Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Community Wishlist Survey 2023/Multimedia and Commons/Make Commonist work again

< Community Wishlist Survey 2023‎ | Multimedia and Commons

Make Commonist work again

Discussion

So this proposal wants WMF to take over a random tool that isn’t being maintained? Why would they want to do that when many other alternatives exist?Aaron Liu (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WMF came to the conclustion last year, they will develop stand alone upload tool. One year have past and I havent heard about any progess. Thats why its again on the table. And we can put it on the table again for other stand alone upload tools like Pattypan or Vicuna. --Juandev (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Commonist isn't working because of WMF, them developing their own solution after breaking some of the major community developed upload tools, would to say the least not be very nice. Let's have them get back to basics instead. They could improve the APIs, the half baked structured data support, and allow for uploading large files. Such changes would make it much easier to maintain and support the many community built upload tools. --Abbe98 (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is wrong with the current list of upload tools? With the exception of Commonist, they all work fine, if not better. -FASTILY 01:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At least for Vicuna, it hasn't been smooth sailing either lately. For a while, nobody felt responsible for it and major bugs were not addressed. With a Rapid Grant, a couple of the most gaping holes have been plugged, but that's about it. Without proper maintenance, it will break again. PattyPan was patched up too after last year's proposal, but how long will it last? I don't see the point in trying to CPR Commonist back into existence. We don't need more poorly maintained community tools, we need one fully featured, cross-platform mass upload tool. And we need it to be maintained properly, long-term (i.e. not by an unpaid volunteer who may just disappear tomorrow). --El Grafo (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but all of the above-mentioned tools are currently working right? You're speculating that something will break. Upload tools are non-trivial to create/maintain, and imo if it's not broken, then it doesn't need fixing. Also shameless plug, I've created an upload tool: c:Commons:Sunflower. -FASTILY 22:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about devloping tool and leaving it. I think that if WMF will overtake commonist or create a new app, they will also continue to maintain it. But as I indicates above, the question is wheter it will happen. One year have passed and no sighn of it. Juandev (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily actually Rillke's bigchunkedupload.js script is the only free (free, as in everyone can use it without having to install software first) tool that allows to upload files of more than 1.2GB (I use my own tool, but UploadWizard should be able to do that) --C.Suthorn (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the WMF decided to choose an "official" upload tool, Commonist doesn't seem like a good choice. It's written in Java, which makes it hard to install and has little expertise overlap with other WMF-maintained software (parts of the search system are in Java, but that's the only thing I think), the author seems to have rolled his own library for everything from JSON parsing to build tools, and in general, it would be hard to justify putting the efforts into a desktop app as opposed to something that just works via the web, when there's very little benefit of a local app for an upload workflow. Probably UploadWizard should just be improved instead. Also "maintain tool X forever" isn't really fit for the wishlist.
    If the goal were to just make the minimum effort to make Commonist work again, that would be a more sensible wish. I think that would just involve a simple change in API parameters (#25) and maybe some decoding fixes (#24). --Tgr (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Commons hat zwei Hauptzwecke: 1) Mediendateien bereitzustellen, so dass sie genutzt werden können. 2) Leuten, die diese Mediendateien hinzufügen wollen, dies zu ermöglichen. Punkt 1) funktioniert weitgehend und weitgehend zuverlässig. Punkt 2) funktioniert nicht so toll. Wenn jemand sich bereits mit MW auskennt und eine kleine Zahl von kleinen Bildern mit klarer Quelle und eindeutigem Copyright hochladen will, funktioniert das meistens (aber umständlich) mit dem Upload Wizard. Probleme beginnen dann, wenn eine große Anzahl von Medien oder sehr große Medien hochgeladen werden sollen. Für eine bedeutende Zahl von Usern, die bedeutend zu Commons beitragen, ist dabei Commonist das Tool der Wahl (für mich nicht). Natürlich ist eine bessere Alternative denkbar. Aber es gibt Commonist und wenn Commonist funktioniert, sind eine Reihe produktiver User zunächst mal zufriedengestellt. Warum laufen beliebte und teils ausgezeichnete Tools wie Commonist, CropTool, V2C, F2C entweder garnicht oder nur fehlerhaft? In erster Linie weil die Maintainer, die sehr viel Arbeit darin gesteckt haben diese Tools überhaupt erst zu erstellen, in einer Reihe von Fällen unnötig vergrault wurden. Und weil sich keine neuen Maintainer finden, die sich sowas ans Bein binden wollen. Eine Person hat mehr als 6 Millionen Dateien hochgeladen und wichtige Tools erstellt, wurde aber derart gedoxxt und bedroht, dass diese Person fluchtartig das Projekt verlassen hat. Es gibt viele Bekundungen, was für ein großer Verlust das doch ist, aber so weit ich sehe keinerlei Bemühungen das Doxxing abzustellen, Bedingungen herzustellen, dass die Person sich sicher fühlen kann oder bei der Person um Entschuldigung zu bitten. C.Suthorn (talk) 08:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_Wishlist_Survey_2023/Multimedia_and_Commons/Make_Commonist_work_again&oldid=24615618"