Talk:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Archive 1

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

WikiProject idea

After participating in this discussion at the Wikipedia Graphics Lab I think a focussed commons:WikiProject Diagrams, Charts, and Graphs could be very useful.

There are some related projects, and request pages, listed here:

Some WikiProjects of all types are listed here:

I have found that WikiProjects are oftentimes very helpful in getting things done. I think a focussed WikiProject on the commons might be an additional way to gather ideas worldwide, and to channel the resources of the Philip Greenspun illustration project.

Some related, relevant categories are:

By putting out the word at all these categories concerning the Philip Greenspun illustration project as part of an overall WikiProject there can be a pool of people involved at various levels. That pool will get more skilled over time, and some will inevitably help with the more complex images focussed on by the Philip Greenspun illustration project.

I am just throwing out some ideas. Edit the ideas mercilessly in your replies here, and feel free to pass on the ideas. :) --Timeshifter 02:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed. :) I am very soon writing an announcement that will go out to wikiprojects. If you want to help me spread the word that would be great.
As for creating new wikiprojects, I don't want to put the cart before the horse, but I think it will be good to create on Commons a Wikiproject that is like "Illustration standards" - recommendations and examples of lines, colours, practices, about text placement and fonts, etc. pfctdayelise 13:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
On further thought, instead of starting a new wikiproject (WikiProject Diagrams, Charts, and Graphs) I think it might be better if I create some subpages at w:Wikipedia:Graphic Lab for tools/methods/discussion for working on charts, graphs, etc.. The Graphics Lab seems to be successful in getting participation. So it makes sense to start some focussed collaboration there on this topic. I have already learned a lot from the discussion there. W:Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration does not seem to be very active.
The first section currently on my wikipedia user page (w:User:Timeshifter) is the type of info I am talking about putting on subpages at w:Wikipedia:Graphic Lab. Along with copies of relevant how-to discussions, etc.. The more difficult chart and graph image creation can possibly get help from the Philip Greenspun illustration project, too. --Timeshifter 05:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy and Verifiability

Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project/Guidelines insists on "accuracy". This is an important point. As accuracy does not exist as an absolute, let us at least request pictures to be verifiable, as understood on en:Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Too many pictures on Commons lack references to sources so that a critical reader can check whether the sources are distorted. An example here : Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Map Gallia Tribes Towns.png. Teofilo 16:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see commons:Template:Information. Feel free to suggest changes to that template on its talk page. --Timeshifter 20:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
At a general level like commons:Template:Information the "please enter a source" request is probably enough. But we should have a tighter policy on maps. Too few maps have clear statement like " based on OpenGIS data from " on Image:BelgiumRiversMap.JPG. Teofilo 23:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Place {{editprotected}} in a section of the template talk page, and make your suggestions for changes to the template, or for the instructions on the template page. Please suggest some exact wording changes there. "No include" tags can be put around instructions on that page, so that the instructions do not show up in the template. Maybe also suggest more links back from the many upload pages to commons:Template:Information so that more people can read the instructions. --Timeshifter 03:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

How does the Greenspun project manage the w:Wikipedia:No original research policy ? Teofilo 16:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain why this would pose limitations to the project ? le Korrigan bla 18:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I had not read "The illustrator must list all sources or references used, and in most cases the illustrator will be expected to use references". This is a good statement. We should require the same from everyone who uploads on Commons. Make this a Commons' policy ! Teofilo 23:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
One thing at a time ;) --pfctdayelise 15:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
You would really want all images on Commons to require references? Diagrams, maps and stuff, sure, but it wouldn't make sense to require references for the over-whelming majority of Commons' files. Like photos. Rocket000 08:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Project momentum

Threshold for beginning Round 1

The threshold for beginning Round 1 was to have 50 well-defined useful requests. Looking at the requests page, I count about 20 viable requests so far, and it doesn't look like many more are coming in. (The last request that wasn't from me was on December 21.) At this rate, we'll reach 50 sometime in 2009. And looking at the project listserv, it looks like there hasn't been any activity on there since December 17. I'm worried that we may be loosing momentum here. I would like to suggest that we make one more push for requests and then move on to Round 1 whether we have 50 good requests or not. Let's just pull whatever good requests we can get and put them on the table. I think once illustrations are actually being created, it will spur more requests and hopefully keep some momentum going. Kaldari 19:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there are 2 big problems with getting the word out.
1. The request page for the project, Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests, is not mentioned, nor linked to directly, from the main wikipedia image improvement/creation request page: Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve.
2. The request page for the project is hard to find once someone arrives at the main project page here: Philip Greenspun illustration project.
I have linked to Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests from some diagram/chart/graph category pages, and I believe that has helped. But more advertising is needed in my opinion. --Timeshifter 22:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey Kaldari,
Thanks for your prompt. I have not had a lot of time to devote to this lately, I'm sorry. But I am still committed to this project.
Re the request list, I will fill it out with my own if we don't get enough good suggestions. The mailing list has over 50 people subscribed to it, and I'm confident they will still be around and interested when I get my #$!% together.
I also think once Round 1 starts, news about that will actually act as advertising, especially if we get some impressive submissions. (But please advertise however seems appropriate. :)) --pfctdayelise 14:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I posted some notices on the English Wikipedia, but it doesn't seem to have had much effect. I'll try coming up with some more request suggestions myself in the meantime so that we can get this ball rolling. Kaldari 19:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


Although this is a completely separate issue, I'm also worried that the rewards for completing these illustrations are insufficient to attract interest from outside illustrators. We're talking about 600+ high quality SVG illustrations here (many of which will be extremely complex). That's going to take a lot of very talented people. We're only going to attract a handful of amateur artists by offering $15 and $40 rewards. I think we are overestimating both the number of requests this project is going to receive and the number of artists it is going to attract at the amounts we are offering. Here is our current formula according to the project pdf:

US$ illustration level Numbers Sum
Current proposal (635 img. for $20000 )
$15 simple x 200 = $3.000
$40 complex x 435 = $17.000
New proposal (300 img. for $20000)
$25 simple x 80 = $2.000
$80 complex x 200 = $16.000
$100 very complex x 20 = $2.000

Kaldari 19:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that once some people start getting paid, then it will snowball. I am not sure how important the amounts of payment are. It might be fruitful to pay a commission to people who get images created (paid work or for free) by others. I think coordination is the main problem. I mean inner-circle coordination among illustrators passing the word on to each other. Each creator names one person who they feel most helped get them involved. That person gets a commission. en:Multi-level marketing. Just a thought. :) --Timeshifter 23:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I just don't think $40 (much less $15) is going to inspire anyone to create an illustration. It seems more like a token thanks for someone who probably would have made the illustration for free otherwise. Watch the English Reward Board some time if you want to see what I'm talking about. Just offering a reward does not get people to improve articles (or create illustrations). The work/reward ratio needs to be above a certain threshold for the rewards to actually work. They especially need to be non-trivial if we are expecting communities outside of Wikipedia to take notice. Kaldari 23:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea about how much money is needed for paid illustrations. I am mainly interested in how we let illustrators know we need help (paid or free help). Maybe we need some free public-service ads asking for complex diagrams to be donated from illustrators. Wikipedia/Wikimedia is a non-profit organization, and so it should qualify for some free ad placement just like other non-profit organizations are able to get placed in magazines, on TV, on the radio, on the web, etc.. Maybe we should set aside some money first for some great-looking print ads in trade publications that illustrators read. Use those ads on the web, too. Ask for free placement of the ads on relevant websites, too. --Timeshifter 05:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This is a really good idea. I imagine we would get better return for our money with 1 good advertisement soliciting the donation of illustrations than we would get with our reward offers. But maybe a combination of the two would be even better. Perhaps it would be possible to set aside a part of the $20,000 for advertising the project. Any thoughts on this? Kaldari 21:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. A combination would have synergistic effect in my opinion. Wikipedia is a movement with both paid staff and volunteers. As in many movements. I am pretty busy. Maybe someone can ask at the Graphics Lab for some banner and print ads for this project. I mean here:
Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve
Maybe just point them to this thread.
I would put some of the banner ads on my websites. Lots of wikpedia editors have blogs where they could post the clickable banner ads linking directly to the requests page:
Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests --Timeshifter 03:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I just put in a request at w:Wikipedia talk:Graphic Lab. --Timeshifter 12:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Kaldari,
You may well be right about the payment levels being too low, which is why Round 2 will be flexible based on assessment of how Round 1 runs. If it seems like the payment levels were too low to be an incentive, they can be raised. We can experiment. pfctdayelise 14:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Philip Greenspun

Found some Philip Greenspun sites:

Any others? --Timeshifter 07:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Why only illustration?

We need better media in general. Why limit this to illustrations? What about videos, for example? Richard001 00:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, animation is included too. It's anything that's illustrated—either static or moving images. And it's limited to that because that's what the donation for. Rocket000 02:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this project still alive?

Are we still planning on moving ahead with Round 1 at some point? Kaldari 23:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like we're finally ready to get going. Rocket000 13:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Starting on August 1. pfctdayelise 13:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

no bugzilla

Hello, someone on Bugzilla is marking my reservation requests as INVALID ([1][2]). So where do I reserve illustrations to work on? This is highly unsatisfactory. --Ayacop 09:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah ok, found the JIRA page. But where are projects #35 and #42? --Ayacop 10:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Link for illustrators

Hi, I was looking at the project and thought I could interest some young Indian student artists to consider as an opportunity for using their skills. I seem to be missing a page with instructions for illustrators. Any pointers. Shyamal 07:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Instructions about how to get involved with this, or instructions about how to create illustrations?
I just created and linked up some HOWTO stuff for illustrators -- is that the kind of thing you meant?
All illustrators should join the mailing list for updates and to ask questions, anyway. --pfctdayelise 22:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I am afraid this is still quite different from what I was expecting. Perhaps something like a list illustrations needed - where to ask for more information on the requirements of the illustration. A page for illustration that have been taken up for work with draft images, comments from the evaluators etc. A page for accepted images and the editorial history of that image etc. (For instance an amateur illustrator like me goes through comments like en:User_talk:Shyamal/archive14#Rufous-crowned_Sparrow_Sketch.3F and then finally producing something like [3]. I think logging into the system would be something that people do at later stage. Getting into a contract needs both parties (requesters and illustrators) to evaluate for themselves the feasibility and level of expectation. I did not see many discussions on the mailing list on illustration requirements and draft versions of the illustration. Also I hope there are multiple people going through the illustration improvement iterations leading to acceptance. It seems to be something that wiki pages would do better in keeping track of than a mailing list. Shyamal 05:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes. The list of illustration requests for Round 1 is at Philip Greenspun illustration project/Round 1/Request list. Each request is linked to its own page with more details (although, not a great deal more. I found it hard to describe images I can't see yet...).
Definitely there will be "improvement iterations", there always is. I am not sure if that will happen on the bug tracker or on the wiki. Maybe on the wiki is easier for everyone. --pfctdayelise 06:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Philip Greenspun illustration project/Get involved

I created this new page which lists ways people can help out. If you are interested in helping out you can put your name here, too. --pfctdayelise 13:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)