2007/12/7, Rémi Kaupp kaupp.remi@gmail.com:

Hello Brianna,

Here is some feedback regarding the Greenspun project, as seen by graphists from fr.wikipedia (which I will call fr.graphists in this email). I C/C this email to the Greenspun mailing-list, I guess other people could be interested.

Regarding the way illustrations would be done :

• The images should have a very high quality: they should be reviewed both

by good graphists and by people who know the topic. Images should be assessed both regarding their accuracy, their use of colours, their possible internationalisation, etc. : fr.graphists said that payment should be done after quality has been acknowledged. High quality means using good sources: these sources should be sought beforehand and approved by people involved (zoologists for animal diagrams, for instance). This is a key point for making good diagrams. The source(s) should be quoted/acknowledged on the image description page.

Sure - we should force giving source in such images ;)

• For each illustration, there should be a version with numbered labels and

a blank version, on top of versions with English or other localised labels. The numbered version allows easy reuse on small Wikipedias (without graphists), the blank version allows interactive diagrams using ImageMap for instance.

Disagree. It's trivial to remove labels from labeled image. Going further labeled (with texts) images are much less usable than numbered. It's cause very low resolution of computer displays - text labels eat a lot of screen resolution but don't provide any information to image itself. It's why some people vote oppose on FPC - usable width of image on Wikipedia is up to maybe 600px, and average is about 300, so if image has 50% of width used for empty margins/text labels we loose 50% of effective resolution. Of caurse it doesn't affect printing where we have at least 10 larger resolution for images :) but it worth remembering that text labels are just sexi, but not good at all.

• Each illustration should be translated in as many languages as possible.

This part can be done by volunteers, but the image has to be advertised to them.

Hope you mean description of image (numbered labels in description page).

• Free software should be used if possible. By free software, they mean of

course Inkscape. There are several reasons: first, it is free :-) so in the same spirit as Wikimedia projects; this software can be used by anyone without the need to buy a license; it produces better SVG code than OOo or Illustrator if you don't have the good plugin. Fr.graphists said that this may be a problem with professional graphists, who tend to use more professional tools.

Yes you are 100% right, but I know some professionals that use Inkscape (eg/ Piom and Joystick from pl.wiki who both are professional graphics, but doesn't draw much for WM projects)

• Maybe it goes without saying, but all illustrations should be in SVG

format. PNG is much harder to translate / adapt. ANother good reason to use Inkscape.

Yes it's essential - if someone creates vector graphic and then uploads only PNG version it's against Wikithinking!

• The selection process may be private (ie not open to anyone) as

competition for money should be avoided. When images are produced, they should be made available to everybody for review, criticism, and inspiration !

Yes. Confidential making decision after public debate would avoin stresses :)

• Some fr.graphists were anxious about a possible "en.wikipedia-centrism",

meaning that some illustrations would be useful to the en.wikipedia project but maybe not to others. This can work the other way around too (Wikipedia vs. Wikibooks, etc.). This also means that they should be easy to translate (maybe problematic when jargon or technical language is used). Maybe illustrations for "core topics" should have higher priority as well...

There is always some kind of systemic bias.

Finally, they also said that it would have much more impact to teach graphists to use their tools (Inkscape / GIMP / etc.), to create tutorials, etc. than to pay for a few hundred pictures. This would be much more in the spirit of Wikimedia projects. People could be paid to teach new graphists, to write well-illustrated tutorials, etc., which should also potentially generate less frustration between paid and volunteer graphists. Another way of avoiding this "frustration" is to make sure the diagrams produced in the Greenspun project have a really high quality.

We think same on pl.wiki

The graphists had some general suggestions for the project (which may or may not fit into the objectives) :

• create commonly accepted standards or recommandations for maps and

diagrams. The French Graphic Lab already uses cartographic standards extensively (see [1])

• help User:Sting to finish his cartographic tutorials, and translate them

(see [2])

• Make work together a macro-photographer and a graphist, to produce good

quality diagrams of insects and this sort of stuff (see [3] for instance)

• Get programmers to create a cartographic software for Wikipedia, including

standards, etc.

• Help the development of Inkscape, and the SVG rendering software in

MediaWiki (patterns, masks, some issues with arrows, support for animated SVG...)

Would be great if WMF would donate Inkscape team with eg. symbolic 50k$

Cheers AJF/WarX

Hello all,

Thanks, Remi, for posting this summary of the French discussion.

Regarding the way illustrations would be done :

• The images should have a very high quality: they should be reviewed both

by good graphists and by people who know the topic. Images should be assessed both regarding their accuracy, their use of colours, their possible internationalisation, etc. : fr.graphists said that payment should be done after quality has been acknowledged.

Yes, that will happen by the Review group.

High quality means using good sources: these sources should be sought beforehand and approved by people involved (zoologists for animal diagrams, for instance). This is a key point for making good diagrams. The source(s) should be quoted/acknowledged on the image description page.

I don't know about pre-approving the sources, but illustrators will be required to list the sources and references they use so that they can be verified.

• Some fr.graphists were anxious about a possible "en.wikipedia-centrism",

meaning that some illustrations would be useful to the en.wikipedia project but maybe not to others. This can work the other way around too (Wikipedia vs. Wikibooks, etc.). This also means that they should be easy to translate (maybe problematic when jargon or technical language is used). Maybe illustrations for "core topics" should have higher priority as well...

Yes, to avoid any kind of "centrism" I will finalise the request list myself. It won't just necessarily be whatever anybody suggests.

To have a look at the kind of requests that are being made so far (or to make a request yourself), please see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project/Request... . I will make comments so people can see what kind of requests are likely to make the final list and which are not.

Thankyou very much to the French graphists for all their thoughtful comments and to Remi for summarising them. Many of them I had already thought to do and the others I will keep in mind as the project goes on.

cheers, Brianna Project coordinator