Proposal talk:Camera equipment program/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Australia
Revision as of 00:26, 28 August 2011 by Bilby (talk | contribs) (Added discussion report from mailing list)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Following are some comments extracted from my mail as seconder.

I was initially concerned that the bar might be set a bit high but the existence of a number of potential recipients suggests it might be OK. We might need to clarify that "categories" on Commons are a lot looser than on WP and define "freely license".

If the grant is retrospective, do the "500 images using the new equipment" overlap with the images used to justify the grant? (IE, I buy a new camera, take 1000 photos with it and upload them with an appropriate free license, then apply for a grant. If I receive the grant, have I already fulfilled the "freely license 500 photographs that use the new equipment" requirement?)

--PeterJeremy 15:36, 6 August 2011 (EST)

I've revised "freely license" to indicate that they need to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, and they need to comply with the definition of "photograph" provided. I've also removed "use the new equipment" for the moment, as the new equipment may be a lens which may only be appropriate in limited photography opportunities.
My thinking was that the "500" images would retrospectively cover photographs already uploaded. I think the "500" number may be too high. John Vandenberg 16:04, 6 August 2011 (EST)

The numbers may be ok if additional weight is given to quality/valued/featured images. I suggest:

  • +1 point per MAX(total num images, total distinct commons categories)
  • +1 bonus points per image used in content space for any Wikimedia project other than Commons
  • +2 bonus points per image assessed as Quality Image
  • +4 bonus points per image assessed as Valued Image
  • +10 bonus points per image assessed as Featured Picture at either Commons or en-Wikipedia

I think this is about the right trade off between quantity, quality, and usefulness. Certainly it will incentivise photographers to both put in the hard yards and improve our work.--99of9 23:03, 22 August 2011 (EST)

I like "MAX(total num images, total distinct commons categories)"
I think the "used in content space" bonus needs to include some minimum period of use - at least one month in opinion, in order to avoid rewarding edit wars. John Vandenberg 23:22, 22 August 2011 (EST)
Oops, I meant MIN. MIN insists that prolific photographers keep up the diversity and the categorization. I agree that long-term usage is the important usage, but am not sure what's best to measure. --99of9 23:35, 22 August 2011 (EST)

recipient uploading overseas photos

An overseas community member has emailed me indicating they are interested in the program. They can upload images of Australian topics, however they would not be using the equipment for Australian topics, because they are not in Australia. In order to not exclude overseas recipients, or Australians who go overseas on holidays, I think we should change

"Recipients of grants in this program must agree to upload 500 photographs (as defined above) to Wikimedia Commons within 24 months."


"Recipients of grants in this program must agree to upload 500 photographs to Wikimedia Commons within 24 months. These photographs should include photographs using the new equipment when appropriate, be properly described (as above), however they do not need to be Australian topics."

John Vandenberg 12:25, 27 August 2011 (EST)

Members discussion report

The mailing list discussion involved 12 members posting 33 responses to John's initial proposal. The methodology for examining the content was based on discourse analysis, as typically employed in grounded theory research: each email was broken into individual points, which were then listed. These were then categorised and grouped as necessary, with non-relevant points being moved to a separate list. If a point was made by multiple contributors it was tagged. The points in the categories were then analysed again, with a summary written and included here.


Suggested clarifications

There were a number of recommendations to improve how certain issues are defined in the proposal. Specific concerns related to being clear by what is meant by "Categories", as they are used in a different manner on Commons to compared to how they are employed on Wikipedia; to define clearly what is meant by "freely licensed"; and to make it clear in the proposal that the program is only going to be funning for a finite length of time. More generally, it was suggested that the aim of the program needs to be clearly articulated: in particular, is it intended to encourage the taking of new photos, read the inclusion of existing photographs, or encourage the use of photographs in Wikipedia to illustrate articles.


Along with concerns about the specific criteria raised below, there were some more general issued raised about the use of criteria. One member raised the idea that listing specific criteria isn't the best approach, and that instead the rules should provide general (but fair and consistent) criteria, combined with a statement that the committee reserves the right not to fund contributors if the quality does not reach the required standard (referring to both image quality, subject matter and meta-data). This suggestion had the support of at least three other members.

Multiple subjects

A specific problem was raised with the possibility of two many photos being taken of a single subject. This engendered a degree of debate: on the one hand, the requirement that unique categories were required seems to allow for this, but on the other it was argued that having multiple images of one subject is valuable from the perspective of Commons and the project's aims, even if it is not as valuable from the perspective of Wikipedia. There was no clear consensus on this point, although it was generally agreed that 500 photos of a person's back lawn shouldn't qualify (noting the off-topic proviso listed below).

One approach raised was to list specifically needed images, to get people to focus on what was needed for Wikipedia, rather than a single topic. This had some support, and was identified as a possible source, but it was also argued that this would encourage people to be the first one to take the picture, rather than to take a good picture. (The issue of quality vs quantity was also raised in other areas of discussion, and is treated separately below). It was, however, suggested that a mashup could be generated, using geotags, to identify where desired subjects are located.

A related concern was the need for photographs of specific areas on Commons, such as sports photography. These areas may require specialised equipment, so a lowering of the criteria for people engaged in these areas might be worthwhile.

Quantity vs quality

A second specific area of conner was the issue of quantity vs quality. The proposal as written requires a specific number of photos to be taken, but doesn't speak to the quality of those works. This raised concerns, as it may be that a smaller number of high significance subjects are far more valuable than a large number of easy to take but less significant subjects, and the approach would lead to a systemic bias towards easy photos. It was also suggested that the program should be used as an incentive to improve photo quality, as well as to increase the overall number of photos available.

Thus there were a number of suggestions to counter this. The first was to make it clear that poor quality works can be rejected from the count. The second was to halve the numbers of photos required for each category, to allow for photographers who focus on producing a smaller number of better images. However, a more complex suggestion was to use a points scheme, which rewards images which have passed peer review, focusing on the Featured Image, Valued Image and Quality Image processes on Commons. It was identified that these models for peer review are imperfect, but they provided an independent means of rating photographic works.


The current proposal focus on the use of the images on Wikipedia. This was raised as a concern by some members. Most of the discussion regarded the difficulty of meeting the criteria, although the risk of encouraging gallery spam was also raised. Thus it was suggested that all projects be included, rather than just Wikipedia - use in Wikibooks, Wikispecies or other projects should count towards the total. It was also suggested that there is value in having images in Commons irrespective of their use in other projects, suggesting that there may not be a need to look at the use of the images outside of the one project.


Not all images can be geotagged, so the criteria cannot always be met. Furthermore, it was argued that this would preclude photographers who are unable to geotag images, due to lacking the required technical skills, in spite of the potential quality of their work.


It was asked if the budget, currently set at $10,000, would be sufficient of there were a large number of unexpected applicants. In response, it was suggested that the budget would be capped, and any additional applicants would therefore have to wait until the next round.


Three issues were raised in addition to the above. The first was a concern that there was no way to ensure that recipients meet their obligations after receiving their funds: although the proposal requires them to upload more images, there is no means by which this can be enforced. The other question was whether or not people outside of Australia would qualify - the example of an Australian now living in the UK was raised, as was the possibility of providing grants to people within the region who could, for example, take photos of sporting events featuring Australians but held outside of the country.

Beyond that, discussion focused on how the money could be used by recipients. There was a belief expressed that just getting SLRs into the hands of contributors would result in an improvement, although it was also suggested that high-end point and shoot cameras would be good, as would the newer EVIL cameras.

Off-topic discussion

Most of the discussion was focused on the proposal, or issues closely related. However, it was noted that grass was a valid topic for photography, as there are over 1200 species of grass. There was also some discussion about encouraging photographs of sporting events, and it was suggested that the Chapter a) contact sporting bodies to request photographs where possible; try to organise media passes to events; and purchase a small set of specialised cameras and lenses to use at such events.

Proposed changes

Based on the discussion, the following changes are proposed:

  1. Clarify that the "least two subject categories" are on Commons
  2. Note the end date of the program
  3. Clarify what constitutes a free license
  4. Extend the current introduction, stating the intent of the program.
  5. Add to the conditions that the final decision will be at the discretion of the committee, and that in some instances people who do not meet the specific technical requirements, but do meet other conditions, may be included in the program, and that the committee will take into account the technical quality of the submissions when considering funding.
  6. Provide a points system, whereby (for example) one Quality Image is worth 5 normal images, one Valued Image is worth 10, and one Featured Image is worth 15.
  7. Change "must have been in use on a Wikipedia page for three months" to "must have been in use in content space on a Wikimedia Foundation project for three months".
  8. Add "where applicable" to the geotagging requirement.

Outside of the program:

  1. Work at creating a more accurate and useful list of required photos that that provided by the current category on Wikipedia.
  2. Look into the sports suggestions - in particular, look into getting media passes for events.