Hi Lodewijk,

As a slight aside to this, and perhaps something that might help ease some of the worries around judging processes in other countries, would it be an idea to have a pool of international WLM Wikimedia jurors that could help judge other countries? Here in Ireland we have done this with Malta, exchanging jurors over the past few years, and for our first WLE this year we had Axel from Sweden be on our jury. You get the benefit of a fellow Wikimedian who understands the whole process, and who could bring some different expertise or perspective to a country's WLM. Having someone who is completely unfamiliar with your local built heritage means they can assess the images with a different take than someone who knows them very well.

After 6 years, we have found it harder to recruit a jury from our pool of active Wikimedians and relevant expert judges from the arts and architecture sectors in Ireland. I know I would really appreciate it if we could "borrow" a juror from another Wikimedia group (in the past we have had some UK help with this too with jurors). We have suffered from jurors dropping out of the process at the last minute or after judging has begun (which results in having to restart rounds in Montage), generally it has been those who are not Wikimedians who perhaps did not fully understand the commitment when they agreed. Not only is it frustrating, it's very stressful. It may be less of an issue this year, given that the deadline for submitting to the international jury won't be at the end of October.

Hope that helps clarify some of the issues some of the smaller countries can face over the years of WLM!

Thanks,

Rebecca

On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 at 23:57, effe iets anders <effeietsanders@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Alexander,

As for the status of Montage requests: I suggest that you start a separate thread on that, and would like to leave this to the maintainers to respond to.

As for publishing the settings: I was imagining some kind of log-style publication, not a near write-up. This won't be pretty, but it will allow people to figure out how it worked out in practice. If we follow a logical naming convention, people should be able to puzzle it together. Ideally, the national organizers also publish their process on the website, but this log would be a way to verify that. But I accept your note that we may need to add a context explaining that more process may happen before/after this tool is used.

Lodewijk
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 3:17 PM Alexander Tsirlin <altsirlin@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Lodewijk,

We also intend to publish by default the settings of the montage jury tool, and the number of photos in each round that the national competitions have used. We're debating whether there should be an opt-out for this year.
This is unrealistic, because jury process may involve several campaigns that are later merged together (in Russia, we do it all the time in order to meet your submission deadline). Moreover, some of the photos can be accepted for the next round within Montage but excluded later on if we find that they do not depict cultural heritage. The end result is that any number you take from Montage will not match the number of photos that we publish (e.g., as a short-list). This will only lead to confusion and won't be of any use for anyone.

Since you mentioned Montage, let me also ask when two important pull requests, which were done by one of our team members, are going to be merged into the code:
https://github.com/hatnote/montage/pull/169
https://github.com/hatnote/montage/pull/175
These are really, really important fixes. Without them I would have a problem creating new Montage campaigns in October.

Sincerely,
Alexander

On 9/2/2020 11:49 PM, effe iets anders wrote:
Hi all,

over the past years, we have had various requests to encourage national organizers to be transparent in their judging processes and who sits on their jury. Most of the national organizers are currently transparent about this already. In the past weeks/month, more conversation around this has continued with some concerns (valid or not) on certain jury processes.

In this light, the international team intends to institute a new expectation for national organizers, namely to publish the members of their jury (be it their username or real life name) at some point. We have not figured out the practical details yet, but I can imagine that while we encourage publication on the website, we would ask national organizers to add a list of jury members to their submission to the international jury - which we then will publish as well.

We also intend to publish by default the settings of the montage jury tool, and the number of photos in each round that the national competitions have used. We're debating whether there should be an opt-out for this year.

We will of course apply at least the same level of transparency to the international jury.

Before we make this decision, I would like to ask for feedback on this, and whether there are edge cases we should consider where such transparency would be harmful. I'll take 1 week to gather some feedback on this, and then we'll make a final decision. You can respond to this on this mailing list, or privately to me.

Warmly,

Lodewijk
_______________________________________________
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments
http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
_______________________________________________
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments
http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
_______________________________________________
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments
http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org