On 12/05/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023@comcast.net wrote:

I think is a very good idea that we should evaluate our coverage and also see that there are many ways we could try do this! Binary/Quantity would probably be easiest, but I like your idea of "quality". It could be like a point system. However, the quality system might be hard to get other users who are looking at our data to understand.

Well, I think 'quality' is important because if we're comparing ourselves to professional organisations like Getty, probably 100% of their work is Quality. If we have 10 photos of something but they're all amatuerish and blurry, that's not necessarily useful (but it does depend on the end user's purpose - it's not to say they're useless, especially if we're comparing against Flickr). Other measures of quality might be image resolution.

David Gerard said:

But, we have plenty of pro photographers who put images up on Commons as GFDL and also license commercial use. Can we collect a pile of them? Write a page on the subject?

Sure, I think that's a good idea too. [[Commons:Meet our photographers]] (Perhaps another one [[Commons:Meet our creators]] or [[Commons:Meet our vector artists]] - think of LadyofHats for example - amazing work.) Have mini bios and photos and get them to write a paragraph about why they license their work freely. That would be a really cool way to reward the superb contributors who donate their fabulous work for us. A) We say "look, we have professionals here" and B) we promote them as well. if someone saw a Wikimedian's bio this way and decided to hire them for some work, I would consider that quite awesome.

We would need some criterion to keep it to the truly professional - perhaps something like 5 or 10 (or 15?) FPs total at either Commons on English Wikipedia?

Can someone run a database query over [[category:featured pictures]] && [[Category:Self-published work]], and rank the image uploaders? then we will have an idea of a reasonable threshold I guess.

cheers Brianna