[Wiki Loves Monuments] Wiki Loves Monuments was crap, it's high time to admit it!
jan.ainali at wikimedia.se
Mon Dec 12 21:12:07 UTC 2011
2011/12/12 Strainu <strainu10 at gmail.com>
> 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
> >> >> 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
> Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
> WikiLovesMonuments at lists.wikimedia.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the WikiLovesMonuments