Although I am not aware of the circumstances of your comment and being 'scolded' I do think you are right in that the PGIP process needs to have a review phase where errors, omissions and general quality-assessment is undertaken. We are, after all, going to be the first people to be actually paying people to create things for wiki. 

There is indeed a review phase built into the PGIP tracking website already which can be found here:
https://jira.toolserver.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&pid=10190&status=10003
this is the list of images that have been already submitted and as yet not 'signed off'.

However, I am unsure how this review will be taking place. Could someone please advise/explain the process for review? Is there a dedicated comment section within the JIRA website for commentary? Will we be actively hunting out experts in the various fields being illustrated to give their 'stamp of approval'? Does an image get approved if there are no dissenting comments, or conversely, does it get denied if there are no approving comments?

Perhaps if these questions are answered then Blech's concerns will be addressed. 
Blech - yes indeed policy does get thrown around by editors with alarming frequency sometimes. But don't despair with the whole PGIP concept just because the process still has flaws. This is the first time that anyone is doing this and so we're all learning and evolving new policy and practice. Please be patient and remember that even if an image isn't perfect - it is better than what we currently have. Nothing. 

Best, 
-Liam Wyatt

wikipediaweekly.org
Skype - Wittylama
Wikipedia - [[User:Witty lama]]



On 14/08/2008, at 4:13 PM, Blech Nic wrote:

This should actually be point 1, imo.  However, since there appears to be no way to correct inaccuracies, what's the point?  I was interested in this project and willing to spend some time with it because of repeated serious problems with biological illustrations on en.Wikipedia.  These problems are then transferred to other language Wikis.  But my commenting on problems with an image got me the usual uber-Wiki-I-am-your-daddy-I-will-now-scold-you response.  I'm tired off having all of these cyber daddies who want to lord it over me that I'm not obsessed with slapping Wikipedia policy around at people.

I can't imagine why there would not only not be a procedure in place whereby people who are not professional illustrators, but do know biology well enough to correct illustrations, could have a part BEFORE an image gets put up on Wikipedia.

This is apparently not the case.  No part of the project currently involves accuracy, therefore, please keep the inaccurate images off of en and all other Wikipedias and off of commons, until this issue is addressed.

Feel free to remove me from this list.  I can't imagine anything that could make my experience on Wikipedia any worse than it already has been until now I'm faced with watching a bunch of bad illustrations being created to make Wikipedia's science even worse off than it is.  Someone ought to refund Greenspun's money, though. I'm betting that's not what he intended to spend it on.

B.

_______________________________________________
greenspun-illustrations mailing list
greenspun-illustrations@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/greenspun-illustrations