Commons talk:Valued image candidates/candidate list

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
This talk page is automatically archived by ArchiveBot. Any sections older than 60 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Re-vitalize the project?[edit]

Hi VIC folks,

It has been six years since the project started, and I was thinking if we should pause for a while to consider if the project works as intended?

And if there are areas of improvement, discuss what could be done.

What really triggers my discussion here is this discussion at QIC, where users argue and complain that it is hard for users, who cannot afford a DSLR, typically from less developed areas of the world, to get acknowledgement for their contributions via the QI and FP image evaluation projects. And partially due to this, we have huge inhomogenieties in what kinds of topics are highlighted and where in the world such contributions come from.

One of the initial objectives of COM:VI was to give room for such contributions, as the technical quality of the nominations at COM:VIC do not require a DSLR, although the image should still be good at illustrating it subject at the review size.

It appears to me, that this objective of the original project has not been met. If we see what kind of nominations is done and who nominated and evaluates, it does not represent a broad spectrum of the earths population. It is in reality a niche project with a relatively few number of hard core users. I do not state that to criticise the active users in the project in any way, but to highlight that for whatever reason, the project has drifted apart from one of the original primary objectives. That may not be a problem, as maybe the original objective is no longer seen as a primary objective in the project. But if that is the case we have a general problem on Commons in our inability to attract a wider diversity of contributors and contributions.

I my opinion, we should try to tweak the direction of the VI ship, such that it better fulfills this original objective. I do not know if you agree?

If so, here is my take on some of the improvable issues in the project that we have to address

  1. The user interface is complicated and an entrance barier to new users not familiar with the arcane wikitext format and weird templates.
  2. The issues of the scope is an entrance barrier to new users. A lot of resources are used to correctly design the scope and this alienates new users and drive them off.
  3. The granularity of the scope is confusing. How specific/unspecific should a scope be.
  4. Scopes are in English and pose a barrier to users not proficient in English.
  5. The VI galleries do not work as intended, they are not of any practical use and too large. I think we should abandon the galleries alltogether and rely on the images being in the main category structure and use tools like FastCCI to find VIs in a node in a category tree instead.
  6. Let us abondon the idea about tagging images in galleries with {{VI-tiny}}. Using FastCCI is better.

Ideas for improvement:

  1. Use the file or file talk pages for the actual reviews, such that they are easier to find. Use some kind of review categories as the entrance point to reviews.
  2. Abandon scopes, or re-think the scope idea, such that handling the topic becomes much more easy. I have at present no good idea on how to reform that.
  3. Spend resources on developing a user-friendly multilingual wizard-like interface, which helps in the nomination and review process.
  4. Commons:Photography critiques is effectively dead. Merge that into VI and establish a friendly culture of constructive critique and feedback to photography newbies. Consider replacing a pass/fail as VI with a more gradual value index, where the image gets points for its ability to properly illustrate the subject, its uniqueness, its description and categorization, its number of uses on other wikimedia projects - the latter is a strong indicator of its actual value.
  5. Consider using available data of page views on pages where an image is used to calculate an "impact score". If an image is used on a wikimedia page, which receives 20000 page views per day, it has higher project value than an image used on three obscure wikimedia project pages, which each gets three page views per day. impact score on page = Monthly page views / images on page. impact score = sum of impact page score for each wikimedia page the image is used in. This can be automated and is an objective measure.

-- Slaunger (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Kudos for making this initiative. Jee 12:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I think using file talk for actual review is good idea; However VICbot should make index for the nominated files.  revimsg 12:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. I think the VI project work quite well these days. My only complain is that scope are often too narrow, which IMO doesn't make sense. Also the idea that a DSLR is necessary to make a QI is false. Any good compact/bridge/hybrid cameras can make a QI. As I said on the QI talk page, with a recent camera, the issues are more misunderstandings of QI criteria, and lack of photographic skills. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
(1) I nominated my first VI a few days ago. After 10 years on the commons, I still found the process difficult (especially the scope rules). Others will have a more difficult time. (2) Regarding {{VI-tiny}}, we should have a bot do that if we want to use it. There is no reason for a human to ever have to do that. (3) Similar to how some have thousands of QI candidates, I probably have many hundreds of VI candidates, but I can't just go nominating them all. For example, I recently uploaded a dozen or so Caladium images of various cultivars. They all look different and are distinguished by those looks. There are over a 1000 Caladium cultivars, so if someone specialized in finding the most valued Caladium images, there could be a thousand images. This page is not equipped for that kind of volume. (4) Maybe scope shouldn't be a nomination criteria, but something the reviewers determine. They are best equipped to make that determination anyway. -- Ram-Man 16:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
In this case, only famous cultivars should be nominated. IMO, a scope is acceptable only if it has an article in Wikipedia, or a category or Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Why famous? Usefulness is not the same thing as popularity. The images I uploaded were part of a test plot at the notable Longwood Gardens. This one did win the popularity contest, but does that make the others in the plot any less useful? The images show a wide range of the cultivar variation, with little overlap, each one bred for its specific attributes. They are all equally useful because they are all different. -- Ram-Man 17:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, then the question is why distributing stars? With the current application of scope, almost any image of a descent quality can be a VI. Sure, your images are useful, but I don't see the point to promoting every image to VI. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Not at all. Caladiums are unusual in the wide range of cultivars (like Daffodils). The other end of the spectrum is this image, a feature picture that might barely be unique enough to pass as a VI for the entire genus because there is such little differentiation among the species. Quality isn't relevant here. -- Ram-Man 20:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
From my appreciation VI is the most important labels. In general we are in duality there will have many contributors from around the world but we must keep and if possible improve the quality of what we offer. These two points are difficult to reconcile. If you open too many criteria, quality will deteriorate if it closes too, contributors are leaving.
We need to find a balance. For a few months it is not bad.
Many points can be improved.
The question of the photographic material has no place in VI, anyone with any equipment can make a picture labeled VI. Only the intrinsic value account. Here too there should be common sense an image dot accurately describe its subject, the perspective distortion is very easy to fix with free software. Geocoding is also very useful and does not discriminate against anyone.
The narrow gate is the scope. We all struggled with this obstacle. But it is the heart of VI. The scope is the reference of the judgment of the image, so it is well done, with references, understandable for all.
This point also raises the language. But although I have great difficulty expressing myself in English it seems impossible for me not to take English as a common reference.
If the scope is difficult is that it should be.
He set up a system, unwritten, where former help new arrivals. More new rules, it is human investment we need. May be a more formal mentoring is required, but I look for a few months that our operation seems more serene.
Your proposals are in line with a more fraternal operation and I am very happy. But there may be a bit too utopian, we must remember that the wiki continues to grow and every day there are a billion new images created in the world. I'm not sure that the weight of our votes based on the rate of viewing the image is a good idea. I even think otherwise, we are not here to follow the crowd but to educate; draw his attention to difficult issues. I am pleased that the photograph of a sparrow's egg is seen by thousands of people but I am sad that my images of the Akan culture are viewed by anyone. But I do not think we can impose rules to change that.
Take care of our images, take care of our captions that are as important as the image. Work with tact and moderation. Do not forget that the purpose is to freely disseminate knowledge. This knowledge is the cement that must unite us and cement must be strong.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you about the scope: it may difficult to understand, but that's not a reason to suppress it. And may be we need more formal mentoring.
This discussion makes me realize that we may not have the same objective for this project. For me, it is to encourage contributors to upload good images of subject not well covered, which could be species, works of art or monuments, but not to get stars for images of every houses or every streets. Here we have a bit the same issue as QI, where some people nominate 10 pictures nearly identical of already well covered subjects. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
(1) I really don't think there is any serious effort to get a VI "for stars". It's just too difficult of a process to make it worthwhile. (2) What is "value"? I bet we all have a different idea. Despite over a thousand cultivars, the commons only has a 19 different cultivars and a bit more than 60 pictures of the entire genus. So, are all 19 cultivars VI candidates or is there some cutoff? (3) Part of the difficulty in scope determination is how arbitrary value determination is. If a plant has a lot of variation, even within a species or cultivar, should we just have one valued image that is "typical", or do we find value in highlighting the diversity? (4) Historians may one day look back and thank the persons who take pictures of every building in a town or city. Such documentation only grows more valuable with time. -- Ram-Man 20:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, it seems we have different ideas. I am not commenting about cultivars, and I am usually not voting about botanic scopes, as I am great ignorantus in this matter. To give an example which looks less foreign to me, should we have a scope for every colors of cats? Regards, Yann (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Ram-Man, see Commons:Valued_image_scope#Plants. So a scope like Tulipa clusiana, 'Lady Jane' is perfectly OK and different from Tulipa clusiana or Tulipa clusiana, <other cultivar>. A separate category for the cultivar (as in this example) is good; but not compulsory. Similarly, we can have Tulipa clusiana, blossom; Tulipa clusiana, seed; Tulipa clusiana, front view; Tulipa clusiana, side view; etc. The concept of scope is well defined (as Archaeodontosaurus said above); but complex to understand and follow for newcomers.
I think the VI veterans should take time to analyse why this beautiful project failed to attract many people. My opinion: 1. It takes time to understand the entire VI concept. Once we learn the concepts, then it is not so difficult. 2. VI is an easy pass; so no thrill of pass or failure and no one care the VI badge, much. 3. Too much steps (=FPC) compared to QIC for a simple case. So not worth for the efforts. 4. .... Jee 04:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Slaunger, my initial complaint was about the "best in scope" concept; not about scope itself. It may be good for pictures that are not frequently reproduced (as Archaeo's pictures as little chances that he photographs the museum specimens again and again); but not good for pictures of me. There are already 36 pictures in that category; chances that it overflow when I'm in good mood. So it is difficult for me choose one male and female as best in scope; and chances that better images will come soon. So we need to frequently replace the VIs using MVR. Otherwise wrong image will hold the VI tag, when far better images arrives. Moreover, only one VI possible while for QIs and FPs possible is a bit odd concept.
On the other side, if we give VI badge to all "good enough" pictures, it will end up as a collection of "semi quality" images below "quality images". Is it bad? No I think. :) Jee 06:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Image plethora (Yann) is a new problem, but it exists. One of the ideas that should guide us is the tact and measurement. There must be a reasonable number of views so that the subject is well described. It would be useful to my sense of the limited number of appointment 2 or 3 per day which allows us to have time to make good appointment and we avoid overflows
Cultivars and color cats (Ram-Man & Yann) the fact that we do not have the same definition of "value" is not a disability, but wealth. We have never learned as much as the type of discussion where we are. The subject of cultivars is very difficult. Botany is a universe in itself. Maybe we should think, referents contributors on topics as difficult as cultivars. I do not vote on these images because I feel personally incompetent.
Color cats falls exactly the same process. A species is modified by man to obtain varieties. If the variety is known worldwide obtained we can assign a label, but it would be unreasonable to give a systematic way.
(For Jee), I think we're still at the beginning. To build a large and sustainable building we ambition we need a solid foundation. Labelle VI sums up the meaning of our commitment. It does not seem to me desirable VI becomes a mass label, although I am very attached to it is accessible to all at any time. We just need motivated contributors and not tourists. The roughness of VI is actually an asset that must be determined.
Images with the label VI must be a reference. The best in its scope. So the label may not be final. All labels that I raised will necessarily redistributed. But that does not demotivate me. This is excellent work that should guide us. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • A good solution to emphasize this label, would be in my opinion the automatic display of VIs at the top of the categories (the category of the scope), such as it is at present made with FastCCI, but this time this in a systematic and automatic way. What would be logical because the VIs are supposed to be the best in the scope, thus to be the best representation of the subject of the category. I precise I talk about cartegories and not subcategories, there is a very big difference, and the scope are differents form a category to a subcategory. In summary use FastCCI for QI, FP (and VI of the subcategories) and use an automatic display for VI of the current category where you are looking for. -- Christian Ferrer Talk / Im. / Fav. 17:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
It is the best in scope idea to emphasize the label and revitalize it. :)-- Christian Ferrer Talk / Im. / Fav. 17:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Unarchived for three reasons: I've flipped "minthreads" from 0 to 4 to get a ToC on a non-empty page soon. It was and maybe still is a relevant discussion. Maybe my comment elsewhere was related, because I misssed the discussion here. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

New version taken by Hubble[edit]

Now that Hubble made a new version of the picture, shoul we not replace the old one ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoginkLobabi (talk • contribs)

If you find nice free pictures, please upload them, and if you think they are better than an existing valued picture for a given scope nominate them to shoot it out. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Something wrong[edit]

I'm sorry. Sorry for nominating two images. While categorizing my images I found two similar Valued Images. So one of them can't be a valued images. So what can be done? These are the images:

So I need a little help. Thanks. --XRay talk 19:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I would simply pick one, and remove the VI tag from the other. Thanks for reporting this. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll do this. Thanks. --XRay talk 19:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)