Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wikipedia - FactsMatter2016.webm

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

File:Wikipedia - FactsMatter2016.webm, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2017 at 08:28:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animated
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by VGrigas - uploaded by VGrigas - nominated by -- Mile (talk) 08:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Interesting about Wikipedia. So we arent part of Pay per say.
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support -- Mile (talk) 08:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Interesting --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Now this is interesting. No doubt a very high-quality video, I'm just thinking about the meta of promoting a promotion video for the project. Or should we not overthink this and just look objectively at the quality of it. --cart-Talk 10:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • cart: of course i am not paid PR of a PR. Just how we do here. Unpaid, voluntary, sometimes with sacrifice. Shot thru the screen is sometime hidding the hard part "to get it". Writers, photographers, admins; all is voluntary work. Good to see this video, all those people. --Mile (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I was certainly not suggesting you are doing some paid PR. How on earth did you come to that conclusion?? I was speaking about all of us as a community and if we should promote a promotion of the project we are working on, that is what "meta" stands for. I have nothing against the video, it is excellent work made by volunteers like us. cart-Talk 15:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • cart: I know, see here, just first word. --Mile (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support - The video didn't play at all the first time and played with fits and starts the second time, but assuming that's a problem with the software and not the file, I think it's a very good video, and I also think that we can judge Wikimedia videos fairly. As I recall, there was previously a Wikipedia video that was not approved for a feature because it was found wanting in various ways. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Strong support The best video I've seen nominated here yet, and no I'm not biased by this being an in-house product.

    This is a very timely reminder of how what we do, what we all do, is more important than we may be thinking as we do it, especially in this historical moment. And it makes its point subtly but unmistakeably ... the first line is the most overtly relevant, but then the juxtaposition of the general statement of the importance of verifiability in Wikipedia and screenshots of articles about contentious or momentous events from the past year (and just "2016" ... need we say more?) are even louder. You can't ignore the subtext.

    And then the images of the community at work ... it really makes me feel proud to be part of this group of people, some of whose acquaintance I have made at Wikimanias past.

    On Christmas morning, I chanced to read a letter to the editor of my local newspaper where the writer starts off by recounting a report of a celebrity's apparent death on his Facebook feed, and then, "I questioned the item's credibility, given the person's age and good health, so I looked on CNN.com, then Wikipedia". While one can make sardonic jokes about being associated with CNN given some of that network's recent swoons, I found it interesting that he included us without any apparent irony, and no other media outlet. That's what you earn when you take verifiability seriously, as this video asserts. We've come a long way. Daniel Case (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment - I think you are right, and in addition, this might be a good time for everyone to remember that we are supposed to be subjective in judging whether a photo or video should be featured or not. If we weren't supposed to be subjective, at the very least, we would have a checklist of criteria that had to be checked off, with x-number of checks equaling a feature, or some other boring mechanical process. But instead, "wow" is expressly mentioned as the dividing line between QIs and FPs. And I don't think most of us would be able to agree on objective criteria for "wow", even if we had guns pointed at our heads. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Reading the above, I can throw false modesty out the window and just support this excellently crafted video. It is well paced, the cutting of video flows very well with the audio, the camera work is good (no awkward angles), texting actually timed with some of the music, it uses low-key shots for parts where the narrative is in focus, it provides an overview as well as some nice details. I particularly like the scene when the focus goes from someone editing on a laptop to a guy checking a book for |author= and |title= , a gesture I've done hundreds of times when editing articles, that looks almost too good to be chance. It is a movie shot that could have been scripted and rehearsed, but it is probably just the photographer having a very good eye for capturing things. Good work VGrigas! --cart-Talk 09:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support lNeverCry 09:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Jee 05:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support -- Thennicke (talk) 10:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animated