Re: [Commons-l] COM:FP and QI problems

On 3/28/07, nilfanion wiki nilfanion@googlemail.com wrote:

This stems from discussion in the Commons IRC channel last night, and has my own thoughts expanded somewhat.

Both of the procedures are somewhat broken, they basically come down to the opinions of the reviewers. I feel the current system somewhat disenfranchises people who are not regulars; both when nominating imagery or when commenting on nominees. Part of this is it is *extremely vague* what the two processes actually want.

Ignoring the difficulties that multiple languages bring lets compare the English-language guidance for the three processes of interest to English-language contributors: 1. Commons FPC, 2. Commons QI and 3. the English WP FPC.

Firstly, COM FPC. It has two sections providing information to help people inexperienced with the process: [[COM:FPC#Guidelines for nominators]] and [[COM:FPC#Guidelines for Evaluating Photographs]].

The first gives *very* brief details about what sort of imagery is expected and the second drones on and on about technical details. This makes it hard for new users to begin participating in either side of the process. A lot of the votes are [[w:WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] or [[w:WP:ILIKEIT]], which isn't objective - and leads to inconsistency (it depends who votes and what they like). For example, images of animals taken in a zoo are frowned by some regulars upon *merely* for being in a zoo. It is not clear from the criteria why it is a big deal, or if it should be a big deal. Likewise, if you have a stunning picture of an unidentified beetle, it will fail for being unidentified - it is not clear from the guidance *why*.

Next, COM QI. This process is designed to be below FP - and is treated that way. Unlike FPC it has a whole page giving useful guidance on the sort of things that should be expected of a QI at [[Commons:Quality images guidelines]]. These focus solely on the technical stuff, which seems reasonable as QI is about the technical quality of the imagery first and foremost.

Finally, en FPC which I'm using this for comparative purposes here. Compared to its counterpart on Commons, enwp FPC seems a much more hospitable environment for new contributors. There is clear guidance on what is expected at [[w:WP:WIAFP]]. The comments tend to be significantly more wordy. Even more positively, when images show flaws regulars there will often upload edited versions. Currently there are 46 images on COM FPC and 36 on enwp FPC. Over 12 of the en nominations have multiple images, but I only count about 5 versions with edits on COM FPC.

My conclusion from all this is that enwp FPC is a more collegial process than Commons. Of course its not perfect, but there are clearly lessons to learn which we should apply. The fact it is English-only and we are multilingual is a hindrance for us, but we can work with that. One thing I noticed, and I think is bizarre is the following. On enwp FPC there is a section [[w:WP:FPC#Is my monitor calibrated correctly?]] This gives instructions to on how to carry out gamma correction; which is of key importance before you can assess technical quality. COM:QI uses one of the image on its guidelines page. COM FPC doesn't even mention it.

Actually, after an examination of what we "on paper" want from QIC and FPC, I believe QIC has the more concrete definition and it is *harsher*. This is clearly back to front. QI is the lesser of the two simply because of inconsistency in review; its process is designed that way.

Anyway, that's my thoughts on the problems as they currently exist with these processes. Now what to do about them?

Firstly, lets get Featured picture *criteria* analogous to en's WIAFP. Obviously our requirements are different (encyclopedic value isn't a major issue), but a set of concise, precise criteria makes it easier for all people with any interest in the process. I'll expand on my thoughts as to what we should include further on. The guidance for monitor calibration should be copied across ASAP for the obvious reasons.

Secondly, reform is needed in how FP works. If the criteria become more transparent and less precedent based, that encourages a broader community giving input. Basically, we want positive feedback given and when a minor fix is possible, for example reducing noise, ideally it should be carried out by a reviewer; and the other voters would then review the edit. As well as improving the atmosphere on the process - it will also improve the quality of the output.

QIC is in better shape, but needs simplification and clarification. Is it only about technical quality? If so it should say that. If not what else matters? If it is only about technical content, should we really expect everything to be *perfect* - what is reasonable leeway? How about some enforcement of consistency allow a transparent method of review for uploaders to say "I disagree with the review by X, I think it was a QI".

As for FPC: Here's my thoughts as to initial criteria - in no order of importance.

1. Technical quality. Any FP should be able to pass the QI guidelines on

this front, and probably held to even tighter rules. It might be worth explicitly stating low-resolution is bad. 2. Licensing. We don't actually *say* the image must be free. If we do, we might actually get the reviewers investigating that properly... 3. A good caption: at a minimum the info needed for a POTD description. If geo-data would be helpful, it should be included. 4. Value of image. We want to reward good images of difficult subjects and we should probably give really hard subjects a bit of leeway on technical quality to get it. 5. Neutrality and accuracy. This would be particularly relevant to maps and similar images, but would be true for photographs too. In general, the image should not promote a specific agenda or POV.

Opinions?

Nilfanion

---

Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Thing is that QI was supposed to be a little less strict than FPC to encourage people

== Purpose ==

The purpose of quality images is to encourage the people (...) While featured pictures identifies the absolute best of all the images loaded into Commons, Quality images **** sets out to identify and encourage users efforts in providing quality images to Commons.***

Additionally quality images should be a place to refer other users to when explaining methods for improving an image. ======================= Yet QIC is very discouraging. IF an user doesn't like the image, they get struck down, usually they point "it has X technical error" but they don't suggest how to fix it /avoid it.

Notice that this "dislike" often has to do with artistic/composition merits instead of techcnical details like Dschwen has pointed me out recently.

It's like a roulette, you're up to the luck of the guy who reviews you (unless you want to contest the decision and get into a review ).

Basically, QIC has become a "passes if has not a single techcnical flaw" kind of thing, which isn't what it's meant to be. We have guidelines, yes, but they're taken as word set on stone, and even thought minor flaws could be overlooked according to criteria (well it used to say so), common sense has gone away and as I wrote somewhere, review has become just a checklist on techical aspects.

Now examples from current page:

=== Subjectivity examples===

* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Squirrel_closeup_profile.gk.jpg [APROVED] :: Got approved: "Review DOF could be higher, but ear, eye, and whiskers are reasonably sharp."

* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Kittyplya03042006.JPG [REJECTED] :: Some noise, extremely low DOF, eyes out of focus --Dschwen 07:41, 7 March 2007

So, is low DOF good or bad?

* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Allens_swamp_monkey.jpg [REJECTED] ::Composition good. Lighting bad - green colour cast (even a green shadow on the monkeys arm), low light on face. Not quite in focus (or is that camera movement - only 1/100th shutter speed) * http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Red-necked_wallaby.gk.jpg [APPROVED] Review I doubt the species identification, (...) I like hte composition

Hey, so, what about the techcnical aspects? Aren't those taken into account? If tech aspects are important, why does it matter HERE the taxonomy for animals, (it makes sense for FPC though)

* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Scandinavian_grey_wolf_Canis_lupus_.... : [APPROVED] Review Very good. :::(More subjective I like it/ don't like it)

* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Electricity_pylon_power_outage.jpg : [REJECTED] Review weak composition :: ok, composition is important

* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Seagull_flying_%284%29.jpg : [APPROVED] Review Unfortunate framing, (...) Gets my blessing for QI though. :: So weak composition is not important here?

* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:WPKiW_-_Brama_do_ZOO.JPG : [REJECTED] Review Needs to be rotated counter-clockwise. (it's about 2º tilted)

* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:NYCSub_7_car_exterior.jpg : [APROVED] Review The distortion is a bit disturbing, but apart from that very nice.

* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Sydney_night_6.jpg : [REJECTED] Review Too much perpective distortion, easily fixed

* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:NYC_wideangle_south_from_Top_of_the_... : [APPROVED] Review Although not photographically perfect (some signs of compression or diffraction), the composition and angle are ASTOUNDING

* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Foz_do_Arelho_MAR07-1.JPG : [REJECTED] (from review) "but there is considerable chrominance noise on the beach and there are precedences of QI declines for that."

* http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Wellington_Wind_Turbine.j...

So I'm getting a lot of mixed signals here, is a small tilt/distortion enought to reject an image or not? IS a noisy image rejected or not, since I see last two are similar wrt noise

* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Irritator_dinosaur.png : [APPROVED] Review I don't have the courage to say "no" to this guy...

A quote from Dschwen: "Exactly, we have stricter rules in the technical department. QI should be a reliable source for high quality images which are up to a given technical standard. No matter how you turn it, this picture is lacking in size and sharpness, especially if you consider that most of it is dead area. FP is a different game, they are way stricter in terms of subject matter and composition. --Dschwen 16:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)"

So why some images which aren't photographically perfect are approved and why others not? And if I were not to assume good faith I would ask "why some regulars are usually cut more slack than newcomers?"

I say the reason for this uneveness is that images are reviewed by a single person, and it depends on the reviewer standards. In all case, very discouraging, defeating the purpose of this, making people walk away and turning this into WP:OWNED.

But before someone says, "Hey! you can appeal and there's a 2 week process for that!" I have another batch of comments about the reviewing process but I'll save those for the next time.

P.S.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Goettingen_StMichael_Oct06.jpg

* Nomination Church in Göttingen. --Dschwen * Review a clear image-LadyofHats 04:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC) * For me - bad perspective. Lestat 19:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC) o Please remember, that this is not FP. You are probably alluding to the wide-angle effect. Whether this is bad is probably a matter of personal taste. There are no obvious flaws such as tilt in the picture. --Dschwen 18:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)