to Needs Triage.
DannyH updated the task description. (Show Details)
DannyH subscribed.

So… the proposal is basically asking to have UploadWizard enabled on more wikis? I'd update the task title, but I don't want to interfere with the survey.

(Notably, Romanian Wikipedia has UploadWizard enabled.)

This really sounds like a duplicate of T31955 + T88918.

MarkTraceur subscribed.

I agree, but I'm not sure how to close this as a any case, this is pretty low priority for us, because UW is almost explicitly a Commons-specific upload tool. Romanian Wikipedia had to do some pretty intense template imports, and I agree that uploading directly to Commons is a much better option.

IMPORTANT: If you are a community developer interested in working on this task: The Wikimedia Hackathon 2016 (Jerusalem, March 31 - April 3) focuses on #Community-Wishlist-Survey projects. There is some budget for sponsoring volunteer developers. THE DEADLINE TO REQUEST TRAVEL SPONSORSHIP IS TODAY, JANUARY 21. Exceptions can be made for developers focusing on Community Wishlist projects until the end of Sunday 24, but not beyond. If you or someone you know is interested, please REGISTER NOW.

@Kenrick95: So the underlying issue here is that available license options are too confusing? The sheer number? Missing explanations which license to choose when? The way the available licenses are currently displayed? Or something else?

I'm asking because I'm missing a good problem description, and "enhance uploading" isn't the most descriptive task summary (yet). :) Would love to understand the problem better here!

Enable commons:Special:UploadWizard in local wikis, enhancing its features to adapt with local wiki rules, including the fair-use licenses.

This part would require Community consensus first. See for the process.

Summarizing the lengthy description above, I think the problems here are essentially:

  1. Missing or incomplete file description
  2. No or wrong license being chosen

For number 1, I think that the current system have no template text being preloaded into the description box (hence prompting the user to complete the "form")

For number 2, I'm guessing that the license options are quite lengthy (in terms of number of choice) yet not informative enough. For example, a lot of users {{fact}} confusingly think that "public domain" is just any picture that can be found on the Internet, yet the license option does not provide informative description on what it is. Probably, to find the real issue here, one need to do a UX research to observe how newcomers are uploading images to Wikipedia.

This part would require Community consensus first. See for the process.

Even if it has a community consensus, it is not useful when it is blocked by the extension not supporting local wiki policy (e.g. support for fair use images); see T31955