File:English-Arabic-Cross-Wiki-Uploads-April2024.pdf
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
English-Arabic-Cross-Wiki-Uploads-April2024.pdf (0 × 0 pixels, file size: 3.19 MB, MIME type: application/pdf)
Captions
Captions
A user experience, design research report commissioned by the Wikimedia Foundation that investigates the uploader experience on English and Arabic Wikipedias and how users interact with the UI.
Summary
[edit]| Description |
English: A user experience, design research report commissioned by the Wikimedia Foundation that investigates the uploader experience on English and Arabic Wikipedias and how users interact with the UI. |
| Date | |
| Source | Own work |
| Author | BGerdemann (WMF) |
Licensing
[edit]I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
- You are free:
- to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
- to remix – to adapt the work
- Under the following conditions:
- attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- share alike – If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original.
Recommandations (excerpt)
[edit]Visual Editor Recommendations (p. 39-44)
[edit]- 1. Use machine detection to filter and reject personal and copyrighted images.
- 2. Unify the upload process across all platforms so that users are not tempted to use the easiest option.
There should not be one simple process and another complex process. Given that we have evidence that most cross-wiki uploads may not be the uploader’s own work, the VE UI should have all of the same steps and options as the UW. - 3. The UI should have a complete set of questions and options to lead users through the entire process.
- A series of questions and response choices should lead users to take the correct action.
- Users need to see all of the options at once to engage with the right one.
- Users should not have to complete the process outside of the tool (i.e. VRT).
- Give options to upload other’s work, specifically addressing the Marketer use case by giving pathways to upload images as a representative.
- Build the VRT process into the upload process, or design a new process to handle these cases, and make it abundantly clear which files require it. Currently the Upload Wizard requires users to know which CC license the file is released under. Build a workflow that assumes users uploading “not own work” don’t know the CC license and guide the to the correct action to take.
- 4. Fine-tune the wording.
- The wording in the VE uploader is ineffective and causes confusion. Use clear, directive language to explain when a user should take each action presented on the screen. Eliminate ambiguous language, such as “consider” or “you may also want to.”
- The licences names (e.g. CC A-SA 4.0 Intl) are not necessary and cause confusion. Use simple, everyday language or visuals to guide users to the correct selections. See examples in section 5 of this report.
- Clarify “own work”. Users interpret “this is my own work” differently, so consider stating it as “I created this work entirely myself” or similar.
- Currently “not own work” on the UW does not address some of the common cases, such as personal photos taken by someone else or uploaders representing another entity. Consider adding more options to clarify different scenarios within the “own work” category.
- Use tooltips to provide expanded information without sending users to other pages to learn more.
- 5. Educate and inform during and outside of the upload process.
- A concisely written image policy with accompanying videos should be strategically placed around the platform, especially during the editing and uploading processes.
- Provide complete translations.
- Users need to encounter the image policy during the upload process, just as they need to encounter the editing policy during the editing process.
- The policy should be conveyed in simple, concise terms accompanied by visual media. Users want the option of watching a video.
- YouTube has a policy video that some participants referenced as being helpful for understanding policy.
- Minimize the links that send users away to other pages or make them open multiple tabs. Users assume these external links contain long, dense texts, and will not engage with the links.
- Use hover on tooltips instead. See section 5 #6 of this report for details.
- Use deletion nominations and deletions to educate users, rather than punish. Consider a short quiz where users interactively learn about the policy and rules through situational questions.
- A concisely written image policy with accompanying videos should be strategically placed around the platform, especially during the editing and uploading processes.
- 6. Modernize and update the image policy.
- Modernize and update the image policy, using images, videos, and concise summaries, and leading with the most common issues.
- For example:
- Selfies and pictures of people: Pictures of people, including selfies, need to meet the notability requirements. Any selfies or images of ordinary people will be rejected per the image policy. Learn more [link to policy].
- Images created by someone other than yourself: The image creator is the copyright owner. The photographer is the copyright holder, regardless of whose phone or camera was used.
- Logos: Logos are copyright by default. The copyright holder is the logo creator or the entity that commissioned the logo. To upload logos, you must...
- Pictures of buildings, monuments, and other architectural works: ...
- This should be done by a communications specialist, with eye-catching images and graphic communication methods that have been proven effective.
- Include video explanations, perhaps adopting the approach of the “A Wiki Minute” videos produced by the WMF.
- Survey Admins for short list of the most common problems, and present the most common problems first in the revamped image policy
- 7. Update tools for moderators and processes for alerting users.
- Participants whose images have been all reported feeling confused and lost by the moderation of their image. They did not know why their image was deleted, why some images are deleted while other similar images are not, how the policy applies to their image, and more. Part of the problem is a lack of consistency in the messaging when an image flagged or deleted.
- Build a template that all moderators will use, that clearly informs the user and states which policy is violated. This template should also include resources for receiving help and contesting the decision.
- Participants should be alerted in all possible places when their image is flagged or deleted, including but not limited to email and talkpage. Ideally ineligible images would be caught during the upload process.
- Currently, many users feel attacked by moderators for making mistakes. Moderators should be trained to understand that the goal behind deletion is not punishing or censoring users, but educating them.
- By implementing a mandatory template message system, users will receive notifications that are both educational and neutral in tone.
Upload Wizard Recommandations (p. 45-54)
[edit]- 1. Present a revamped and updated image policy in the beginning of the Upload Wizard, as detailed Recommendation #5 in section 4 of this report.
- Consider making new users complete a short quiz before uploading an image. This idea was suggested by both Admins in the Commons Admin Interviews research and some participants in this project.
- Consider defining “new users” as users who have uploaded fewer than X images.
- Determine X by surveying the moderator community.
- 2. Use machine detection, wherever possible, to identify image categories and route users to the appropriate action.
- 3. Focus on curtailing personal image uploads, a low-hanging fruit and an extremely common violation, in the upload process. Nearly 50% of participants uploaded personal images and no one was aware that such images violate policy. Selfies and personal images are easy for users to understand and it is relatively simple to communicate the policy. Build a step into the upload process that either detects or asks if the image is a personal image. Use the opportunity to informs users that images of people are not allowed, unless they meet the notability requirement. Inform them that their personal image will be deleted if they don’t abandon the upload. All participants who uploaded personal images also incorrectly claimed them as own work. Tackling personal images directly will help to reduce copyright violations.
- 4. Present common scenarios that are easy for users to apply to their image.
- Example of a common image scenario: This is a logo
- Example of a common ownership scenario: This work is owned by an entity I represent, such as a company or employer.
- 5. Insert the policy into the recommended action, especially when uploading is discouraged.
- This is a logo → Logos are copyrighted by default and Wikimedia does not host copyrighted media. To upload this logo, the copyright holder must convert the copyright to a free license. Proceed to the next step to release the copyright and upload the logo. → next screen contains a form to a streamlined VRT process.
- 6. Use hover over tooltips to present more information to avoid sending users away from the screen, in addition to a link to the revamped policy page.
- This is a picture of a person, including self-portraits. →
- Do the person or people featured in this image meet the notability requirement? [tooltip: more about this policy; link: to section on the policy page] →
- DO NOT UPLOAD. Only images of people who are deemed notable as defined by the policy can be uploaded to WP/WMC. These platforms do not host images of common people, even on your profile page. →
- Dead end or close window. When possible, tag these images to flag to moderators in case the user backtracks to make a different selection.
- 7. Decouple author from licensing in the first step. Address each part separately with expanded options for each.
- Present multiple options for authorship presented in a decision tree format.
- Better specify “own work”
- Add more options to the “someone else’s work” selection that reflect common scenarios.
- 8. Use everyday language to explain the key points of the licenses. No need to prioritize the names of the licenses.
- In doing so, inform users of what is happening and who is authorized to take such actions.
- Consider including some other common scenarios in the selection choices that inform users about the policies and purposes of the platform, such as “I only want this image used on WP” and “I want to maintain the copyright on this image”, both of which would lead to a “do not upload!” message with an explanation.
- 9. Surface the VRT process in the upload process.
- Consider revamping the VRT process, either to explain and streamline submitting proof of copyright and permission to release it, or overhaul the process and requirements altogether.
- This will require buy-in and participation from the moderator community.
- This should be presented for all of the “someone else’s work” options.
File history
Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time.
| Date/Time | Dimensions | User | Comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| current | 17:04, 13 June 2024 | 0 × 0 (3.19 MB) | BGerdemann (WMF) (talk | contribs) | Uploaded own work with UploadWizard |
You cannot overwrite this file.
File usage on Commons
There are no pages that use this file.