That comment may be referring to improving the core uploader so the extension can be depreciated.
Has UW gone under a code stewardship request? On Thu, 4 Feb 2021, 8:33 am Strainu, <[email protected]> wrote: > As the deafening silence of this thread probably shows, a discussion is > not really possible. The WMF has had 0 interest in making uploads easier in > the last few years. > > To be fair, faced with furios opposition from the Commons community for > even basic improvements such as allowing imports from other sites except > Flickr and requests to stop cross-wiki uploads, this decision does not seem > out of place. > > As one of the few people that has enabled UW in another Wikimedia wiki, I > would like to encourage you to follow on your plan to improve the wizard as > much as possible. Plans at the WMF change often and not necessarily for the > better. A responsive design would be awsome news for wikis that need to > guide their users through the mess that is freedom of panorama. > > One thing that puzzles me in that ticket is this phrase from Mark Traceur: > "It might be better to look at something (slightly) more modern, like the > upload dialog in core". Does anyone know what that dialog is? AFAIK the > uploader in core (Special:Upload) hasn't changed in decades, except maybe > for the look of the buttons. Its usability is rubbish compared to UW. Wikis > used to (no, actually they still do) customize it using the uselang > param,which messes with the user's settings. I can't really understand how > that would be better... > > Andrei > > Pe duminică, 31 ianuarie 2021, Ostrzyciel Nożyczek < > [email protected]> a scris: > >> Hi, >> >> I would like to uhhh... start the discussion? ask for opinions? about the >> future of UploadWizard. >> >> It is a rather special extension, that was from the start made mostly for >> Commons' very specific needs and getting it to work anywhere else presents >> some challenges (some of which I attempt to tackle here >> <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T256616>). Interestingly, it still is >> used by many third-party wikis >> <https://wikiapiary.com/wiki/Extension:Upload_Wizard> and although some >> of them don't need its full set of capabilities related to describing >> licenses, authors and sources, there are wikis that do need that. The wiki >> I maintain, Nonsensopedia, has a Commons-like file description system based >> on Semantic MediaWiki (see example here >> <https://nonsa.pl/wiki/Plik:Creative_Commons_evolution.jpg>) and >> UploadWizard has been a *blessing* for us, greatly simplifying the task >> of file moderation. >> >> Opinion time: Wikis should be *encouraged* to properly describe the >> authorship of files that they use, to meet the licensing requirements. IMO >> Wikimedia Foundation as the maintainer of MediaWiki and a foundation >> dedicated to dissemination of free culture should provide a usable tool >> for properly describing free multimedia. UploadWizard could be just that. >> >> At the same time, the extension has been basically unmaintained >> <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T261589#6674315> since the Multimedia >> team was dissolved and I've been rather surprised to discover that patches >> improving third-party support were met with uhm... very limited >> enthusiasm? <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T256616#6264584> There >> are a few obvious features lacking like mobile support (seriously, try >> opening https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard on a >> narrow screen device, it's been like this since.. always) and >> configurability (you have to jump through some serious hoops >> <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:V2at02b7oxy5pkwl> to just add a >> license; customizing the tutorial is similarly hard). >> >> I've been thinking of what to do with the above and I really wouldn't >> want to embark on something that will be rendered redundant or obsolete in >> a year, so my question is: are there any plans for UploadWizard? What makes >> me suspect that things may change is primarily Structured Data on Wikimedia >> Commons, which in the future will maybe (?) supersede the description >> system around the {{Information}} template. Are there any rough roadmaps or >> outlines of anything resembling a plan for that? If Commons was to >> implement full, structured file descriptions in the upload tool, that code >> would be probably hardly usable outside Commons, given that Wikibase is not >> something easy to install or maintain, it is also awfully overkill for the >> vast majority of applications. In such a situation, would it make sense to >> consider completely separating the "Wikimedia Commons Shiny Upload Tool" >> from a more general extension that would be usable for third >> parties, stripped of any Commons-specific code? A lot of things could be >> much simplified if the extension was to target just the needs of third >> parties and not Commons. >> >> I ask about this because I really don't see any sort of interest of the >> extension's *de facto* owner (and that is WMF) in developing it, there >> are also no public plans for it, as far as I know. Yes, I can make a fork >> anytime, but first I'd prefer to know if I'm not missing something. Well, >> actually, I already did make a fork of UW >> <https://gitlab.com/nonsensopedia/extension-forks/uploadwizard-nonsa> over >> a year ago, but this particular version of it is tailored for a wiki I >> manage, making it useless for others. At the time that was the only >> reasonable way we could get a good upload tool that was capable of properly >> describing licensing information. I probably don't have to tell seasoned >> open-source developers why this type of approach is not optimal for the >> future of the project. :) >> >> Any opinions on the topic are very welcome. >> >> -- >> Ostrzyciel (he/him) >> > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l >
_______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
