On 17 April 2014 08:11, Jonathan Cardy <jonathan.cardy(a)wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
For media files there are two things we already have,
size of the file and
who created it.
Filesize doesn't guarantee quality, but there must be a size below which we
just have a blurry thumbnail.
Have a play with
<http://tools.wmflabs.org/faebot/cgi-bin/TARDIS.py?file=TARDIS.jpg&category=TARDIS>,
it would not be hard to adapt into reports.
This gave a way of solving arguments in Commons Deletion Requests by
comparing a file's size and pixel resolution to others in similar
categories. There was no easy way of doing this on-wiki. Knowing that
a file is in the top 25% even by this crude measure, suddenly makes it
appear more valuable, while a doubtful file in the bottom 10% seems a
good candidate for deletion if it is a marginal out of scope case.
Setting "hard" measures for size or resolution is not always
meaningful. Many small images may have educational use and have no
higher resolution equivalent, though in my size comparison report
(off-line) I do have a version that plucks out the smallest images in
a category and passes them back as a re-paste-able gallery for review.
Fae
--
faewik(a)gmail.com
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae