--- Comment #7 from Neil Kandalgaonkar <ne...@wikimedia.org> 2011-02-18
20:59:24 UTC ---
I understand there are strong differences of opinion here, but I think that you
may be under a misapprehension of what UploadWizard does.
1) Are you aware that for UploadWizard, we first upload the file to a special
"quarantine"? It is not actually published on Commons unless and until they
assign a proper license. So the question of whether we do license first or
upload first has no practical importance, and we can consider it only on the
basis of usability.
This was a key insight that we made early on -- the upload process was in
thrall to a model that required all the information at once, or bad
consequences would ensue. So we made it so bad consequences would NOT ensue we
changed the order of things.
Incidentally, we also made that choice because we envisioned an interface where
other Wikipedians could work with the uploader to improve the "quarantined"
data and licensing until it was finally ready to publish. That proved to a be a
little too ambitious for 1.0, but I'm trying hard to create a system that can
support such a use in the future.
2) As for the value of our research, all of it is online. Guillaume posted some
highlight videos on his blog.
(I believe there are full videos available somewhere if you want to watch the
Usability testing is not an exact science, but once you see five or more people
crash and burn on the same interface, one gets an idea where the problems are.
We specifically tested if the current upload interface was helping anybody
understand what the restrictions on Commons were. If my memory serves we got
precisely zero correct responses. Even the one person who was 'geeky' enough to
get through the current Commons interface with little difficulty did not fully
understand what Commons was about by the end of the process.
(Incidentally, the independent testing company we hired suggested that we
should not even bother with further usability testing as our prototype was
vastly superior. However, conscious of the community's skepticism, we insisted
on full user testing.)
So, while it is true we have only incomplete research on our approach, it is
equally true that all of the research at our disposal contradicts your
assertions that the current Commons form is working well.
a) the current Commons interface is VERY difficult to use, even by experienced
b) the difficulty is not justified by any greater understanding imparted to
users about Commons' licensing needs or other benefits.
I do not want to diminish the practical experience that Commons admins have. It
definitely is a common perception that complex upload form = better
submissions. However, I am skeptical that this really is the case. While it
probably repels Tumblr-style "I found it on the internet" reposters, it also
eliminates 99% of the population. This is a bit too high of a price. And in my
estimation, the remaining 1% are not necessarily more likely to be acting in
good faith either. You've just trained the people acting in bad faith to
provide metadata that undetectably simulates good faith contributions. But
anyway, this is just my speculation for now. When UploadWizard is enabled it
will be interesting to see what changes there are in the character of uploads.
We will be monitoring the situation and will make changes if the balance seems
to be tipping in a bad direction.
Also, one remaining area for research is whether our new tutorial works well
enough. We had planned to a subsequent research round but for various reasons
(time, money, project scheduling) have not done this yet. This may still
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Wikibugs-l mailing list