User talk:Rhododendrites/Reconsidering FPC on the English Wikipedia

Since this has been posted in multiple locations, I'd like to encourage people to leave their thoughts on this talk page to avoid parallel discussions. This edit is mainly to turn the link blue. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not knowledgeable in this area, but that sounds fine by me. The fewer redundant processes we have, the more we can focus our attention where it's needed. Sdkb (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Moved from idea lab. Hope you don't mind, Sdkb. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Overlap

Which images, if any, in the past N years, were promoted on Wikipedia but not on Commons? --Izno (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what the overall statistics are, but last month (the one I analyzed when putting this together), there were two promoted here that have not yet been nominated there: File:Jodenster van kledij.jpg and File:Dorie Miller.jpg.

On the other hand, there are five images which failed here despite having no opposition which have been featured on Commons. I would argue that any one of them would be suitable for POTD: File:Rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta mulatta), male, Gokarna.jpg, File:Boiga nigriceps Red cat snake.jpg, File:Koppie foam grasshopper (Dictyophorus spumans spumans) nymph.jpg, File:Blue Hour at Pakistan Monument.jpg, File:Ship wreck Carnatic 2017-04-22 Egypt-7947.jpg.

There are indeed some images which have passed here and failed there (and vice versa), but the number is relatively small. In my experience they're more often due to the opinions of the small number of participants differing from the results when more people are involved rather than any fundamental difference in priorities, but others may disagree with me. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the more interesting cases are the images and media that were featured on commons but where significant opposition developed in the corresponding nominations here, leading to non-promotion. Those are the cases that demonstrate that we have independent standards from commons and can't just achieve the same effect by piggybacking off commons. One can't just count votes to tell whether they achieved a quorum, because often the dynamic is that one negative comment makes other participants reluctant to either support or pile on. Examples include Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mountain child.jpg, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/S/V Rembrandt van Rijn, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Faroese sheep, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Juma Mosque, Shamakhi, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lake Urmia, and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Macropus giganteus - Brunkerville.jpg. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thankfully, with thousands of images available and three being promoted every day, we can just skip over something that was promoted on Commons but not right for enwiki's Main Page. There are far more than would be perfectly good on enwiki's Main Page but aren't nominated here, but are promoted there. One negative comment can have that effect on Commons, too, but there are enough users who participate there that it doesn't dash the whole nomination. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Who do you mean, "we"? When you say "we" in "we can just skip", who does "we" refer to? Obviously not the FPC voters any more, because you're proposing to get rid of that process. But the filtering you describe is still a process, just one that's hidden in some smoke-filled room rather than being out in the open the way FPC is. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, sorry to be ambiguous. I mean the English Wikipedia community, who would be selecting from Commons FPs for our POTD. That selection process could stay the same or it could be changed. We would be doing it either way -- it's just a matter of whether we need an additional to cultivate a separate pool just for the sake of that process. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

About voting participation on en-WP

Obviously there are more users on Commons and less on en-WP. As David Eppstein wrote above, in this diff, the dynamics on en-WP and Commons are different. It isn't that there aren't enough eyes for example on this nomination, it is just that the image is noisy, so there is no point in dropping multiple oppose votes. Often on en-WP reviewers don't drop a note because they are either neutral, or are content with the direction the nom is going (whether passing or failing). The lack of 5 signatures on an en-WP nomination is not a lack of consensus, it is a consensus to maintain status quo, i.e. to not promote (per the voting guideline). Bammesk (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The behavior you describe happens on Commons, too. People abstain from supporting far more often than opposing, but there are enough people participating overall that the reason for people abstaining usually becomes evident from at least one person making a comment (which is to say, Commons FPC would probably look much the same if only a few people were participating there, too). Since there are more photographers there, it may be a bit more common to see people try to provide constructive criticism in the nominations (trying to help each other improve the quality of images available), but it's largely the same. Also, how can you tell the discussions for which there isn't quorum to promote from those with consensus not to promote? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you have evidence for your repeated assertions that the people participating in FPC on EN tend to be non-photographers? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that people at FPC here are non-photographers necessarily, but [strictly anecdotally] it seems like the Wikimedians who care most about photography are most active on Commons. I recall Colin saying something about this difference somewhat recently, so perhaps he can articulate it better than I can. I don't mean any disrespect to participants at enwiki's FPC. To the contrary, I find it admirable that people are dedicated to keep the process running and providing feedback to participants. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, I am saying less than 5 signatures is not sufficient to conclude there wasn't enough eyes on the nom. There are no limits, so some nominators repeat the nom when they suspect there wasn't sufficient participation on the first go. For instance these noms [1], [2], [3] overlap in 9 of 10 days, so it wasn't the lack of participation on the first listed nom. This isn't always possible to demonstrate though. Bammesk (talk) 02:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• I can't recall the earlier comment that Rhododendrites mentions. David Eppstein, wrt "non-photographers", I clicked on a dozen users participating on the current page. Then looked at their Commons contributions. Mostly folk were uploading content taken from a free source elsewhere on the internet. One user had a little compact camera with which they took some useful photos and another had their mobile phone. The only "photographer" I would count as being at FP level, is JJ Harrison. Apologies if I missed anyone (Rhododendrites you weren't on the FP page).

I remember when en:fp was well participated and there was considerable overlap with Commons. The Commons crowd were more international and naturally English speaking Wikipedians saw en:fp first. Some photographers like Diliff saw their purpose as primarily creating infobox-level photographs for Wikipedia articles, and didn't buy so much into the Commons idea of creating great educational photos that folk outside of Wikipedia would use. Indeed some photographers at the time used the most restrictive licences they could find in order that anyone outside of Wikipedia would have a hard time reusing their photographs. But gradually Commons FP became stronger and definitely a place where photographers could discuss technique and critique. The en:fp started focusing more on artworks and my interest in them was low. There always was a degree of reviewing the same photo twice that made it seem that one forum was unnecessary.

The level of participation on Commons now hugely outstrips en:fp. A great photo on Commons can get 10+ supports within 24 hours and 25+ within a few days, whereas the same photo may take days to get 5 supports on en:fp, or even get entirely neglected (especially if not lead photo in the article). While FP serves the main page, it should also serve a purpose in attracting and rewarding those who bring outstanding content to Wikipedia. There's nothing about en:fp that makes me think it is a special enough place to duplicate my reviewing effort. --Colin°^Talk 09:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Charles is also quite active here and seems like a good example to highlight. If I recall correctly, Charles said he only nominates photos here that have already gone through the Commons process successfully. In other words, if we didn't have a process here, we'd still have all of his FPs to choose from for POTD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I do only nominate photos on English Wikipedia that have succeeded at Commons. The low number of voters at en:fp is a frustration, but the process is sound. I do believe that the difference is about whether an image is encyclopaedic, so probably 40% of my Commons FPs would not pass at en:fp, like some esoteric insects which only have stub articles. I don't understand Cart's comment "So, if a picture is not in an article, it's suddenly not a good picture?". If it's not in an article, how can it be featured? I believe the en:fp rules mean that an FP can be delisted if it is no longer used in an article. This says nothing about whether the image is a good picture or not. Also, we should not assume that voters on Commons are what she calls 'image experts' and that voters on en:fp aren't. We could change the en:fp rules to say that only Commons FPs could be nominated. Then en:fp votes would only be judging encyclopaedic value, not technical quality. Would save a lot of time and effort. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Charlesjsharp: part of the reason I put together this page is because I more or less agree with what you say at the end. But since enwiki's FPC process only serves to create a pool for POTD, it seems to me that if we're going to only use Commons FPs anyway we might as well skip one of the selection processes (i.e. the selection of POTD can just choose from Commons FPs rather than have one process to narrow down Commons FPs and another to choose POTD from among those -- participation being as low as it is. Added benefit: that way we don't need to bother with the whole additional delist-if-not-used-in-an-article process, since all that would matter is whether an image is used in an article at the point of POTD). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

"enwiki's FPC process only serves to create a pool for POTD" I don't think so. Surely it serves to award the best encyclopaedic images? POTD should be an extra acolade, assuming that we could improve the selection process (as discussed at length recently). Many Commons FPs (e.g. the more artistic ones) won't ever find their way into an encyclopaedia. Most of the current Commons FPCs are not used on any wiki and only a few would be successful enwiki FP candidates. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

As much as I value processes which recognize positive contributions and very much get the significance of a star for one's volunteer contributions (I participate in FPC myself, after all), I don't feel like a secondary set of those stars for those who participante in a process that isn't working very well justifies retaining that process. If I misunderstand and you're talking about the value to readers of highlighting encyclopedic images, I'm just not sure which readers. If I want to see the most encyclopedic image of a particular subject, I don't need it to be an FP for me to be able to see it in the article. If I want to see cool insect images, the best images are highlighted on Commons, including most FPs from enwiki and more. I just don't know when I'd think to myself "I want to see insect pictures, but only if they are currently improving an article that exists on Wikipedia". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

So don't participate. There are lots of Wikipedia processes that I, personally, don't have much interest in; that doesn't make them valueless. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

? I don't know how you got "I'm not interested so it should close" from that, but I'll take that as a cue to wait for additional opinions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

My comments are removed, I shouldn't have posted here since I don't know enough about the en-WP FP process. --cart-Talk 18:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites - I have initiated a vote on [:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates] Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

This seems premature. My hope was to have discussions here and let that eventually shape an RfC. Granted, I wouldn't have asked question you did. Requiring enwiki FPC to only consider Commons FPs seems to just makes the enwiki process more redundant/unnecessary. Why not just have the enwiki POTD process select from Commons FPs rather than have two processes to go Commons FP → enwiki FP → enwiki POTD? I mean, I guess it's not far from what I'm getting at, but I'd just skip the middle step. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)