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.
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
2008/8/14 Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com:
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.
That's not true. There have been a few projects where people have been paid to work on Wikipedia. e.g. the Linguist LIST. http://www.linguistlist.org/donation/fund-drive2007/wikipedia/
However, I am unsure how this review will be taking place. Could someone please advise/explain the process for review?
This was my plan. 1. Image is submitted. 2. JIRA issue is set as "in review". During this time, anyone can leave a comment about the image's accuracy and quality. These will be taken into consideration by the Review group in making the final decision. The Review group, as a minimum, check that the sources used were valid (for example, from government sites, or otherwise reliable sources), and check that the image conforms with the sources. Stuff should not be missing or in the wrong place. Labels should point to the right thing. 2a. If there are minor (= fixable) concerns, the image stays in review, and the Review group negotiates the necessary changes with the illustrator until they are satisfied. 3. The review period should probably be at least a week, hopefully 3 weeks or less in total though. When the Review group is ready they can change the status on JIRA to "Accepted". Then that request is basically closed and all is left is for me to contact the illustrator to arrange payment.
If there are major accuracy or copyright concerns, the image may be rejected and that illustrator won't be paid. Of course I hope that never happens, but it is necessary to have it as an option.
So who is the Review group? My original plan was to have 3-5 folks who had experience either as illustrators or as FPC reviewers with some interest in SVGs. I had a few folks lined up but given the long delay, I am waiting to hear back from them if they are still interested to do that (if they have lost interest or are too busy I think it is a bit unfair to announce their name here!).
I did hear back from one of them -- Brad, AKA user:Rocket000. Brad is an administrator on Wikimedia Commons with some significant experience with SVGs. I am really pleased to have Brad working on this with me -- I am sure he will be a considerate and conscientious reviewer.
Is there a dedicated comment
section within the JIRA website for commentary?
Not a dedicated comment section, I think the regular comment section will be fine.
Will we be actively hunting
out experts in the various fields being illustrated to give their 'stamp of approval'?
Is that the "we" as in "someone else", or "we" as in "me and others"? :)
I was not going to actively hunt out experts. I think it is a good idea though. Another idea is to post a notification on the talk page(s) of the relevant articles/wikiprojects.
Does an image get approved if there are no dissenting comments,
or conversely, does it get denied if there are no approving comments?
Hm, neither. I expect the Reviewers to neither rely solely on other people's comments, nor ignore them entirely, either. If no one comments, so be it -- the leg work of actually checking the references still needs to be done.
cheers Brianna
Hi Blech,
2008/8/14 Blech Nic blechnic@yahoo.com:
This should actually be point 1, imo. However, since there appears to be no way to correct inaccuracies, what's the point?
What makes you say there is no way to correct inaccuracies? This round only started four days ago and only received its first submission like 24 hours ago!
I'm sorry if you have had difficulty correcting inaccuracies in images on Wikipedia. PGIP is intended to run with the review stage being a serious part of accepting illustrations. If you would be so gracious as to take part in that, your opinions and recommendations regarding accuracy would be deeply appreciated. (This is true for all experts in relevant fields.)
To make a comment about a submitted images' accuracy, please write on its' JIRA page. The list of JIRA pages for images in review is here: http://ur1.ca/2g3
You don't need to sign up for a JIRA account to leave a comment. e.g. on https://jira.toolserver.org/browse/PGIP-33 there is a link on the left under "Operations" that says "Comment on this issue".
It is useful to leave comments if your opinion is either positive or negative.
Each image will have references/sources listed (on the image page, in the description). It would be useful to point out a) if a listed source is invalid and should be discounted b) if the image deviates from a good listed source, so as to be inaccurate c) if the image deviates from a source you have yourself, such as a standard reference textbook.
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.
Well I'm sure you are aware that there is no part of Wikipedia that is vetted before going live...and that PGIP does not have anything in particular to do with illustrations being put on Wikipedia...if you are volunteering to vet all the biology-related illustration requests, I would be delighted. Likewise for people knowledgeable in other relevant fields.
cheers, Brianna
greenspun-illustrations@lists.wikimedia.org