Faulty accession numbers and empty photographer fields, that was filled-in in the original metadata was spotted by SMVK after full upload. How can we make sure that such dishonor doesn't occur? See T154654
Description
Description
| Status | Subtype | Assigned | Task | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Duplicate | None | T144374 Write/improve learning pattern about batch uploads after the SMVK-Mexiko batch upload | |||
| Resolved | Jopparn | T155739 Create employee/developer onboarding process document | |||
| Declined | None | T154470 Streamline process for batch uploads | |||
| Declined | • Mattias_Ostmar-WMSE | T154901 Ensure quality assurance of infotexts vs original metadata before upload of all images |
Event Timeline
Comment Actions
Part of the mediation strategy are those first test images and getting both us but also the GLAM to look at them (in conjunction with the original metadata) in a timely fashion.
Comment Actions
The other is to manually determine what the description pages should look like for a small set of images (but not the same as the test uploads) and then ensuring that A) the code gives that output B) later changes do not change that output (unless this was desired).
Those manual descriptions canot be created as soon as the mapping stage is done.
Comment Actions
I agree. If we re-work the use of Phabricator to reflect a more agile and iterative process this should be solved according to T154470