COM:FP and QI problems - Commons-l

28 Mar 2007


      This stems from discussion in the Commons IRC channel last night, and has my
own thoughts expanded somewhat.
Both of the procedures are somewhat broken, they basically come down to the
opinions of the reviewers. I feel the current system somewhat
disenfranchises people who are not regulars; both when nominating imagery or
when commenting on nominees. Part of this is it is *extremely vague* what
the two processes actually want.
Ignoring the difficulties that multiple languages bring lets compare the
English-language guidance for the three processes of interest to
English-language contributors: 1. Commons FPC, 2. Commons QI and 3. the
English WP FPC.
Firstly, COM FPC. It has two sections providing information to help people
inexperienced with the process:
[[COM:FPC#Guidelines for nominators]] and [[COM:FPC#Guidelines for
Evaluating Photographs]].
The first gives *very* brief details about what sort of imagery is expected
and the second drones on and on about technical details. This makes it hard
for new users to begin participating in either side of the process. A lot of
the votes are [[w:WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] or [[w:WP:ILIKEIT]], which isn't
objective - and leads to inconsistency (it depends who votes and what they
like). For example, images of animals taken in a zoo are frowned by some
regulars upon *merely* for being in a zoo. It is not clear from the criteria
why it is a big deal, or if it should be a big deal. Likewise, if you have a
stunning picture of an unidentified beetle, it will fail for being
unidentified - it is not clear from the guidance *why*.
Next, COM QI. This process is designed to be below FP - and is treated that
way. Unlike FPC it has a whole page giving useful guidance on the sort of
things that should be expected of a QI at [[Commons:Quality images
guidelines]]. These focus solely on the technical stuff, which seems
reasonable as QI is about the technical quality of the imagery first and
foremost.
Finally, en FPC which I'm using this for comparative purposes here. Compared
to its counterpart on Commons, enwp FPC seems a much more hospitable
environment for new contributors. There is clear guidance on what is
expected at [[w:WP:WIAFP]]. The comments tend to be significantly more
wordy. Even more positively, when images show flaws regulars there will
often upload edited versions. Currently there are 46 images on COM FPC and
36 on enwp FPC. Over 12 of the en nominations have multiple images, but I
only count about 5 versions with edits on COM FPC.
My conclusion from all this is that enwp FPC is a more collegial process
than Commons. Of course its not perfect, but there are clearly lessons to
learn which we should apply. The fact it is English-only and we are
multilingual is a hindrance for us, but we can work with that. One thing I
noticed, and I think is bizarre is the following. On enwp FPC there is a
section [[w:WP:FPC#Is my monitor calibrated correctly?]] This gives
instructions to on how to carry out gamma correction; which is of key
importance before you can assess technical quality. COM:QI uses one of the
image on its guidelines page. COM FPC doesn't even mention it.
Actually, after an examination of what we "on paper" want from QIC and FPC,
I believe QIC has the more concrete definition and it is *harsher*. This is
clearly back to front. QI is the lesser of the two simply because of
inconsistency in review; its process is designed that way.
Anyway, that's my thoughts on the problems as they currently exist with
these processes. Now what to do about them?
Firstly, lets get Featured picture *criteria* analogous to en's WIAFP.
Obviously our requirements are different (encyclopedic value isn't a major
issue), but a set of concise, precise criteria makes it easier for all
people with any interest in the process. I'll expand on my thoughts as to
what we should include further on. The guidance for monitor calibration
should be copied across ASAP for the obvious reasons.
Secondly, reform is needed in how FP works. If the criteria become more
transparent and less precedent based, that encourages a broader community
giving input. Basically, we want positive feedback given and when a minor
fix is possible, for example reducing noise, ideally it should be carried
out by a reviewer; and the other voters would then review the edit. As well
as improving the atmosphere on the process - it will also improve the
quality of the output.
QIC is in better shape, but needs simplification and clarification. Is it
only about technical quality? If so it should say that. If not what else
matters? If it is only about technical content, should we really expect
everything to be *perfect* - what is reasonable leeway? How about some
enforcement of consistency allow a transparent method of review for
uploaders to say "I disagree with the review by X, I think it was a QI".
As for FPC: Here's my thoughts as to initial criteria - in no order of
importance.
1. Technical quality. Any FP should be able to pass the QI guidelines on
this front, and probably held to even tighter rules. It might be worth
explicitly stating low-resolution is bad.
2. Licensing. We don't actually *say* the image must be free. If we do, we
might actually get the reviewers investigating that properly...
3. A good caption: at a minimum the info needed for a POTD description. If
geo-data would be helpful, it should be included.
4. Value of image. We want to reward good images of difficult subjects and
we should probably give really hard subjects a bit of leeway on technical
quality to get it.
5. Neutrality and accuracy. This would be particularly relevant to maps and
similar images, but would be true for photographs too. In general, the image
should not promote a specific agenda or POV.
Opinions?
Nilfanion