Page MenuHomePhabricator

Commons Upload Wizard "This work contains the work of others" checkbox prompts no follow-up questions
Open, Needs TriagePublicBUG REPORT

Description

Steps to replicate the issue (include links if applicable):

  • Go to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard
  • Select a file to share, hit "Continue"
  • Select "This work was created by me and anyone is free to use it."
  • Select "This work contains the work of others"
  • Select "Yes, the creator has published the work under a free license"
  • Go through the rest of the upload process

What happens?:

The user is not asked any further questions about the creator or the original licence.

The file is uploaded attributed to the uploader under whichever licence they requested.

The summary box makes no mention of the file containing the work of others.

What should have happened instead?:

I would have expected the Upload Wizard to ask me more about this "work of others": who the original creator was, and what licence they released it under.

I'd have then expected this information to be included in the summary box of the uploaded file.

Software version (on Special:Version page; skip for WMF-hosted wikis like Wikipedia):

Other information (browser name/version, screenshots, etc.):

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:White_House_ballroom_plan.svg&oldid=1066253344 is a version of a file where I'd gone through the Upload Wizard and ticked "This work contains the work of others". Another user caught that I hadn't actually specified the source, which I'd overlooked: I assume I'd offloaded remembering to do that because I'd told the Upload Wizard that it was a derivative work.

When I raised the issue at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Upload_Wizard_feedback#%22This_work_contains_the_work_of_others%22_asking_no_further_details another user said that this "must have broken recently" and that a few months ago it "was asking these questions in that branch".

Event Timeline

When storing this information it can be stored in either the information template or structured data (or both?). Should we prioritize one over the other?

If we do this in the information template, I'm unaware of the best way to go about this. In the latest revision of the linked example the "other versions" field is used, which works fine if the source is also on Commons where a license is clearly visible; however if the source is not on Commons then there's no good way to declare additional licenses to my knowledge. Is it fine to just choose a compatible license for the derivative work and hope the original linked source has licensing information that is easy to find, assuming external links are allowed in "other versions"?

I also saw another ticket about adding license information to SDC, but it's not for this case specifically: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T243926

I actually don't know how this ought to get represented either in the information template or the structured data. @LordBelbury is there an existing convention around this that you know of?

Afraid not, no. Am I mistaken that it used to work differently? I was largely going from another user's agreement in the linked thread that it "must have broken recently" and that previously it "was asking these questions".

Yeah I think the other user was probably looking at what happens when you select the option "This work was created by someone else and is free to share" - in that case you can select the licence and enter the source etc, because that's the original licence. There is a template https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Own_based that can be used to say "this file is based on this other file" but the other file needs to also be on Commons for it to work so I don't think it'll really work for this?