6 Responses to Ten features that would dramatically improve Wikimedia Commons

  1. Frank Schulenburg says:

    Thanks Guillaume, all of these are really good and helpful ideas. If you needed to priorize — which 3-4 features would you rate as having the biggest impact? Thanks again, Frank

  2. Siebrand says:

    bugzilla:11484 was fixed some time ago.

  3. Longbow4u says:

    Hi Guillaume, hi Frank,
    I agree that Wikimedia Commons needs some improvements. I would say a better search function is the most important thing, e.g. an image search which looks for information in the “Description” field. This does not need really new development. There was the “Mayflower Search tool” http://toolserver.org/~tangotango/mayflower/search.php?j=1&q=Gie%C3%9Fen&t=r which used an index. Unfortunately, the index file was last updated by tangotango on 24th October 2007 (!), so most of the new files (e.g. Bundesarchiv material) is not found.

    Longbow4u

  4. Andrew Turvey says:

    Good list!

    One thing I’d add is making the upload process easier. Compare Flickr or facebok and you instantly see how far behind the curve we are falling.

    Look forward to the one for Wikipedia too!

  5. pfctdayelise says:

    Nice list. Although I think the Google Images thing has improved a lot now from what it used to be (virtually invisible).

    I have written a couple of posts which cover a lot of similar/related ground as here:
    * http://brianna.modernthings.org/article/117/the-coming-challenges-for-wikimedia-commons
    * http://brianna.modernthings.org/article/40/top-10-software-extensions-wikimedia-commons-needs-in-2008

    I think a major thing at this point is improved workflow (license review, deletion processes, categorisation, descriptions translation). As you once said, and I completely agree, a major problem at Commons is that the content is growing much faster than the community. This does seem to cause systemic behavioural problems because the current community just doesn’t have a hope of dealing with all the work. So tech improvements that make it possible to deal with a greater volume of work by fewer people or in a shorter time, should hopefully filter through to less community-imposed complexity. To some extent. Not completely, because Copyright Is Hard (TM).

  6. Kolossos says:

    I would say the support of high resolution images would be a very nice feature.
    I mean >40 Megapixels or so. We have excellent panoramas and scans of old maps with this size.
    The download needs very long also with a fast internet connection. The solution could work with tiles (like google maps ans Openstreetmap work)

    So a non-optimized prototype how it could looks is here:
    http://toolserver.org/~kolossos/zoom-image/zoom-ol.html

    I’m a fan of http://gigapan.org/ that shows that we can get low-prize highres images.

    Greetings

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>