[Wiki Loves Monuments] Wiki Loves Monuments was crap, it's high time to admit it!

Strainu strainu10 at gmail.com
Mon Dec 12 20:58:24 UTC 2011

2011/12/12 Jan Ainali <jan.ainali at wikimedia.se>:
> 2011/12/12 Maarten Dammers <maarten at mdammers.nl>
>> > 2011/12/12 Yaroslav M. Blanter<putevod at 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.


More information about the WikiLovesMonuments mailing list