2008/8/14 Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt(a)gmail.com>om>:
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment: