Grants talk:IEG/Batch uploader for small GLAM projects

Hi All! Please feel free to comment :-)

Plans

I'd be interested in more details on how it is planned to make this more user friendly for these types of users. I feel like not being able to use spreadsheets is only a small part of what makes gwtoolset difficult for this class of users to use. Bawolff (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Bawolff: Initial plan assumes, that program will generate pre-filled spreadsheet (some headers, list of filenames). Then someone needs to fill all date, like in example below:

__FILENAME__	__AUTHOR__	__DATE__
pic1.jpg	Rembrandt	1629
pic2.jpg	Rembrandt	1655

Some headers will provide special validation before upload (eg. check if date is valid, check if author has {{Creator:}} template. So basically, filling all the information is up to user, but of course we will provide examples how to do it properly. Most advanced part of program will be validation rules and smart converting spreadsheet data to wikicode.

This is basically the idea, that we have now. During first month we want to confront this idea with real potential users. Yarl (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

One of the issues I notice with people using gwtoolset, is often they pick names already in use, and sometimes they even try to upload multiple files to the same name in a single batch. It would be great if checking if names are already in use was done in a validation step before upload time. Bawolff (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Bawolff: Sure thing. This is something I already implemented in my upload tool vicuna, and it's really useful. Yarl (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Eligibility confirmed, round 2 2015

This Individual Engagement Grant proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for round 2 2015 review. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during this community comments period.

The committee's formal review for round 2 2015 begins on 20 October 2015, and grants will be announced in December. See the schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us.

Marti (WMF) (talk) 05:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Tool

This is needed for the GLAM people who may be worried that something could "break" during the upload. Geraldshields11 (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

For reference

Are you familiar with ComeOn! (manual in French), developed by @EdouardHue:? It sounds similar to your project? Jean-Fred (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

A quick word about ComeOn: it's a tool I developed for small batch uploads (successfully used with from a dozen to a thousand files). It takes a bunch of pictures on a local drive, matches them against a CSV file with a configurable matching system (you choose a property from the file like an EXIF field or filename, a column from the CSV file and provide a regular expression to apply to the property if required), generates a wikitext description page for each picture from the gathered metadata (including EXIF), lets you review and tweak the batch, and then uploads it all. I need to complete the manual but I've been using ComeOn for a while now and it works like a charm. --EdouardHue (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jean-Frédéric and EdouardHue: No, I've never seen it before, but it looks pretty interesting. Yeah, so idea is similar, probably we need something simpler to use by non-geeks :). I will definitely take a closer look on your program Edouard. Yarl (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear: I do believe there is some overlap in use cases between ComeOn! and this proposal, but there are some many angles to the general problem « small GLAM upload » that there is definitely room for more than one piece of software. And even if the overlap was greater, Commonist and Vicuna have shown that having another player in the field brings a great value. So as far as I’m concerned, I do support this proposal. Best of luck to Yarl :)

Jean-Fred (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Batch uploader for small GLAM projects

Scoring criteria (see the rubric for background)	Score 1=weak alignment 10=strong alignment
(A) Impact potential Does it fit with Wikimedia's strategic priorities? Does it have potential for online impact? Can it be sustained, scaled, or adapted elsewhere after the grant ends?	7.6
(B) Innovation and learning Does it take an Innovative approach to solving a key problem? Is the potential impact greater than the risks? Can we measure success?	7.2
(C) Ability to execute Can the scope be accomplished in 6 months? How realistic/efficient is the budget? Do the participants have the necessary skills/experience?	7.6
(D) Community engagement Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often? Does it have community support? Does it support diversity?	7.4
Comments from the committee: Mass donations of content by institutional partners are a key element in the movement's strategy for improving quality. There is significant (albeit anecdotal) evidence that smaller GLAM institutions are hampered by the complexity of existing batch upload tools. Given the existing interest among institutional partners, the availability of an easier-to-use tool could rapidly lead to a substantial number of content donations. It would be useful to have more specificity about what this new tool would would do that the several existing tools do not. The current uploader is too narrow in focus and is not designed for use with an institution rather than an "artist" or "creator" (i.e. self). The proposed metrics are reasonable and easy to measure, and will lead directly to case studies of GLAM use of the tool, which can then be shared with other movement entities and potential institutional partners. The implementation timeline and budget appear reasonable for the scope of work proposed. The proposer has already successfully created an uploader Yarl seems to be a community member in great standing with sufficient coding skills for the project scope. ComeOn should be used for this work. The project may require more time than proposed. Allow 2 months (instead of 1.5). If funded, the project should demonstrate strong commitment to the following: 1. The code follows best practices in whatever target language it is written in and 2. There's a plan for how to maintain it after the IEG is over. There is a reasonable degree of community engagement and support.

Suggested additional function: output of OTRS permission text

When I work with organisations I generally encounter two issues once they have decided to upload content to Commmons:

1. Logistics of uploading content (which this tool will be perfect for)
2. Understanding the OTRS permission email system and successfully sending an email in the correct format

It would be very helpful indeed if this tool could output a file/text using the existing OTRS email template that simply autofilled the urls of the uploaded files and the licenses they use, that way the uploader could simply copy paste the text into an email or attached the file and add their name and send it. It may be valuable to discuss with OTRS volunteers what works best for them.

John Cummings (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Round 2 2015 decision

Congratulations! Your proposal has been selected for an Individual Engagement Grant.

The committee has recommended this proposal and WMF has approved funding for the full amount of your request, $2,175

Comments regarding this decision:
We appreciate that you’ve stepped up in response to the demonstrated needs of your smaller GLAM partners, bringing the combined technical and organizing/outreach expertise of your team. In addition to the local impact of your work, we’re looking forward to seeing the outcomes of this project scale to other communities and languages.

Next steps:

1. You will be contacted to sign a grant agreement and setup a monthly check-in schedule.
2. Review the information for grantees.
3. Use the new buttons on your original proposal to create your project pages.
4. Start work on your project!

Questions? Contact us.