Structured Data Across Wikimedia/Image Suggestions/Feedback Commons

This page collects the feedback from the Summer 2021 mass-message initiative for the image recommendation features for experienced users, which is a tool currently in development by the Structured Data Across Wikimedia team.

From your experience, what is the hardest part about adding images to articles?

 * From my experience, the hardest part about adding images to articles is the arrangement of images in a way to make articles easier to read. --Soumya-8974 (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Illustrating a wikipedia article by means of wikidata templates has the advantage of automatism, but concomitant disadvantage concerning the choice of illustration. --Havang(nl) (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Incorporating machine-generated image suggestions into the editor workflow: concerns and potential

 * We have provided a few options for how we might incorporate machine-generated image suggestions into the editor workflow.
 * As a Commons user, you might be particularly interested in option #5, where we are exploring notifying users who have uploaded an image if the image(s) they’ve uploaded are a match to any articles on wikis in the language(s) the user speaks. What concerns do you have about these options? What excites you about these options?
 * My main concern is that the notifications will be annoying, especially for people with a large number of image uploads. Commons is an independent project from Wikipedia. People who upload images to Commons are not necessarily interested in contributing to Wikipedia, or may be uploading images specifically for work on another project like Wikisource. Any such notifications to image uploaders should be opt-in so that only those uploaders who are interested in adding images to Wikipedia will be shown them. Nosferattus (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Re: request for feedback on Commons
The largest problem I find with newly uploaded images is that far too many contributors do not say where the image was taken. This is vitally important information for any scientific analysis of images, particularly in biology-related topics. Adding location information needs to be made a more integral part of the upload form, and with some form of prominent reminder before completing the upload (something like "you have not completed the location information, are you sure you don't wish to?"). - MPF (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. It has to be recommended to have the location as part of the filename, and/or it should be good to have a question abiout the location during the upload process, similar to the date question. As times of creation and of upload are already generated during the ulpoad process, I name files by location and object (or sometimes for scanned images source and object). -Havang(nl) (talk) 11:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I totally agree that one way or another, the location should be added to each file. Filename is fine, or part of the description (indeed like date), geocoordinates or a category with the location. Not only for biology-related topics, but for all sort of topics. The category structure is for an imported part based on countries and places, so also therefor we need locations. JopkeB (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the image metadata on Commons would be better quality if adding metadata was integrated into the upload process rather than awkwardly tacked on at the end. For example, the date and license could be automatically generated from the existing form inputs. Nosferattus (talk) 12:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)