Grants talk:Project/Rapid/LGBT/Wiki Loves Pride Featured Picture drive 2016

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments[edit]

  1. It would be nice to copy the rules of any previous, similar photo drive. Is there any precedent for this? I am not aware of anything else like this, on a small scale.
  2. The rules are not clear to me on what kind of submissions are acceptable. Again, it would be nice to copy some precedent, instead of think every aspect of this through. The easiest way to get a high-quality submission is probably to curate something from a freely licensed archive, but I am not sure that is the goal of this project. The rules are not specific, but I sort of get the idea that this project as written is seeking original photo submissions, and not the identification of good photos in old archives.
  3. Can organizations be winners? Can organizations submit, and be judging in a separate non-paying organization class?
  4.  :( <--- the Commons Featured Pictures process. Should this project have its own judging? Do we really want to send people to Commons FP? I do not trust that process to provide positive experiences
  5. There are some support roles to be defined for this. Goals include article integration and highlighting files in social media. I think it would be good to say something in advance about how complicated this project is supposed to be, and how long it should take. This can run on a low-commitment scale but if that is an option, I think from the beginning we should confirm that this will not be a tightly controlled, highly orchestrated experience.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

  1. Precedent - I'm not aware of a closely matching competition for images, though there are similar sized cash prizes for article improvements that have been run for a few years. If there are learning points from managing those past prizes, for example simple rules that avoid later questions about conflict of interest or bias, then I would be happy to incorporate any that seem useful here.
  2. Types of submission - This is definitely a question for which the grant application needs improvement on (so I'll be working on it!). You may be aware that several of my GLAM-related uploads on Commons have achieved Featured Picture, none being my own photograph, and some being photographs taken several years previously; I don't think that any submissions like these is what we are seeking (see examples at c:User:Fæ/FP). There are only going to be 2 prizes for Commons and 1 for each FP process on other projects, so I think it is reasonable to restrict the type of submission to original photographs where the photographer is an individual rather than an institution. At some future time, we might want to recognize institutions who have made a significant impact on our projects for LGBT+ knowledge, however press attention and blog posts will probably be far more attractive to institutions, while a $100 prize is much better targeted at individuals where the money can make a real difference to them, say to help towards a new camera lens, or to pay for internet access.
  3. Organizational submissions - as per #2, for simplicity I suggest we restrict this competition and may revisit awards for institutions that may need no cash prizes.
  4. Positive experience - I have been contacted off-wiki by a user with similar worries that the FP experience on Commons can be off-putting, indeed after their first experience with FP they never returned. The technical rules are applied strictly and while on the English Wikipedia FPs are very strongly weighted for their encyclopaedic value, on Commons this has much less sway compared to technical qualities and visual WOW-factor. One reason to try this prize competition is to attract new people to the process and encourage LGBT+ related submissions where none has passed so far. To make the process less challenging for photographers I have suggested that keep a few potential "wiki-helpers" with some past FP experience (either on Commons or Wikipedias) that can help explain the technical process and can coach a photographer on what to expect and how best to reply to critical questions, if these occur. In truth, I expect that submissions from new photographers with LGBT+ themes will be treated kindly, but if we start to see some comments that the nominator may find difficult or off-putting, then our network of volunteers with experience on that project can offer to help with advice. It's worth re-iterating that our network of WM-LGBT+ volunteers is not setting out to manipulate the normal FP process, the voting should stay within the rules agreed by project consensus for FPs, and we should avoid any pile-on effect that might be though to be causing an undue bias to FP results. With regard to "should this project have its own judging", I would rather rely on established FP processes and volunteers, so no I'm not proposing this alternative. I would be concerned about the number of rules we would need to invest our time sorting out, and our limited number of WM-LGBT+ volunteer hours we are able to commit.
  5. Support roles - yes, there is a communications role (notices, email announcements, reporting results in a blog), a dissemination role (seeking opportunities to use images on projects, reporting on usage) and a public communications role (seeking out opportunities to promote the competition externally). However, within our network we have several people with experience in writing blogs, being interviewed by the press, globally adding images to articles, creating Wikimedia notices and announcements. I am hoping that in practice these are small tasks that will be delivered on an almost ad-hoc basis by anyone with an interest, certainly me and thee have the experience to fill in most of these without having to learn the way things work from scratch. Face-smile.svg In practical terms, I am definitely going for very low-commitment on resources, something like a total of 1 hour per week until the competition ends. As this is a first-past-the-post prize award, there will never be a large pipeline of submissions to look at as even if it takes ten nominations before one passes on each project, that's still only a maximum of ten (x 4 projects) photographs for us to discuss whether the LGBT+ theme is visual enough to be a prize contender.
Let me know if my answers need a bit more work, or I misunderstand any of your points. I'll use these thoughts to help clarify the proposal over the next day or two. -- (talk) 09:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • In response to the concerns about Commons FPC, I agree that criticism there can at times be a bit withering or off putting, but there are a number of people who participate there who have a high level of technical/photographic expertise, like David Iliff, Slaunger, Daniel Case, Diego Delso (User:Poco a poco), etc. If we have judges specifically for this contest, we're going to need people like this to make sure the quality level of semi-finalists/finalists/winners is as high as possible. It's good to have judges with an impressive body of their own work to back up their judging. INeverCry 22:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
As per #4 above, the WM-LGBT+ panel is restricted to assessing whether a candidate image is potentially eligible for the LGBT+ prize, based on the photograph being visually and clearly of an LGBT+ cultural theme. The WM-LGBT+ panel (which might only be two WM-LGBT+ volunteers) is not making any judgement about whether a photograph is an especially worthy FP candidate, apart from helping a photographer understand the technical requirements that apply to all FP candidates. The experienced Commons volunteers you list I would encourage to take part in FPC discussions, where they can help provide the technical viewpoints needed on the quality of the submission as well as WOW-factors and educational value. The FPC process itself will stay completely independent of this prize competition, though interested WM-LGBT+ users might want to take part by expressing their individual viewpoints. It remains in everyone's interest for any successful prize winners to be excellent all round examples as they are likely to become archetypes for later LGBT+ projects. -- (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The file displayed next door, File:Brighton Pride 2013 (9431939102).jpg, is something I would vote support on if I saw it at FPC on Commons, but I don't know how other votes would go. To be honest, I think FPC at Commons can sometimes be a bit to harsh, and a bit too focused on technical considerations. I agree with other voters maybe 70% of the time, but I mostly vote by how I feel about an image. In any event, I'm sure this contest will do well if the grant is given, which I hope it is. Photographers are naturally creative people and I don't doubt this contest will get some great entries. INeverCry 14:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Detailed rules[edit]

To avoid clogging up the grant application page, I have created /rules. Please add comments about the detailed rules on this talk page rather than creating another one as it's best to keep discussion about the grant in one place. Thanks! -- (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Concerns[edit]

It is one thing for a volunteer, with a record of taking good photographs for Commons, to ask WMF for reasonable expenses to attend an LGBT event. Perhaps they intend to photograph some notable speakers, or to take photogenic street photos of a Pride march. But quite another for WMF to fund a global photo competition where the subject matter is discriminated on the basis of overt sexuality. It is suggested that a Wiki Loves Heterosexuals competition would be equally suitable. It clearly wouldn't. Leaving aside the motives of someone suggesting such a theme, consider the consequence of WMF funding a competition where LGBT people and topics were excluded from the subject-matter? The press would brand it "Wiki Hates Gays" and complain about misuse of funds. Given how Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich was deposed based on his views, it seems entirely possible some WMF staff would fear for their jobs.

It is claimed the proposal is to address the "lack of Featured Pictures with clear LGBT+ cultural themes". We have this image of two boys kissing, which has been described as "marginally classified as LGBT culture". And this image of two Victorian cross-dressers nearly became FP but was withdrawn while it had 7 support 2 oppose. We also have Zoe Lyons who is a notable LGBT figure. It isn't many but we also lack featured pictures with clear heterosexual cultural themes (whatever that might look like). I can find a royal wedding between a man and woman. And this photo that looks like a male-female couple in the rain. And that's it. For every other photo (and only about 550 (6%) of our Featured Pictures are of people) the sexuality is unknown or unimportant. Contrast this with a stock photo library, which is filled with what might be called "heteronormative" imagery of couples dating, getting married, cooking meals, watching TV, bringing up children and grandchildren, etc, etc. What Commons lacks, is high quality contemporary photos of everyday people.

Leaving aside the discrimination/activism aspect of this grant proposal. Let's assume perhaps it is a Wiki Loves People (which would be a great competition) and examine the proposal to use the Featured Picture process to select winners and attract entrants.

1. Which Wikipedia articles are under or poorly illustrated? The Featured Picture award is a very high bar and does not correlate well with whether a topic is well illustrated with images of satisfactory quality and range. If one goal is to illustrate Wikipedia articles, then some examples and categories would be useful. Entrants could then judge whether they are likely to improve on our current images, or know what sort of image they need to go out and take.

2. Huge competitions like WLE/WLM have tens of thousands of articles that could easily be illustrated with images. There is no shortage of listed buildings in the UK, for example, for which we lack good images. Many however, lack good articles or any articles. The images can be used within "List articles" (e.g. List of Grade I Listed Buildings in Bedfordshire), but such usage does not count for Wikipedia Featured Picture. There could thus be a problem where we have useful images of a notable individual or event, but no article. Thus they cannot win a prize at Wikipedia Featured Picture.

3. A Wikipedia Featured Picture requires the image to not only be high quality but also to be a significant illustration in a Wikipedia article (e.g., not just another gallery member), and for it to remain stable for at least 7 days. There may be trouble as users compete with each other to add yet another event photo, for example, or where other Wikipedians disagree the new photo is better.

4. Most competitions (e.g. WLM, WLE) have not been successful in converting competition-entrants into long-term users on Commons. Many non-Commons folk who enter do so much as they would for any photo competition -- they submit a few photos from their portfolio and then forget all about it until and if they get notified of a prize. The nature of a competition is there are very few successful people and an awful lot of unsuccessful people. For some, their experience will be not only of not winning, but also rejection from Wikipedia articles they added their picture to.

5. Some in the photographic community regard photo competitions as a "rights grab". You are asked to give your image away for free, to permit it to be used by the competition-organiser for many purposes, and stand only a tiny chance of winning anything in return.

6. Both Wikipedia and Commons Feature Picture forums require very few support votes in order to succeed. It is 5 supports on Wikipedia and 7 supports on Commons. The overall votes need a 2/3 majority support. We have found on Wikipedia that advertising on WikiProjects tends to attract Like! votes from project members. Both forums rely on an experienced set of reviewers and with only a minimal number of newbie reviewers at any one time. A flood of canvassed newbies is very likely to disrupt the voting process and cause upset.

7. The prize $200/100 is a lot of money, especially so in developing countries. Turning a process that's aim is simply to select some of the finest images on Commons/Wikipedia into a competition and even a race is likely to lead to revenge voting, opposing one's competitor's images, sock puppetry, meat puppetry, heated arguments, and possibly even disruptive deletion reviews.

8. Only having a few prizes, awarded to the first images that pass FP, makes it very likely the heart of the competition will be over within a day or so (though the nature of the forums means confirmation of FP takes several days). The nature of photo competitions is that it attracts images from external photographer's existing portfolios, which can be entered immediately. They do not tend to encourage non-Commons photographers to go out and take images (which is typically the purpose of a photographic challenge). The competition becomes quickly unattractive to new entrants.

9. Again the nature of how the prizes are determined, means it is quite likely that the first photos to win FP are not necessarily the best entered. This could result in dissatisfaction.

10. The "entry criteria" for Featured Picture serve merely as a guide, and those forums rely on ongoing community consensus for determining what is acceptable. For example, the minimum size of an image is around 2-3MP. But images that small are very rarely accepted today -- perhaps on long-telephoto bird-in-flight where the technical challenges of larger sharp images is still great. At the other extreme, a studio photo would probably be expected to be at out-of-camera dimensions as there are no good reasons to downsize. There may be disagreement about why the rules appear to permit smallish images, yet the reviewers reject them.

11. The technical quality standards, particularly at Commons FP, are very high. An image that looks great in thumbnail (and may therefore illustrate WP quite satisfactorily) but that is noisy, badly focused, blurred or otherwise weak when viewed in detail may be quite thoroughly rejected by regulars. The use of cheaper small-sensor cameras and smartphones is very very unlikely to succeed normally at FP, yet the thumbnail may attract a lot of newbie popular support.

12. Portraits tend to be very harshly reviewed on Commons. I'm not sure why. An example scenario: Semi-pro submits a good photo at 3MP. This attracts some opposes or even an FPX (swift rejection) due to the small size. Photographer then uploads a 10MP version. Someone then complains the focus is on the nose and not the eyes. Someone else complains about noise in the background shadows. Photographer gets upset at the stupid pixel-peepers on Commons and wants to withdraw his photo. Asks for a courtesy deletion. Commons community has big argument about whether such a courtesy deletion is permissible merely because they are upset at FPC.

13. The proposal suggests advertising on social media, mailing lists, watchlist banners, etc. This is highly likely to result in over-supportive newbies voting, and flooding the FP review, ignoring existing standards.

14. Facebook is not compatible with any Share-Alike free licence such as CC BY-SA or GFDL. Facebook require the copyright holder to grant them an eternal licence to use the work for any purpose, without attribution and without share-alike restriction. Only the copyright holder themselves can do this -- a licensed user (such as other Commons users or WMF) cannot. Unless the images are, for example, placed into public domain with CC0, or explicit permission is given by the photographer, then prize-winning images (nor example images) can be posted on Facebook.

15. English Wikipedia Featured Pictures seems to focus less these days on new photographs and more on historical photos and illustrations. The photographer reviewer and nominators have mainly moved to Commons. I can't comment on whether other language Wikipedias have stronger or weaker forums, but some do seem to have low standards, going by what seems to get a gold star.

16. Commons Featured Picture is not particularly good at welcoming newbies. Language difficulties tend to encourage terse and blunt reviews. Nominators often haven't "done their homework" in checking out the existing standards. The resulting FPX can be a slap in the face. I appreciate the suggestion of offering guidance as to whether an image might pass, but there is nothing stopping an entrant short-circuiting this, particularly if the prize goes to the first FP. The nominator might also assume that a "go ahead" from this advice-team implies that their nomination is a sure thing. Remember also that most photographic competitions give no negative feedback - your image is simply rejected.

I recommend WMF consider a "Wiki Loves People" competition with a bigger variety of subject-matter and larger scale that will attract a good number of photographers and follow the usual pattern of reviewing teams and invited jury. The Featured Picture processes are not well suited to review competitions, and are far too likely to be disrupted by the pressure of the nominator winning a cash prize or the presence of a large number of motivated newbie voters. The plan, to award the prizes first-come-first-served, also seems likely to make the competition quickly unattractive, and lead to sub-optimal choices of winners. -- Colin (talk) 10:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

To respond only to your suggestion that this photo drive is discriminatory against heterosexual people: Being LGBT isn't about displaying "overt sexuality". None of the LGBT-themed photos I've contributed show anyone kissing or even holding hands. Many of my photo subjects are openly trans people (don't forget the T in LGBT), some of whom are heterosexual. As LGBT people are discriminated against in every country, this is a civil rights issue. That's what - to me - encouraging the submission of more good LGBT-themed photos is about. Funcrunch (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say it was "discriminatory against heterosexual people", just that it "discriminated on the basis of overt sexuality". And I agree that "Being LGBT isn't about displaying "overt sexuality". Perhaps it is the wrong term for what I meant. I just mean, that of the 500+ photos we have on Commons of people, nearly all of them cannot be put into any box and would presumably be excluded from this competition. Their sexuality is unknown, the event they were attending concerns their profession or hobby and not sexuality, etc, etc. There has to be something about the subject (person, event, etc) that is part of "LGBT culture". Someone, will presumably decide if a given image is gay enough, or trans enough, or whatever. Your example highlights the problem of putting people into boxes. Is David Cameron part of "LGBT Culture"? In his resignation speech as Prime Minister of the UK, he highlighted gay marriage as one of his proudest achievements source. It's messy and unnecessary to make such things a condition for entry in a photo competition.
There are lots of groups who have been and who continue to be discriminated against. I have no problem encouraging the submission of photos about any aspect of human nature. My problem is when this crosses the line into being itself discriminatory.
Ultimately, the decision to fund such a competition is for WMF. I am personally more concerned that Featured Pictures is not suitable for this purpose, and the "first past the post" award is not one I have seen suggested for any photographic competition. I note that although this grant proposal was advertised at the Village Pump, I am not aware of any posts to the talk pages of the various Featured Picture forums that would be expected to judge it, and may have suggestions or concerns also. -- Colin (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
There are a lot of points in this criticism. I will not address it all now, but to start, I am going to reframe the concerns as I see them. The concerns are -
  1. The process proposed is not a viable strategy to run a photo competition of this sort
  2. The outreach target, LGBT populations, needs more explanation
Photo competition strategy
I confirm that the competition type proposed is not normal in Wikimedia Commons. However, there is no such thing as a normal, small-scale, photography competition in Commons, and I think that there should be. The amount of this grant, $600, is trivial in the WMF grants space. This amount of money is routinely granted for individual travel expenses to attend conferences, for example, even when there is no promise of work product in return. This is a project to trial a concept which will set a precedent, develop processes, and has some promise of encouraging contribution. One possible outcome of this project is that it creates a model for reuse for any small photo competition, like for example regional communities participating in Wiki Loves Monuments or any other subpart of a national effort. All local or special interest communities need a solicitation and grading model for whatever they organize for their own participants. I am convinced of the value of exploring the concept of a photo competition.
Colin raises good points about what is less likely to work in this proposal. "Featured pictures" is its own community with its own process and rules. I think that anyone entering the FP process should expect to follow the customs in place. I have doubts that the process in this proposal is likely to result in identifying many contributors who would share a positive experience in the FP process with the reviewers there. I am in favor of the idea of photo judging, but I am not in favor of doing anything contrary to established norms, and I am not in favor of combining this project with a call to change any established customs. I support this project in the ways that it can proceed without calling for any special consideration from other organized volunteer groups who are not available to offer that.
Outreach to LGBT+ populations
LGBT+ communities have organized as a cultural identity for some decades. The premise behind outreach to an established cultural identity is to bring like-minded people together who share a cultural affinity, and who enjoy celebrating that culture. Sometimes people ask, "Why do an LGBT event? Why not do an event for all people?" When people ask that, the cause is typically a failure to believe one of the following statements -
  1. LGBT+ is a cultural identity
  2. People of a shared cultural identity should be free to celebrate their culture when it does not disturb others
  3. LGBT+ people can celebrate LGBT+ culture without disturbing others
  4. There is a gradient of engagement in cultural identities. Along that gradient, enough LGBT+ people identify with the culture strongly enough to organize to promote it
If someone were to challenge the organization of an LGBT project in Wikimedia projects, then I might ask that person about the extent to which they disagreed with the above statements. I would expect that anyone who accepted those statements would leave an LGBT community on Wikipedia to organize whatever content it liked, but perhaps someone could accept all of those and there could be some other reason for pause.
Common examples of expressions of LGBT culture are LGBT pride marches and LGBT film festivals. Considering all cultural identities in the world, more people participate in LGBT parades than any other sort of parade, and more people participate in LGBT film festivals than any other sort of cultural film festival. I expect that it should be unchallenged that a significant LGBT culture exists. In contrast, there are no organized efforts for communities to reflect upon hetero-normative culture. If I am mistaken, and there is a respected example, then they should be free to organize something on-wiki.
For this photo competition, instead of imagining it as "LGBT photo competition", imagine the parallel as "(any culture) photo competition".
About money and grants - "Ultimately, the decision to fund such a competition is for WMF" - I do not think this is correct. The WMF acts at the behest of the community. It seems like the community has significant say in how funds are issued, and if anyone else in the community has comment about this proposal, I encourage them to speak up. Small grants of this sort are routinely funded. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Bluerasberry, the problem with reframing the concerns as you see them, is that some of your arguments attack a strawman rather than any concern I actually raised.
The specific format of this competition is to award a prize to the first/second LGBT+ image entered during the competition term that gains FP status on Commons and three unnamed Wikipedia FPs. I query why it should be a race? In addition to points I raise above, about how a race could lead to hurried selfish actions by individuals motivated by a large cash price, it also has a significant risk that someone connected with the competition organsisers is aware in-advance of the competition, and lines up an image from their portfolio that is likely to succeed. There is most certainly an advantage to being in-the-know rather than learning about it a few days after it starts. It also makes the competition very unattractive to someone who has to go out and take a photo they haven't already uploaded to Commons, as the prize may have been awarded before they even get around to it. I cannot figure out why this first-past-the-post system has been chosen. Perhaps I misunderstand how it has been described.
I have no problem with WMF funding photo competition prizes, though I should say that I think there are negatives also to having a cash prize. I was asked by someone (I forget who) if the Photo Challenge would benefit from a cash prize. Perhaps it would, but it would change the forum from being just a bit of fun among users (especially new users) on Commons, of all abilities, to something rather more serious. The usual commercial competition rules would almost certainly require that I, as organiser, be excluded from entering, which I would be sad about. We'd have to be stricter about determining which photos really did meed the challenge theme, about ensuring votes were fair, and would very likely have more reason to fear people generating sockpuppet accounts or using meatpuppet friends to vote in their favour. So I ask that people don't assume that a small competition could not succeed even without a cash prize.
Which brings us to Featured Pictures which manages to attract a healthy number of nominators and voters (on Commons at least) without any bigger reward than one's ego. And ego causes enough tensions from time-to-time without adding $200 to the mix. It isn't going to work well imo.
I am not an expert in LGBT+ so forgive me if I use the wrong terms or misunderstand. The grant page mixes "LGBT+ culture" with "LGBT+ photographs". I believe there is some argument that cultures and issues wrt sexual identity do not necessarily overlap those with gender identity. And not all people who identify LGBT+ participate in such cultural activities. There are also large global differences, and perhaps what we recognise in the US and Europe is quite different elsewhere. In the same way as someone might be on-record as being "a Christian", a photograph of them doesn't suddenly become a photo of "Christian culture" unless that person is a figure within that culture such as a minister or is attending a cultural event such as at church. So I query whether the entry criterion for this competition is well enough defined to avoid disputes.
You challenge my claim that this is a decision for WMF. Well it absolutely is. A WMF staff member will decide and their decision is presumably final. The community is of course part of the input to what WMF do and may give feedback on that, but the grants are not decided by the community.
However, even though WMF may decided that such a competition is worth funding, I think the choice to use the FP projects to award prizes absolutely should be a matter for those communities. I notice that this grant was advertised at the village pump. But not everyone monitors the VP, and posts there disappear from watchlists quite rapidly. The Commons Feature Picture and the Wikipedia Feature Picture communities have not been informed. I don't know which other two Wikipedia FPs are planned. I think the organisers of this do need to demonstrate that those FP forum regulars are on-board with this.
There are sensitivities around a grant that selects for and discriminates against based on sexual or gender identity. Such issues don't concern WLM or WLE, for example. Similarly there may be concerns if race or religion were selection criteria. Wrt high quality people images, LGBT+ is not under-represented: the whole area of people-photos is vastly under-represented. There are billions of photos of people taken every year, hugely outnumbering photos of any other subject, and yet on Commons only 6% of FPs are of people. That's something for WMF to consider, and do so in an inclusive manner IMO. We all have far more in common with each other than separates us, and surely on Commons, that is what should be celebrated! -- Colin (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Request approved[edit]

Dear ,

Thank you for this submission! WMF is happy to support your project to add images, recruit contributors and improve curation of LGBT+ culture-related content. We are funding your request in full for $600 USD.

Photo contests are a common way of improving content on Commons, but your curative focus on surfacing and promoting quality images for wider recognition and use is noteworthy. We’re interested to learn about your outcomes in your report.

In response to concerns raised on this talkpage:

  • In regard to defining rules for your contest: You may find it useful to review the learning pattern for selecting winners of a large photo contest.
  • In regard to concerns about incorporating the Featured Picture process into the contest: Though this proposed contest’s degree of integration with the FP process is unique, it is not uncommon for photo contests to set a goal for participants to try to get high quality photos featured. In general, we see potential for mutually beneficial results. However, we ask that you do consider unintended negative side effects from (as you put it) a “pile-on effect” in this case, since there appears to be no plan for any kind of screening for quality. Please attempt to mitigate potential risks so that your contest is a positive experience for both the people who run the FP process and those that take the risk of submitting a photo as part of this contest.
  • In regard to concerns about discrimination: We do not see this competition as discriminatory. It is common for us to fund projects with a thematic focus. Furthermore, in this particular case, we value the effort to promote diversity in both our content and our contributors by offering a platform for volunteers to create and curate content about LGBT+ culture. WMF has a history of funding initiatives that support content creation from and about communities who have been traditionally marginalized from mainstream knowledge production. The Gender Gap Inspire Campaign is one example of this. Recognizing that knowledge is differently understood, constructed, used and expanded in different contexts, we see diversity--in both content and contributors--as one indicator of the quality of the knowledge represented on our projects. Consequently, we support initiatives that help make the Wikimedia Projects as inclusionary as possible.
  • In regard to concerns about “overt sexuality”: To the extent that this concern applies to content submitted through this project, sexuality is an appropriate topic for our Projects so long as the photos are educational in nature.

Please review our reporting guidelines so your understand the program requirements. Your report is due 30 days after the end of the project.

Thank you for your contribution to the Wikimedia movement.

Warm regards,

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Marti, excellent news. Thank you for the thumbs up and the helpful feedback. I'm on holiday over the coming week, so on my return the panel will take care to review the detailed rules against the learning patterns you have suggested, and consider how we can do more to assure a more likely positive experience for participants, it being a given that the process of being judged for Featured Picture can feel harsh. The competition was nominally scheduled to launch on 1 August, but there is no harm in floating this forward a few weeks or even longer. We should only launch when we are confident that the competition is seen to be appropriately governed. I'll ping you to confirm changes and see if you have anything you would like to add before we send out the first public announcement. -- (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Update[edit]

It has taken a while to confirm financial admin arrangements. A call is planned this week and once the process is agreed we can draft out a central notice to launch the competition. The intention would be to run for several months, depending on how quickly photographs are nominated for the prizes. -- (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

  • In terms of the administration of the individual grant payment, I have committed to paying the prizes out during the period 1 November 2016 to 31 March 2017. If the prize money is not used before the end of March 2017, then I would need to send a written request to the WMF to extend the grant period. -- (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Call summary - 15 September 2016

Funcrunch and myself had a Google hangout with Janice (Jtud) yesterday. This was to talk through how the funds would be administered. In the WMF grants system, individual grants get paid to the grantee without exception. This means that it's not possible for the WMF to hold on to the funds and pay the prize winners directly, so we are going ahead with having the funds paid to my account (i.e. transferred to UK GBP) and I'll transfer prize money to winners. Fortunately the WMF can make up the difference on bank charges for any transfers at the end of the competition, so we can promote the competition as $200 and $100 prizes without worrying about costs of money transfer, which would vary depending on which country and currency the winners want to be paid in.

Nominally the project will run for six months, though as this is a first past the post, it is understood that this depends on sufficient LGBT+ themed Featured Picture candidates coming forward. If an extension is needed, this can be formally requested.

Should other reasonable expenses arise as part of reaching the projects' goals, such as costs of advertising in LGBT+ press to attract more entrants, I should contact the grants team and see if these specific expenses can be added to the grant.

As this project uses the grants process in a slightly unusual way, there will be interest in writing up any learning points at the end of the competition.

The action was that I would complete the grants form, with myself holding the individual grant (though I consider this a Wikimedia LGBT+ user group project), with an official start date of the beginning of October 2016.

Funcrunch and myself will be starting to draft a central notice on-wiki to launch the competition in the next few days, and will be asking volunteers interested in LGBT+ topics for help getting it underway and other ideas for promotion. Face-smile.svg -- (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

As part of the central notice, there will be a landing page at Wikimedia_LGBT/Wiki_Loves_Pride_Featured_Picture_drive_2016. The intention is to aim for the central notice to be drafted and approved before the end of the 1st week of October, meaning it must be proposed next week. -- (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Historic England LGBTQ[edit]

Today it is reported in the news that Historic England are launching a project called Pride of Place to celebrate England's LGBTQ Heritage. Their website already includes many fascinating pages and information about buildings related to LGBTQ history. Of particular interest to Commons photographers is the History Pin: Pride Of Place website that uses an interactive map to plot relevant locations along with photographs and information. The interactive map is user-generated and the link with LGBTQ for each location ranges from tangential to vital, and sometimes the location is merely the site of something long gone. This may be a useful resource for those aiming to contribute photographs for this WLP contest, though the organisers may still face a challenge deciding whether a location is sufficiently associated with LGBTQ in order to be relevant. Longer term, it may also be a resource for the LGBT+ user group to focus on for the wider WLM contest. -- Colin (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Approving new project start and end date: Nov 1 to Mar 31[edit]

Hi ,

I'm approving a new project start date of November 1, 2016, with an end date of March 31, 2017. As you noted above, you can request an extension of the project end date later, if needed. I'm going to update the infobox of your request now with the dates I've just approved. Please let me know if there is anything further you need.

Good luck with your contest!

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming the dates, and the financial stuff behind the scenes. As the Central Notice has a backlog we were not expecting, we will cut our cloth to suit. -- (talk) 09:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Extension request, setting end date of October 2017[edit]

In line with email (22 April 2017) with the Grants Administrator, this is an extension request for the Wiki Loves Pride Featured Picture drive. It is currently expected that the re-proposed central notice will go live by the end of May 2017, pending approval by CN administrators. As the competition is first past the post, it is not possible to schedule a close date. For these reasons it is requested that an end date for the drive is set for October 2017, with the expectation that in practice the competition will be closed and monies paid out before then.

The reopened central notice request is at CentralNotice/Request/Wiki_Loves_Pride_Featured_Picture_drive, and the revised landing page is at Wikimedia_LGBT/Wiki_Loves_Pride_Featured_Picture_drive_2017. The most challenging volunteer task so far has been to send out manual notices to all 31 affected different language Wikipedias and 5 other significant projects, unfortunately this was not a task that could have been planned for. Refer to Talk:Wikimedia_LGBT/Wiki_Loves_Pride_Featured_Picture_drive_2017#Posts_progress. -- (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Fae! This extension is approved; we will set the end date for this project to 31 October, after which your report and documentation of expenses are due 30 November. Thank you for updating us on your expected plan of work, and best of luck on the rest of the project! Cheers, Morgan Jue (WMF) (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the speedy feedback. Face-smile.svg -- (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi , just wanted to chime in to say I really appreciate this kind of broad outreach for your project. Manual invites to 36 projects and finding the appropriate place to post them is no easy task. It's great to see that so many different project contributors will have an opportunity to highlight and improve LGBT+ cultural representation on Wikimedia projects. Thanks again, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)