In chronological order: #1: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011#Quality #2: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Anh%C3%A4user_Mauer.jpg #3: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:M%C4%83n%C4%83stirea_Chiajna_-_Giule%C8%99ti.jpg
:-(
I have had the same issue with the Best Photo of Kosovo contest, but we had some small winners. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/BestPictureOfKosovoForWikipediaContest mike
2011/12/12 Tomasz Kozłowski odder.wiki@gmail.com:
In chronological order: #1: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011#Quality #2: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Anh%C3%A4user_Mauer.jpg #3: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:M%C4%83n%C4%83stirea_Chiajna_-_Giule%C8%99ti.jpg
:-(
-- Tomasz Kozłowski | [[user:odder]]
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
we have one FP from WLM https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Drottningholm_Palace_-_panorama_sept... and we have a number of QI and VI from WLM in Sweden, for example, one of the finalists https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tv%C3%A5_vattentorn.jpg.%C2%A0Maybe we should nominate more pictures, there are certainly many images of high technical quality that was not included in the final.
Arild
----- Ursprungligt meddelande ---- Från: Mike Dupont jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com Till: Wiki Loves Monuments Photograph Competition wikilovesmonuments@lists.wikimedia.org Kopia: Skickat: måndag, 12 december 2011 20:32 Ämne: Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Wiki Loves Monuments was crap, it's high time to admit it!
I have had the same issue with the Best Photo of Kosovo contest, but we had some small winners. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/BestPictureOfKosovoForWikipediaContest mike
2011/12/12 Tomasz Kozłowski odder.wiki@gmail.com:
In chronological order: #1: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011#Quality #2: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Anh%C3%A4user_Mauer.jpg #3: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:M%C4%83n%C4%83stirea_Chiajna_-_Giule%C8%99ti.jpg
:-(
-- Tomasz Kozłowski | [[user:odder]]
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
While some valid points have been raised in these discussions, there was also a lot of bullshit (pardon my language, but there is no other way of putting it) from some people who can't look beyond the current project. It would be unfair from me to respond to those here, but I will most certainly respond onwiki as time allows.
What I do note as something that could easily be avoided is having "ten more crappy images of the Eiffel Tower" in order to get some more obscure monuments on-wiki. I strongly suggest that in countries that participate in WLM2011 we limit the eligible monuments to those without an image.
In order to do this, we need better tools. I'm currently working on a robot that can fill the lists automatically based on the articles that contain a specific monument-id, and also searches for mistakes in the lists. I certaily hope I'll be able to make it work for other countries and I also hope that Nuno, Maarten, Platonides and the rest of the folks that gave us those great reporting tools will also find the time to develop tools for improving the usage of the newly uploaded pictures.
Strainu
2011/12/12 Mike Dupont jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com:
I have had the same issue with the Best Photo of Kosovo contest, but we had some small winners. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/BestPictureOfKosovoForWikipediaContest mike
2011/12/12 Tomasz Kozłowski odder.wiki@gmail.com:
In chronological order: #1: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011#Quality #2: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Anh%C3%A4user_Mauer.jpg #3: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:M%C4%83n%C4%83stirea_Chiajna_-_Giule%C8%99ti.jpg
:-(
-- Tomasz Kozłowski | [[user:odder]]
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
-- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
What I do note as something that could easily be avoided is having "ten more crappy images of the Eiffel Tower" in order to get some more obscure monuments on-wiki. I strongly suggest that in countries that participate in WLM2011 we limit the eligible monuments to those without an image.
In order to do this, we need better tools. I'm currently working on a robot that can fill the lists automatically based on the articles that contain a specific monument-id, and also searches for mistakes in the lists. I certaily hope I'll be able to make it work for other countries and I also hope that Nuno, Maarten, Platonides and the rest of the folks that gave us those great reporting tools will also find the time to develop tools for improving the usage of the newly uploaded pictures.
Strainu
I think this is a good direction, but I can not support the proposal in this form. What if we have just one crappy image? What if we have the image of the exterior, would we need the image of the interior? What if we have several monuments under one code?
Cheers Yaroslav
2011/12/12 Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru:
I think this is a good direction, but I can not support the proposal in this form. What if we have just one crappy image? What if we have the image of the exterior, would we need the image of the interior? What if we have several monuments under one code?
Then you could just make a list of ineligible monuments. The problem is that without a clear rule, you will have trouble explaining this "non-ok list" to the participants. It's unfortunate that you have multiple monuments with the same code. In Romania, this is solved by appending 2 more digits at the end of the code. Perhaps you could generate an "unofficial" code using a similar algorithm?
Strainu
2011/12/12 Yaroslav M. Blanterputevod@mccme.ru:
I think this is a good direction, but I can not support the proposal in this form. What if we have just one crappy image? What if we have the image of the exterior, would we need the image of the interior? What if we have several monuments under one code?
Let's put it a bit stronger. I would never support such a proposal. I support positive steering ("we encourage you to upload photo's of monuments that not yet have a (good) picture"), not negative steering ("WLM2011 we limit the eligible monuments to those without an image").
Op 12-12-2011 21:31, Strainu schreef:
Then you could just make a list of ineligible monuments. The problem is that without a clear rule, you will have trouble explaining this "non-ok list" to the participants. It's unfortunate that you have multiple monuments with the same code. In Romania, this is solved by appending 2 more digits at the end of the code. Perhaps you could generate an "unofficial" code using a similar algorithm?
That borders original research.
Maarten
2011/12/12 Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl
2011/12/12 Yaroslav M. Blanterputevod@mccme.ru:
I think this is a good direction, but I can not support the proposal in this form. What if we have just one crappy image? What if we have the
image
of the exterior, would we need the image of the interior? What if we
have
several monuments under one code?
Let's put it a bit stronger. I would never support such a proposal. I support positive steering ("we encourage you to upload photo's of monuments that not yet have a (good) picture"), not negative steering ("WLM2011 we limit the eligible monuments to those without an image").
Yes, I agree that positive steering is better. We could have one of the judging criteria to be uniqueness or value adding, and explain that when images are similar in other criterias, the ones that bring in new aspects to Commons will be regarded higher.
Jan Ainali
_______________________________________________
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
2011/12/12 Jan Ainali jan.ainali@wikimedia.se:
2011/12/12 Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl
2011/12/12 Yaroslav M. Blanterputevod@mccme.ru:
I think this is a good direction, but I can not support the proposal in this form. What if we have just one crappy image? What if we have the image of the exterior, would we need the image of the interior? What if we have several monuments under one code?
Let's put it a bit stronger. I would never support such a proposal. I support positive steering ("we encourage you to upload photo's of monuments that not yet have a (good) picture"), not negative steering ("WLM2011 we limit the eligible monuments to those without an image").
Then you're bound to encounter the same kind of criticism as this year.
Yes, I agree that positive steering is better. We could have one of the judging criteria to be uniqueness or value adding, and explain that when images are similar in other criterias, the ones that bring in new aspects to Commons will be regarded higher.
What you want (and what people are saying on these pages) is a Commons contest, not a photo contest. That is, with a Wiki(p|m)edia jury and all. You can't reasonably expect to have professional photographers in the jury and ask them to rate based on the utility for a certain site.
This would be a big step backwards from this year's contest in my opinion and a huge failed opportunity for a lot of content to be freed. I'm fairly sure many photographers will be reluctant to participate with hi res images.
Strainu
Well this is why we should have prize money. I would be willing to even donate a small amount for prizes for kosovo if it was tax deductable (in germany where I live). mike On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
2011/12/12 Jan Ainali jan.ainali@wikimedia.se:
2011/12/12 Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl
2011/12/12 Yaroslav M. Blanterputevod@mccme.ru:
I think this is a good direction, but I can not support the proposal in this form. What if we have just one crappy image? What if we have the image of the exterior, would we need the image of the interior? What if we have several monuments under one code?
Let's put it a bit stronger. I would never support such a proposal. I support positive steering ("we encourage you to upload photo's of monuments that not yet have a (good) picture"), not negative steering ("WLM2011 we limit the eligible monuments to those without an image").
Then you're bound to encounter the same kind of criticism as this year.
Yes, I agree that positive steering is better. We could have one of the judging criteria to be uniqueness or value adding, and explain that when images are similar in other criterias, the ones that bring in new aspects to Commons will be regarded higher.
What you want (and what people are saying on these pages) is a Commons contest, not a photo contest. That is, with a Wiki(p|m)edia jury and all. You can't reasonably expect to have professional photographers in the jury and ask them to rate based on the utility for a certain site.
This would be a big step backwards from this year's contest in my opinion and a huge failed opportunity for a lot of content to be freed. I'm fairly sure many photographers will be reluctant to participate with hi res images.
Strainu
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
We're going a bit too fast here :)
Yes, there are things to be improved when it comes to the jury process - I agree on that with Tomasz. However, I don't agree on the specifics. But Most importantly: this is not the time yet to discuss that. If we start hammering out these details now, we get in trouble later - lets do things in the right order, and get the participating countries on board first. Thén we can have a decent discussion about jury etc. Last year we had this discussion at our May meeting in Berlin, and I thought that timing was excellent. So lets wait until then with discussing that in detail - and just conclude for now there are things to be improved. It is unfair to the countries that will want to participate, but are not ready to do so *yet* (because they follow a time line ending in September 2012), if we start making decisions like this already.
Lodewijk
No dia 12 de Dezembro de 2011 22:02, Mike Dupont < jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com> escreveu:
Well this is why we should have prize money. I would be willing to even donate a small amount for prizes for kosovo if it was tax deductable (in germany where I live). mike On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
2011/12/12 Jan Ainali jan.ainali@wikimedia.se:
2011/12/12 Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl
2011/12/12 Yaroslav M. Blanterputevod@mccme.ru:
I think this is a good direction, but I can not support the
proposal in
this form. What if we have just one crappy image? What if we have
the
image of the exterior, would we need the image of the interior? What if we have several monuments under one code?
Let's put it a bit stronger. I would never support such a proposal. I support positive steering ("we encourage you to upload photo's of monuments that not yet have a (good) picture"), not negative steering ("WLM2011 we limit the eligible monuments to those without an image").
Then you're bound to encounter the same kind of criticism as this year.
Yes, I agree that positive steering is better. We could have one of the judging criteria to be uniqueness or value adding, and explain that when images are similar in other criterias, the ones that bring in new
aspects to
Commons will be regarded higher.
What you want (and what people are saying on these pages) is a Commons contest, not a photo contest. That is, with a Wiki(p|m)edia jury and all. You can't reasonably expect to have professional photographers in the jury and ask them to rate based on the utility for a certain site.
This would be a big step backwards from this year's contest in my opinion and a huge failed opportunity for a lot of content to be freed. I'm fairly sure many photographers will be reluctant to participate with hi res images.
Strainu
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
-- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
2011/12/12 Strainu strainu10@gmail.com
2011/12/12 Jan Ainali jan.ainali@wikimedia.se:
2011/12/12 Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl
2011/12/12 Yaroslav M. Blanterputevod@mccme.ru:
I think this is a good direction, but I can not support the proposal
in
this form. What if we have just one crappy image? What if we have the image of the exterior, would we need the image of the interior? What if we have several monuments under one code?
Let's put it a bit stronger. I would never support such a proposal. I support positive steering ("we encourage you to upload photo's of monuments that not yet have a (good) picture"), not negative steering ("WLM2011 we limit the eligible monuments to those without an image").
Then you're bound to encounter the same kind of criticism as this year.
Yes, I agree that positive steering is better. We could have one of the judging criteria to be uniqueness or value adding, and explain that when images are similar in other criterias, the ones that bring in new
aspects to
Commons will be regarded higher.
What you want (and what people are saying on these pages) is a Commons contest, not a photo contest.
Yes, you are right, I do want a Commons contest. If I wanted a photo contest I would support the Metro challenge (or any arbitrary contest) instead. I would rather see 10 000 only fairly decent pictures of previously not documented cultural heritage sites than 10 000 featured pictures of the well documented ones. If that means we cannot have a jury of professional photographers, so be it, they are just a mean, not the purpose.
/Jan
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
On 12/12/2011 10:40 PM, Maarten Dammers wrote:
2011/12/12 Yaroslav M. Blanterputevod@mccme.ru:
I think this is a good direction, but I can not support the proposal in this form. What if we have just one crappy image? What if we have the image of the exterior, would we need the image of the interior? What if we have several monuments under one code?
Let's put it a bit stronger. I would never support such a proposal. I support positive steering ("we encourage you to upload photo's of monuments that not yet have a (good) picture"), not negative steering ("WLM2011 we limit the eligible monuments to those without an image").
I am also *against* such a proposal for two reasons: - putting too many rules and making it complicated, the result is making in not fun for the participants, so I expect a lot less people to participate. getting new people to start contributing is not one of the purposes? - what if we have 10 not crap, but average pictures of certain monument and someone want to send the 11-th, which is *really good*, we discourage that?
On a constructive tone, I think this is easily solved at the jury level, just make the Wikipedia usefulness one of the noting criteria, even if the picture is wonderful done technically and artistically, if there are other reasonable pics of that monument on Commons, just don't give it the maximum score - in Romania the jury gave 3 notes: artistic, technical and usefulness, each pondered: 50%, 30%, 20%.
Op 12-12-2011 21:31, Strainu schreef:
Then you could just make a list of ineligible monuments. The problem is that without a clear rule, you will have trouble explaining this "non-ok list" to the participants. It's unfortunate that you have multiple monuments with the same code. In Romania, this is solved by appending 2 more digits at the end of the code. Perhaps you could generate an "unofficial" code using a similar algorithm?
That borders original research.
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Nicu Buculei nicubunu@gmail.com wrote:
On a constructive tone, I think this is easily solved at the jury level, just make the Wikipedia usefulness one of the noting criteria, even if the picture is wonderful done technically and artistically, if there are other reasonable pics of that monument on Commons, just don't give it the maximum score - in Romania the jury gave 3 notes: artistic, technical and usefulness, each pondered: 50%, 30%, 20%.
I second something like this. At the end of the day, Commons doesn't need yet another bad picture of the Eiffel Tower, but it still needs more than one picture of that little beautiful church in Southern Hungary, which only has one picture of the front door. Maybe in the description of the contest we should emphasize the importance of all monuments, not just the major ones which are already well described by the pics that are already on Commons. Cruccone
Hi Strainu,
Op 12-12-2011 20:42, Strainu schreef:
In order to do this, we need better tools. I'm currently working on a robot that can fill the lists automatically based on the articles that contain a specific monument-id
You might want to borrow some code from my NRHP bot. It extract id's of listings from a infobox to add it to a list.
, and also searches for mistakes in the lists. I certaily hope I'll be able to make it work for other countries and I also hope that Nuno, Maarten, Platonides and the rest of the folks that gave us those great reporting tools will also find the time to develop tools for improving the usage of the newly uploaded pictures.
So you want to find photos to add to the lists? We actually have such a tool, but I kind of forgot to advertise it. Some examples: * https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuari:Multichill/Unused_BIC * https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Elya/Ungenutzte_Bilder * https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Multichill/Unused_Denkmal_%C3%96sterreich * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Histo... * https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Multichill/Unused_BIC * https://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project:Vikiprojekt_Kultuurip%C3%A4rand/Kasuta... * https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Multichill/Unused_monument_photos * https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project:Wikiproject/Erfgoed/Belgische_Erfgoed_... * https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project:Wikiproject/Erfgoed/Nederlandse_Erfgoe... * https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Multichill/Unused_monument_photos * https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Multichill/Unused_IGESPAR_photos * https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Multichill/Unused_cultural_heritage_monum... * https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Multichill/Unused_cultural_heritage_monum...
It looks like it was enabled for the rowp, but that it doesn't work right now: * https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Multichill/Unused_Monument_istoric
I'll have a look at it now.
Maarten
2011/12/12 Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl:
Hi Strainu,
Hey,
So you want to find photos to add to the lists? We actually have such a tool, but I kind of forgot to advertise it. Some examples:
That's great news. Unfortunately, the images should be hand-picked anyway in the vast majority of cases. Your tool certainly helps a lot with that, but I also want to detect errors, put up coordinates etc.
It looks like it was enabled for the rowp, but that it doesn't work right now:
I'll have a look at it now.
Thanks a lot.
well my two cents :
Picking photos is best done on some social media platform. Putting the photos on flickr, on facebook etc is a good way to get lots of people to help.
mike
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 9:44 PM, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
2011/12/12 Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl:
Hi Strainu,
Hey,
So you want to find photos to add to the lists? We actually have such a tool, but I kind of forgot to advertise it. Some examples:
That's great news. Unfortunately, the images should be hand-picked anyway in the vast majority of cases. Your tool certainly helps a lot with that, but I also want to detect errors, put up coordinates etc.
It looks like it was enabled for the rowp, but that it doesn't work right now:
I'll have a look at it now.
Thanks a lot.
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
One More: For Austria we have a tool too: http://toolserver.org/~alexxw/Denkmalliste/index.php?Gemeinde=-keine-&ac...
Greets
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 21:44, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
2011/12/12 Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl:
Hi Strainu,
Hey,
So you want to find photos to add to the lists? We actually have such a tool, but I kind of forgot to advertise it. Some examples:
That's great news. Unfortunately, the images should be hand-picked anyway in the vast majority of cases. Your tool certainly helps a lot with that, but I also want to detect errors, put up coordinates etc.
It looks like it was enabled for the rowp, but that it doesn't work right now:
I'll have a look at it now.
Thanks a lot.
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:44:43PM +0200, Strainu wrote:
2011/12/12 Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl:
Hi Strainu,
Hey,
So you want to find photos to add to the lists? We actually have such a tool, but I kind of forgot to advertise it. Some examples:
That's great news. Unfortunately, the images should be hand-picked anyway in the vast majority of cases. Your tool certainly helps a lot with that, but I also want to detect errors, put up coordinates etc.
The only thing the tool does is make a list of pictures that has an ID where the ID on the list doesn't have a picture yet. So the tool only helps you to group the pictures, and indeed you have to hand-pick them.
There are already other tools that from the lists will put coordinates on pictures tagged with an ID as well.
Regards,
Andre
2011/12/12 Andre Koopal andre@molens.org:
There are already other tools that from the lists will put coordinates on pictures tagged with an ID as well.
Can you provide some links please? I'm trying to keep up with all the cool stuff that's happening around the images from WLM, but it's getting harder (which is a good sign!). In the specific case of Romanian monuments, I'm more likely to encounter the other case - articles or images have coordinated, but the list doesn't - wh only have about 100 cordinates in the list.
Strainu
Hi Strainu,
Op 12-12-2011 22:03, Strainu schreef:
2011/12/12 Andre Koopalandre@molens.org:
There are already other tools that from the lists will put coordinates on pictures tagged with an ID as well.
Can you provide some links please? I'm trying to keep up with all the cool stuff that's happening around the images from WLM, but it's getting harder (which is a good sign!).
That's exactly one of the weaknesses we identified in the evaluation: We have a lot of tools, documentation and other things, but it's not well structured at all making it impossible to find.
In the specific case of Romanian monuments, I'm more likely to encounter the other case - articles or images have coordinated, but the list doesn't - wh only have about 100 cordinates in the list.
Most of the tools are described at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011/Tools The flow of information for the coordinates is: List on Wikipedia -> database -> bot on Commons. So exactly in the wrong direction for you. This is by the way the reason why I'm not automagicly adding images. I would create a loop: List on Wikipedia -> image & id in database -> bot on Commons adds identifier template to image. Image on Commons with identifier -> compare with list -> bot adds image to list in Wikipedia. Anyway, back to the coordinates. On Commons we use the coordinates of the photographer. That's next to the object, but not exact. You could maybe use a tool like http://toolserver.org/~locator/coordinates.php here?
Maarten
Hi Strainu,
Op 12-12-2011 21:44, Strainu schreef:
It looks like it was enabled for the rowp, but that it doesn't work right now:
I'll have a look at it now.
Thanks a lot.
Turned out we have some uppercase and lowercase mismatches. Now turned it into case sensitive and got a fairly large list at https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilizator:Multichill/Unused_Monument_istoric
On the Dutch Wikipedia a lot of people work on this. Maybe an advertisement at your local village pump to get more people involved?
Maarten
Ps. Same goes of course for the other Wikipedia's who still have a lot of photos to add
Well, if I may, that was a main concern while building our tool: http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org.pt/tools/plist
We wanted to know, in the end, the impact of WLM on everything we already had. So through that tool we can know which articles without photo got photographed, which photos don't even have an article, etc. These metrics are important when you want to state that WLM brought indeed benefit for WM projects.
The same way, our WP heritage lists are reconstructed using this tool - still manually, though.
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:15:31PM +0000, Nuno Tavares wrote:
Well, if I may, that was a main concern while building our tool: http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org.pt/tools/plist
We wanted to know, in the end, the impact of WLM on everything we already had. So through that tool we can know which articles without photo got photographed, which photos don't even have an article, etc. These metrics are important when you want to state that WLM brought indeed benefit for WM projects.
The same way, our WP heritage lists are reconstructed using this tool - still manually, though.
This is partly the same problem as we generally face for GLAM projects, how are the images used over the projects, so it might be worth making sure we don't reinvent the wheel.
I think Multichill added WLM already to some general stats tool, maybe he can give the link although it wasn't working during GLAMcamp.
Regards,
Andre
Op 13-12-2011 13:39, Andre Koopal schreef:
I think Multichill added WLM already to some general stats tool, maybe he can give the link although it wasn't working during GLAMcamp.
http://toolserver.org/~magnus/glamorous.php?doit=1&category=Images_from_... & http://toolserver.org/~magnus/baglama.php?group=Images+from+Wiki+Loves+Monum... :-)
Mind you that some Wikipedia's don't have the lists of monuments in article namespace and thus won't show up in the second tool. I would like to encourage the Wikipedia's where this is the case to look into integrating the list into the main encyclopedia :-)
Maarten
In Spanish Wikipedia, lists aren't in article namespace, because they are in "Anexos" namespaces. All lists were moved to this space some years ago, and we shouldn't move them to the main space.
Millars
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:46:38 +0100 From: maarten@mdammers.nl To: wikilovesmonuments@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Wiki Loves Monuments was crap, it's high time to admit it!
Op 13-12-2011 13:39, Andre Koopal schreef:
I think Multichill added WLM already to some general stats tool, maybe he can give the link although it wasn't working during GLAMcamp.
http://toolserver.org/~magnus/glamorous.php?doit=1&category=Images_from_... & http://toolserver.org/~magnus/baglama.php?group=Images+from+Wiki+Loves+Monum... :-)
Mind you that some Wikipedia's don't have the lists of monuments in article namespace and thus won't show up in the second tool. I would like to encourage the Wikipedia's where this is the case to look into integrating the list into the main encyclopedia :-)
Maarten
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
Hi Santiago,
Op 13-12-2011 20:34, Santiago Navarro Sanz schreef:
In Spanish Wikipedia, lists aren't in article namespace, because they are in "Anexos" namespaces. All lists were moved to this space some years ago, and we shouldn't move them to the main space.
I know. You have a dedicated namespace for lists, so of course your lists should be there. I believe they have the same setup in Portuguese. I meant the Wikipedia's where the lists are a bit hidden: * Belarus (be-x-old) in Wikipedia namespace * Estonia (et) in Wikipedia namespace * Norway (no )in Wikipedia namespace * Poland (pl) in Wikiproject namespace * Russia (ru) in Wikipedia namespace
I'm afraid that over time, when Wiki Loves Monuments is over, these lists will be neglected or worse. Something I doubt will happen if they're part of the main encyclopedia.
Maarten
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 20:25:22 +0100, Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl wrote:
- Russia (ru) in Wikipedia namespace
Most of the Russian lists are now on Commons. I will try to make sure they move to the main space in Russian Wikipedia in the end of August. Nobody seems to be interested at the moment in inserting existing photo into existing lists (which are indeed in Russian Wikipedia), but with this job I can not help (I can do it if these list will be moved to Commons as well).
Cheers Yaroslav
I miss pictures who document the monuments and is more then a nice picture.
Nina Sendt fra min iPad
Den 12. des. 2011 kl. 20:28 skrev Tomasz Kozłowski odder.wiki@gmail.com:
In chronological order: #1: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011#Quality #2: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Anh%C3%A4user_Mauer.jpg #3: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:M%C4%83n%C4%83stirea_Chiajna_-_Giule%C8%99ti.jpg
:-(
-- Tomasz Kozłowski | [[user:odder]]
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
W dniu 12 grudnia 2011 20:28 użytkownik Tomasz Kozłowski odder.wiki@gmail.com napisał:
#2: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Anh%C3%A4user_Mauer.jpg #3: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:M%C4%83n%C4%83stirea_Chiajna_-_Giule%C8%99ti.jpg
Well.. there were better and worse pictures of course out of 0,5 milion uploaded... I guess no-one expected to have high qaulity pictures only in such a mass contest. But anyway - for the future - selection and jury process for sure should be changed. As we cannot of course expect that all the newbie, amatour photographers will follow quality requirements of Commons - we should at least expect that jury members will take it into serious account. In several countries the jurys seem to completely ignore these requirements. The, EU level jury had only those pictures which were selected locally...
For the next year I would suggest to a) select first pictures with minimal technical quality (no low res, no obvious over and under exposure, no obvious framing mistake such as cut of top of the church's tower, etc) and get rid with all others - this step could be done by organisers not the local juries. b) then let local jury analyze its artistic, wow and uniqness factors...
wikilovesmonuments@lists.wikimedia.org