Commons talk:Meet our restorationists

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion[edit]

For discussion about Commons:Meet our restorers. Cirt (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this might come as a surprise, but appreciate projects like this which showcase the amount of work that volunteers are willing to invest here. More visibility for the restoration project should be a good thing. While I do not agree with all of the work that is performed I'm sure that having more peers can only result in constructive improvements. --Dschwen (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you that this project will create more visibility and positive attention for Wikimedia Commons, for example Wounded Knee massacre: more bodies? Cirt (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I support the creation of this page. I've been uploading a lot of old images and I believe promotion of the restoration effort will increase their value. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Why the change of the name[edit]

When the people who do the work call themselves restorationists, you might ask yourself is there a rationale behind this. What we now have is a rename that is objected to by the people who it concerns. At the same time there is talk about consensus... You cannot have it both ways. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. If that community chooses its own private moniker that is fine by me. But a press page to gain publicity should have proper spelling. Restorationists are people adhering to specific religious views. Check a dictionary.. ..or even better, if you have access to the internet, I heard there is a free online encyclopedia out there ;-). --Dschwen (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Move for lowering of bar[edit]

Any reasonable "meet our" page should have at least 3 different people on it. Currently the bar is set so high (many featured images) that it excludes almost everyone. While Cuerden's contributions are invaluable, could we lower the bar for others to be on this page, then gradually raise it over time? Something like one featured image sounds like a reasonable starting point to me. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The bar has not been defined properly. There would be other users like Durova who fulfill that current idea of a mere FP count, but it has been pointed out before that oftentimes a large factor in promoting restorations the the quality/impact original image. --Dschwen (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
So, I presume you'll be forbidding photographers from getting onto Meet the photographers, because oftentimes a big factor in the promotion is the encyclopedic and interesting subject of the photo? Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Adam, you're not making any sense here. I won't be forbidding anything, I believe in community consensus decisions. Through such a consensus the Commons:Image guidelines were established. However, they only treat photographic images. Criteria for restorations are still missing. I believe Durova was suggesting them recently and I suggest you participate in that discussion for productivities sake. --Dschwen (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What reason to "Meet them" here when they obviously own en.wikipedia?[edit]

Somewhat serious question here. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_picture_candidates&diff=282878735&oldid=282860967

Will I need to wait for restorationisters.wikimedia.org before I nominate my image of Vegetable soup? -- carol (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If this is a serious question, you have a knack of not getting to the point. GerardM (talk) 05:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I did attempt to make a comical point about what looks from here to be a sad, sad situation. Also, I haven't read the rules for being included in the "Meet Our Restorers" page, but en.wikipedia FP count here for that?

The sad, sad situation I see (at the risk of being harrassed by people from meta) and I put it here so that I might be corrected if the situation I perceive is wrong is this:

"Meet our photographers" has a certain bar, there needs to be a camera and then there needs to be skill and even then there needs to be a photographic situation that brings the photographer, the camera and the skill together which also has enough extra to make it one of those photographs. After the economic commitment and learning to use the tool, an image can be created by anyone and has a chance of getting the approval and the creator a chance at being an "our photographer".
"Meet our illustrators" has less of an equipment bar but more of a bar of familiarity with a pesky and new format and with the specific needs of the encyclopedias from this format and an additional technical knowledge of that which is being illustrated. Much less economic commitment but all that font stuff (fortunately for the bar there, making nice clean files is not a requirement) and making the files useful for more than just one language and the opinions of people about mixing 3D with 2D and other esthetics, anyone can be "our illustrator".
Editorial comment: I had a couple of images be POTD. One on this commons and one on english wikipedia. It is kind of a kick and I really enjoyed seeing my work there. On the otherhand, if I were to nominate all of the useful images I have found and/or sometimes made to look better, I should feel embarrassed and really not impressed with myself due to what might be perceived as a need for (I learned this from television recently, sorry) "External validation". That being said, the idea that uploading a great photograph, illustration or restored image is just a good thing to do is kind of lost in a discussion like this. I mention it now because this is the best place to mention it so it doesn't get lost.... All of these "Meet our" could become one "Meet our Contributors Who Get A Lot of External Validation". Which leads me to:
"Meet our Image Restoring People". On the outside chance that there is more than one person uploading these restorations since November 2007, I will refer to the users as uploaders. Not all but certainly most of the images that are large enough and with enough wow and original good quality from LOC have been kind of already uploaded and nominated. So many that people are not interested in reviewing them any longer. So, lately I watch and there is a flurry of nominations by more than one uploader. Interestingly enough, those same new nominators are also the same people who are reviewing and voting on the other new nominator images. These images from LOC.
This last year, from LOC, there have been so many nominations. I read once that this uploader was careful to only nominate one image a day. One image a day! In my gratitude for this thoughtfulness, I would like to do some math. One image a day; as these were the best images from LOC lets just say that if all of them had gotten enough votes to be a FP then that is 365 (+ or - 1) images. How many images are there per day which are POTD?
And that is the LOC images. This uploader got all of those reviews and such and made it difficult for uploaders and nominations of other images even. Images which are not available to everyone -- new scans from old texts and perhaps pricey old texts at that.
So now the little group of voting/nominating uploaders wants their own little "Meet our" thingie. The other reviewers seem to be not interested anylonger having patiently reviewed every interesting image that the United States Government has made available to everyone and there is this need for votes and for there to be more than two people in the "meet our" thingie.
So the "Meet our People who Restore Images" is not so much "ours" as it is "Meet the People Who Nominate and Vote For Their Restored Images" and due to what some might perceive as an overly dramatic need for external validation it might just be simpler to call this "Meet Durova and Adam" and to write honestly somewhere about the economical bar that now exists to be included with these people as new scans are needed.
And a little time for reviewers to welcome nominations like this.

And now for some more comedy: Perhaps a little template could be made for the new restorers of images that says something like "If things had been different"....

I anxiously await the correction of my perceptions of this situation. -- carol (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)