Wikipedia talk:Donated artwork

Previous discussions

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arts#Resident sketch artist (Permanent link at time of this posting, and just before that discussion was closed is located here.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Sending out the email

Like I said at the perm link above, I'm thinking of using items from List of art colleges in Europe, in particular all organizations in Scotland, Ireland, and England. That is roughly 20. Is everything ready enough? Are we missing anything? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Concern: Photographs may override drawings

Anna raised a concern at /List of articles needing images#Nobel laureates, which I think merits some thought: For any subject, especially for those currently in the news, the danger exists that while a picture is being drawn or not long after, we get a photography, which then presumably will replace the drawing. That would be a disappointment for an artist who donated an artwork with the hope that it would get widespread attention. Is there anything that can be done about it? Anna suggested to leave out current subjects, but those are precisely the ones with the highest page hits. Another possible solution would be to warn artists up front, so that they can make the decision themselves if they want to gamble or rather be on the relatively safe side. — Sebastian 04:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I think warn them up front and offer to tell them, upon request, about the history of the article and image status. For example, about our opinions on the difficulty or ease of acquiring a certain image, the newness of the article and how that can be a factor, etc. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm done

Okay, I've put in about 3 hours and I've had enough of this part. I'd be grateful if you would all give it a read and see if it is good enough for me to start sending emails. I don't want to invest any more on this until I see if anyone will actually reply. If this yields even a small handful of works, I'll be satisfied. Fingers crossed. So, is are we ready to go? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the wording "the artist's name is always associated with the work" and "Whenever the image appears in a publication, the artist's name must be also be displayed" are likely to raise wrong expectations. E.g. I just checked Hassan Nasrallah, and the image was even called a photo there! (That is due to the consequences of this edit.) We so often write completely irrelevant information in our captions; could we agree to have the artist's name in the caption, at least for this initiative?

I'm confused and surprised that the Artists' welcome page does not address the #Concern: Photographs may override drawings. — Sebastian 06:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Generally, I would recommend to wait a few days for feedback from others. I sympathize with your impatience, but this is an idea you had a year ago, so I don't see a need for a sudden rush now. — Sebastian 06:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and also, before you send it out, I would add more articles to the List of articles needing images. It's odd that it only consists of two small subgroups of our people articles. And a few non-people picture requests would be nice, too: While you get the attention of artists, you want to show the whole gamut of what we need. — Sebastian 06:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

In point form for clarity:

• I have added content here explaining how the filename does not carry the artist's name, but the information box at commons does.
• I've added a bold caution about their image being replaced (especially by photos).
• Patience, indeed. I always try to move things forward, but of course, this is worth getting right before sending emails.
• More articles to the list? Okay. Non-people would be fine. The bottom line is page views/non-English article numbers.

I have gathered as many non-North America art school emails as I could from Wikipedia links. Around 40 I think. I will sit on them until all is ready. The North American ones are far greater in number, and that is of course not including schools found away from Wikipedia. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the welcome page has gotten much clearer; great work! Are you aware of a list of articles by page views? Since the one head of state in our list clearly stood out, I thought I might get some well used pages from the heads of state lists, but they typically just seem to have a few thousand hits. — Sebastian 09:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I had this idea a year ago?? :) What makes you say that? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, misremembered your message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arts#Drawing of Kim Jong-un — Sebastian 09:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I did start Wikipedia:Requested articles/Images 4 years ago. Maybe you're remembering that. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You asked about a page that shows top views. I found this. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Mmh, that can't be right. Rank 41-42, 2.8 million views, all for this one weird image? Thanks for looking, though; it would be really helpful to have a list like this. (But we'd need to somehow find a way to find articles with need for pictures, too.) — Sebastian 16:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Fantastic suggestion of yours. I went to the bottom of the list and started checking names. In two minutes, I found this! Huge. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Cool! I don't know what I did to deserve the praise, but I'm happy it worked out. — Sebastian 17:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Name for this initiative

I suggested "Donated artwork" at IRC and someone corrected me with "Donated artworks". Sounds wrong. Is wrong. New name? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

How about "Art drive", in analogy to wikt:food drive, wikt:blood drive, and wikt:toy drive? — Sebastian 15:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmmm, "drive" eh? That does sound a bit charity-like, forceful, determinted, pushing, ambitious, and reminds me of cars and driving. I went with "donated" because artists tend to be more lefty, gentle, patient, often don't like cars, driving, and exhaust pollution, but they do like giving and sharing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I see your concern. Maybe we should invite the people from the art project to this brainstorming; sadly they missed the train when we moved to this page, and we could need more participants here. A notice on the Village Pump may also be in order. — Sebastian 17:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm slightly worried that if we publicize this too much like at the Pump, someone will find a reason why it is a bad idea and there will be a hubbub and people will tell us to stop it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The chances of this actually working

So, really, do you think anyone will actually respond to emails? Will any of this result in an actual upload? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this initiative will result in actual uploads. Maybe not right away in reply to the mails, but the work will pay off. We discussed a number of other paths, all of which have in common that they will benefit from a welcome page and and an article list. — Sebastian 16:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You are very optimistic. I like that. :) I expect nothing so anything that comes from this is a bonus. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Wanna bet? If it doesn't turn out, you get an hour of editing time from me, if it does, you give me one hour of Chinese lessons. :-) — Sebastian 16:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Deal! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Having been to art school I would be surprised if you got a good response from them. Art students are ambitious, know the importance of their work, are loking to take it to the next level or creativity and (in my view) are less likely to spend time creating a work to be given away for nothing. I know it's already been discussed elsewhere, but maybe Flickr or Deviantart etc will yield better results - after all, the participants there have already bought into the idea of sharing their work (with all its benefits/risks) on the world wide web. Sionk (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Sionk. Interesting indeed. Okay, so we have institutions (which I'll still try for sure), Deviantart, Flickr, where else? You say, I contact. (I like the last two because we can see their work in advance.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

There are certainly several Flickr "Portrait" groups and it is easy to leave a message in the 'discussion' if you are a member of the Group. Actually Facebook has several art based groups too where messages can be left. I notice DeviantArt has some very impressive Portrait Groups (I'm no longer particularly active here but the groups seems to have high numbers of members, in the thousands). Sionk (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Excellent! Anna F remote (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The OTRS form

@SpacemanSpiff, Moonriddengirl, and SebastianHelm:

This is a discussion copied from the soon-to-be-deleted User talk:Anna Frodesiak/OTRS, (a copy pasted OTRS form in my own userspace).

Extended content

Transclusion or copy? Discussion moved from Wikipedia:Media copyright questions: I think [...] perhaps you could just transclude that template as it would reflect any changes (if transcluding here isn't possible, then make this page on Commons and do an interwiki redirect or something). —SpacemanSpiff 05:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC) [T]hese both exist: Wikipedia:Donated artwork/OTRS form and User:Anna Frodesiak/OTRS. I would prefer neither is transcluded, but rather I can do regular checks to see what's new at commons. This is because I give the link at IRC for the one in my space, and artists may be using the one at donated works. They sometimes click edit to get a copy of it and the transclusion will confuse them. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC) I wonder if there is maybe a way to put a big button on the page that says "edit" or "copy code to clipboard" and does a quick "subst:" before it presents the page. — Sebastian 06:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Well, that is a question of tech. This page is just a simple "in my space page", quick link within enwp to give to IRC newcomers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Probably WMF Legal wrote the original, passed it to commons, and then we grabbed it for use here. I suggest considering that before altering it. We can be clear with the upload instructions for artists to be sure they know what they're doing, though. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Not sure if you've seen WP:Consent but it's to help out in a such situations. I see that the specific issue of who owns the copyright isn't dealt with but a note can be added within. I'll also ping the Copyright Queen as she has experience with such situations in three different roles -- as an en.wiki editor, as an OTRS volunteer, and as a WMF member. —SpacemanSpiff 12:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Hi. :) The text wasn't handed down from legal, but actually created by the German user Duesentrieb (aka User:Daniel Kinzler (WMDE)) in 2006. Language is not sacred, so I should think transclusion is not an issue as long as Anna remains aware of consensus developments around the Commons version to be sure that what she's giving to photographers will be accepted. I don't really quite understand the purpose, though. :) Why not just link to the one on Commons? Or WP:Consent, which has a quite large link to that page? That's just my confusion, though; I can think of no reason why you can't have your own form in your own userspace to link people to as long as it meets the requirements - declaration of ownership of copyright; clear license & link; consensus language acknowledging the license extent.) I am a little more confused about Wikipedia:Donated artwork/OTRS form - I really don't see why we don't just send them to WP:Consent or Commons:Commons:Email_templates#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_inquiries. It seems like we're just unnecessarily forking there and risking deviations in form that may in the long-term lead to rejections of donations. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Hi SpacemanSpiff and Moonriddengirl. You are absolutely right. I don't do much IRC help now, and I can just provide the link to Commons:Commons:Email_templates#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_inquiries when I do. As for Wikipedia:Donated artwork/OTRS form, yes, let's get rid of it. A simple link to Commons:Commons:Email_templates#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_inquiries at the bottom of Wikipedia:Donated artwork/Artists' welcome page#Uploading the image will do fine. Simplify, right? Thanks for the good guidance. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC) There's still Sebastian's point on providing clarification on the copyright owner, and we probably should add that as a section to WP:Consent; this will definitely have the potential to reduce back and forth on OTRS, reducing pain for both the customer and the agent involved. I'll take a stab at it soon if no one else beats me to it. —SpacemanSpiff 03:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Why not just really, really spell it out at Wikipedia:Donated artwork/Artists' welcome page#Uploading the image? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC) This may be just me (and I don't know how many OTRS agents or editors feel this way) but that page appears to be providing advice (like on the CC-BY interpretation etc), something I would be very hesitant to do. The reason I like WP:Consent is that it tells them what we want without crossing over to an advisory role. However, there are many ways to do this and I'm not averse to others doing it (but you'd have to be aware that you could face situations like "I was told by XYZ that the use of my image will be credited but I see at www.abc.com/article/mypicture that it is not" -- there are such cases and it can consume some time). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC) SpacemanSpiff, very good point. This should be raised at Wikipedia talk:Donated artwork/Artists' welcome page. Please consider copy pasting what you just wrote to that page. I'll respond once you do. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

In a nutshell, the collapsed discussion challenges the need for any OTRS form in my userspace or as a subpage here. A simple link to Commons:Email templates#Declaration of consent for all inquiries or WP:Consent is preferred.

Consensus to date appears to be that User:Anna Frodesiak/OTRS should be deleted. Also, Wikipedia:Donated artwork/OTRS form should be deleted because a link to Commons:Email templates#Declaration of consent for all inquiries placed at Wikipedia:Donated artwork/Artists' welcome page#Uploading the image is preferred for this Donated artwork project (and that link is now present). If you have anything to add to the discussion, please say, otherwise, I will wait a little while and make the two deletions and case closed. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Both deleted. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Why is this here, and not at Commons?

This project is by its very nature concerned with Wikimedia Commons, not with English or any other language. Shouldn't this be on Commons? — Sebastian 21:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmmm, good point. There is some intangible, undefinable, gut feeling I have that says it should be here, at least for now. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I just did a little computation from the values at https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm; it seems that over 50% Wikipedia's traffic is non-English. To be exact, en.WP is only 48.7% of all WP traffic. In other words, by adding pictures to other language WPs, we can more than double the visibility of an artwork. — Sebastian 07:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding to other languages

I just added a picture we recently received permission for to all the articles of other wikis. That was quite fun; I now know the word for "picture" in a number of new languages. So I think we could make it more interesting for artists if we told them we'll be offering the pictures across all languages. Of course we don't know if it sticks, but why shouldn't it? To facilitate this, I suggest to create a subpage that helps adding these pictures to other language wikis. It would e.g. contain a table that provides such information for each language as any language specific guidelines one needs to keep in mind, or the translation of the "image" parameter in infoboxes, like so: [...]. — Sebastian 21:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I just went ahead and created Wikipedia:Donated artwork/Volunteer work and moved the table there. — Sebastian 21:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Well done! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Divide the work between donors ("artists") and Wikipedians ("volunteers")

As it was, this process still required work from donors ("artists") that can easier be performed by Wikipedians. By burdening potential donors with work they likely will not enjoy, we further reduce the chance for this being a success. Attempts to make this easier on the donors, such as by mentioning photosubmission@wikimedia.org, backfire because they make the text more complicated and thus scary or TLDR. I therefore moved out the "Uploading the image" section, and reworded this page and the letter page so the default is that there is already a Wikipedian ("volunteer") ready to do the uploading of images. Since each e-mail sent out will have a Wikipedian as its originator, this is a reasonable assumption. Unless we get many dozens of submissions per mail sent out, I think this will still be easy to handle by a single wikipedian. — Sebastian 22:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense. Good thinking. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Green light

So, are we ready? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I think uploaders have been duly cautioned. Any more and they won't go near this. If and when there are responders, we will know better how to tweak these pages. Plus, we will be in email and talk page contact with them to walk them through things and further guide, inform and caution them.

I will start to send emails out to colleges if there are no objections. If others wish to handle Deviantart etc, please say. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

No major concern from me. The one thing I think would make sense is reach a solid decision on whether this should be here or at Commons, because if we change it later, we'll have to redirect the artists. But you're the driving force behind this, so I can live with your decision. — Sebastian 06:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmm. Tough decision. If moved to commons, would it get held up? Objected to? MfDed? Could we get started right away? I can see the advantage of more languages on the case, but we can drag them over here from commons if need be. I don't know why I prefer it here, but I just do. Besides, we don't even know if this will work. It may all be just a waste of time. What do you think is best? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I see. To be honest, I don't know the culture at Commons. It makes sense that you want to be rather on the safe side. The perfect is the enemy of the good. And it's good enough as it is. It's not that big of a deal to make soft redirects later, if it does take off. — Sebastian 07:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Let's call it settled. Why take the risk. Let's move forward. I'm going to send out emails very soon. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Images needed section

I think we need Wikipedia:Donated artwork/Artists' welcome page#Images section more visible, higher up, something. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I moved them up. BTW, since you counted the occurrences of one of the image, I started counting the other, that for Satyajit Ray, and for locales starting with A or B (that is, from Alemannisch to Bosanski) we already have 11 uses. Pretty encouraging, isn't it? — Sebastian 07:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for moving them up. Perfect! I'm not clear on what you mean about "...locales starting with A or B..." :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, "locale" is a software term that is an extension of "language"; it would have been more understandable if I had just used the word "language". I mean I just went through the links in the sidebar from Alemannisch to Bosanski. — Sebastian 07:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Why not have the artist's name in the filename?

The sentence "The artist's name does not appear in the file name" gives me the idea: Why not? There is no rule against that, and one of the examples, File:Nasrallah by Vinoba.jpg, actually does. Why wouldn't we offer the artists to have their name in the file name, if they so prefer? — Sebastian 07:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Good thinking. Sure. Let's tell them they can. You're smart. I like working with you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. I went a bit further in editing the wording. I feel we can make it a default, because it is useful information for us, too, and because I feel it is fairer than having the default be no name; in which case the more modest artists would be unnecessarily at a disadvantage. Another option would be to always ask them, but that would complicate the process; I prefer having defaults. Please feel free to change this; I am past my bed time and won't be able to reply before you launch this thing. — Sebastian 08:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Class project

Someone at IRC suggests a class project thing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I am that person . I was thinking you could frame the invitation emails as a potential class project. Much like we already have student editors, this can be put to the various art schools as a class project. Frame it like we already do all the other student editing projects, "The end of throwaway assignments and the beginning of real-world impact for student editors." If the professor goes for it we could have an entire class working on portraits. Thoughts? --Stabila711 (talk) 08:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for coming!! I love the idea. Let's see what others say. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, that does sound like a good idea. I see no problems with it. One more thought: In this case, you want to do this as a pilot project. Write in your e-mail something along the lines that you want to pick one class for now. That way we won't run the risk of getting overwhelmed if too many classes reply. It also creates scarcity, which is often an incentive to value an offer. — Sebastian 08:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. The idea of a pilot program sounds good. That way any bugs can be worked out too. --Stabila711 (talk) 08:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmm, interesting. I'm not too sure about the pilot thing. What about just a mention or suggestion of a class thing as in Sample email 2? I can't see us being overwhelmed. I mean, are you saying a whole class might each make a pic of the same person to see which is best? The information we provide lets them know the hazards of that. Only the best one or two would have a chance. And how would we handle responses to a dozen emails? Select one class and reject the rest? I don't know about this. The simple class project suggestion is very open. It lets them sort out the details and do it as they wish. Maybe the teacher would let the students draw what they each want. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: I was thinking overwhelmed in the sense that we wouldn't have enough needed portraits to go around. Or multiple people from different classes would start working on a Trevor Noah portrait. If we are going to offer it to multiple classes there needs to be a way to mark portraits as "under construction" so another artist that comes along can see which ones still have to started. That way they aren't working on something that someone else is already working on. We also need a much larger batch of needed images. A single class can have 30 to 40 people in it. --Stabila711 (talk) 08:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You raise an important issue that was right under our noses. Of course they will all draw the image with the best hits. One will displace another and people will be upset. I think we need a system where they add their name somewhere saying what they're working on. Plus, we really need to state the risks about that at the welcome page. They need to know that the email is in the hands of others too. At the same time, I'm pessimistic and don't think we will get even a single drawing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I've added content here to caution artists. Is there more that can be done? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I made a comment on IRC and then I realized that it would serve better here. — Stabila711 09:38, 29 October 2015 — continues after insertion below

The conversation has now deviated from the topic "class project". So I moved the rest of the conversation to a new section "magic button". There is no perfect place to cut, but I decided to start with what anyone coming here from the help desk needs to know.

Anna, I still feel that many of the problems discussed here could be averted with a pilot project. To reply to your question "And how would we handle responses to a dozen emails? Select one class and reject the rest?": Yes, why not? I see no problem saying that this is only a limited project for now. If we really get more than one school excited about this project, then we can easily extend the project later. — Sebastian 17:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Two things worry me:

• 1. We've done all this for nothing and nobody will respond.
• 2. It may be getting needlessly complicated.

My view: Keep it simple and get our feet wet. The school project thing is a can of worms. We should forget that for now. The main goal here is to get images for articles. Helping artists is secondary. We should go heavy on the instructions and cautions and light on the customer service and complicated tables. We are just looking for a few dozen images here. Set up their procedure as simply as possible requiring as little hand-holding as possible. Just guiding newcomer artists to upload suitable images will be challenging enough. Getting them to edit Wikipedia tables may be a mistake. Keep it simple for us and them.

This is filled with unknowns and guesses as to what will happen. So many question marks. Let's find out by sending a limited amount of emails and then watch, wait, and see how it goes. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, I am sorry to suddenly object to things going this way. I slept and just woke up and saw it with fresh eyes. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

No worries, it's your baby, naturally you'll have this kind of worries. I liked the school idea, but there's nothing wrong with going ahead as planned. — Sebastian 19:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

This is just as much your baby as mine. You've done just as much work and I have no ownership or greater rights than anyone. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Magic button

I am thinking of a button that can be added to each line in the "needed images" table that can be clicked that will autofill an "under construction" tag. That way artists can scroll through the list and look for things that don't have that tag. --Stabila711 (talk) 09:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Not a bad plan. Better may be to have a field in the table where artists can add their name to say they're working on it. That way others can see how many are competing. I'm not sure though. We could just super-caution everyone everywhere. Let them know the risks. Besides, if we do super-caution, then an image gets uploaded and people try to do better. The cream rises to the top. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I am alright with competition but if that happens I do feel like it should be noted somewhere on the table how many people are working on one particular portrait. If I saw that one portrait was being worked on by 5 people I would probably pick another one instead of potentially wasting my time. I am trying to think about how to put that into the table and how feasible a "click to add your name" button is. --Stabila711 (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I handled this, which might give clues. Best may be a new subpage that simply lists the articles, very raw, no tables, no markup, where they can add their name and sign. If you try to get them to add their names to a table, there may be no end to the confusion. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Forgoing the table may cause much more confusion since the end result will be more disorganized. I was thinking of a button that they could click that would autofill their signature into the right section. The problem with that is that their signature would be their IP address (unless we instruct them to create an account). Essentially, I am trying to eliminate as many steps as possible to make it as easy as possible for our artist volunteers. --Stabila711 (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

A button would be great. I've asked the wiki-cavalry. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Example

Article	Identity	Monthly page hits	Wikicommons check	Number of articles at other language Wikipedias	Reason needed		People working on this portrait
Caitlyn Jenner	Television personality	328,901 page hits in 2015 09	Commons	28	No picture of her found since her gender transition	Sign name	Testing My name. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Anna Frodesiak: Well the button wasn't that hard to make. It currently links to the main page. Now to just figure out how to get the signing to work properly. I am thinking about a subpage with a section for each needed image and labeled section transclusion of the names back into the table. That way the table and the nice formatting that comes with it is preserved. --Stabila711 (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

What should the button do?

The tricky part is the mechanics behind the button. We're dealing with people who are completely inexperienced with Wikipedia and who (at least most of them) don't want to be an editor, which means:

1. We need to make this very simple.
2. We can not rely on any autofill, but have to ask users to add their name.

I suggest a button with the following functionality:

1. Display a little dialog which allows a user to enter their own name, and an OK and a Cancel button.
2. On OK, add the name (actually: any text the user entered) to the page source text.
3. The insertion point for the added name is determined by a hidden comment. The name gets added right before the comment, so that consecutive names will be appended in chronological order.
4. There needs to be some separation between names. We could use new lines, but that would make the cell taller, which would make the overall table much bigger by adding a lot of air in the other columns. I'd suggest to use a special character such as ✍ or ✎. — Sebastian 17:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Before I comment on this button idea, we should probably be completely sure it is the right way to go. I am so sorry for this. I hate wasted resources and I'm responsible for doing exactly that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the button is always a good idea, regardless which way we're sending this out. But you have a point that it may not be worth the time of a tech wiz just yet. If, at least for the time being, you want to coordinate the assignment of pictures to artists, then you can just enter that in the table manually. That's just as good a solution. — Sebastian 19:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. So, do you think it is okay for me to send out a few emails now? We can enter names manually, as you suggest. — Anna Frodesiak — continues after insertion below

Yes. — Sebastian 22:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I am working on the JavaScript for a popup that they can put their name in that will automatically write to the table without having to do anything else. I have never worked with JavaScript before but so far I have gotten the popup to function correctly so I am on the right track. Shouldn't take that long to get everything working correctly. --Stabila711 (talk) 04:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that would be great! It would not only make it easier for everyone involved, but also eliminate any risk of accidental duplication. (If a middleperson is involved, even if it's someone as active as Anna, there is always a considerable delay, which means that two people can sign up without knowing of each other. This is something I only realized after I wrote the above messsage.) — Sebastian 05:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Stabila711. That sounds great. By the way, an IP would be able to come to the url, see the button, click it, and manually add a name, right? Is the IP being identifiable an issue? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: It is going to ask for the user to input a name or a pseudonym. That is what is going to be put into the table. --Stabila711 (talk) 06:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

But we can expect IPs to edit, right? That would say which college or area, right? Is that a problem? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The IP can edit. It just won't put the IP into the table since the IP would mean nothing. It will put whatever they put into the input box into the table. --Stabila711 (talk) 06:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Stabila711. I'm just wondering about privacy issues. Maybe we should let the person know that the edit will reveal their location if they do not have an account, but instead use an IP. The IP edit will be in the history and not the table, that I understand. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@SebastianHelm and Anna Frodesiak: So I may have bitten off more than is actually possible. After doing a lot of poking around and experiments it looks like the mediawiki software is blocking the execution of any javascript unless the user installs said script into the custom .js file beforehand. This makes sense from a security standpoint but it puts a damper on my attempt to make it a one-step click and sign process. So if you still want the ability to put names to portraits that are under construction while still maintaining the table format there is a way to do that and it just includes one extra step for the artist. The button will take them to a subpage that has each needed portrait as its own section. The button will automatically open up the subsection of their requested portrait where they will put their name (a comment line can be there that gives them further instructions). The saved paged will be automatically transcluded back to the table. I have put in an example of this above in the mock table. The button will take you to my talk page, specifically a "testing" section. If you were to put your name there and hit "save" it will automatically update here. I know it sounds complicated but with the autofill being a bust this is the next best thing I can come up with that avoids the need to have them edit the table directly. Also as to the privacy issue, that will probably be a good thing to put into the email. Just a line saying "you are encouraged to create an account" or something like that. --Stabila711 (talk) 09:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Well done!! I will add to the email samples the IP reveals and consider registering content. Could you please set up the subpage. We are almost ready to go. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks great. Tested to signature subpage fine. Could use some invisible text saying how to click save, maybe not use tildes, and how to return to table page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Was going to ask you how you wanted to phrase everything. I have already added {{nobots}} to the signature page to suppress SineBot from accidentally adding a signature where it doesn't belong. I was thinking perhaps an edit window notice like they have at AN and ANI? Something that will just give them a few extra instructions. Thoughts? --Stabila711 (talk) 09:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

People tend not to see those. I'm thinking an invisible instruction note under each item. Sample:

<!--
Instructions:

1. Type an asterisk "*" then your name below. (There is no need to add four tildes "~~~~" to make your Wikipedia editor signature.)

2. Click "Save page" at the bottom.

3. At the top of the page, click "List of articles needing images" to return to the table of images.

-->

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I went ahead and added it to each section. --Stabila711 (talk) 10:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Perfect. If you want to give the emails a quick proof, that would be great. I'll make a tweak to the invisible stuff. Then we're all set, I guess. Many thanks!!!! Great work!! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Should we reserve commissions?

Also, to be clear, adding names is just to show others that artists declare that they are working on particular images. Obviously nobody can reserve an image. This is basically to say "notice that others have also selected this image", right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I never meant for to be a "reserve" function. That is why the header in the last section says "People working on this portrait" not "Reserved?" There is a way to produce a popup that you can input information into that then edits a page without ever opening said page. Twinkle does it. I would have to look at the source code to see how it is done but I know it is doable. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's how I saw it, too, but on second thought I disagree with your "Obviously". You should have known better than use the word obviously" with me ;-p Now that I'm thinking about it I can see more compelling advantages with allowing reservations. While the advantages of non-reservation include the following (assuming that we will have enough submissions to make a difference)

1. It avoids some up front work for the coordinator (that would be you, at least at first)
2. We don't have to do anything if someone doesn't end up delivering.
3. We get some duplicates, from which we (the community) can pick.

Advantages of reservations include:

1. We avoid the problem that pictures get superseded by a "better" image, which must be a disappointment for any artist.
2. We will get images for more articles, as artists' efforts would be spread more across the list.

— Sebastian 22:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I trust both of your judgement more than my own. Adding names it is. So, I guess I should hold off on sending emails until that is worked out, right? I gather it needs to be linked to the welcome page, or be part of the list of articles needing images, and maybe be mentioned and linked in the email.

Oh, and I didn't mean to type "obviously". I meant obeliskly, as in "He tried to use a narrow tapering monument to reserve an image." That's obeliskly what I meant. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

ROFL! Of course, that's a much safer word; much less likely to have any obviating effect on a project.

But there's a misunderstanding, caused by the edit conflict: Stabila agreed with you; I'm the lone dissenter. I don't think that needs to block you, though. I think there's a middle way: If you just label the column as Stabila suggested (or, shorter, "image prepared by"), you can leave the rule open to interpretation. If a second claim reaches you before you got around to enter the first, you can just let the second artist know by e-mail, and let them decide. Maybe the first artist should have a chance to reconsider, too, but you can cross that bridge when you get to it. — Sebastian 02:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. But since the whole point of this is not to reserve, but rather to inform others that people are working on it (and how many), why not just forget names and add a number to a column titled "Forthcoming image pledges". Every time an artist says he'll make an image for that article, we +1 to the number. No names, message conveyed. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to disagree again. I don't think numbers are a good idea for the following reasons:

1. Numbers are perceived to be impersonal and cold. We don't want to send the message that we regard our artists as numbers. (You may feel that numbers are good to protect privacy, but that defeats the purpose of the whole motivation for participating in the project. Besides, they are free to use a nom de pinceau.)
2. Having one's name written publicly serves as an obligation; it's less likely to get forgotten.
3. Numbers invite confusion, such as "Is John already counted?"
4. Having no names would complicate managing the work flow. Somebody has to keep track of who signed up, anyway. I presume that would be you initially, and you may have an easier way to do that, so it would be fine for the moment. But what if you're on vacation? Then the rest of us volunteers would have no clue.

— Sebastian 04:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't mind at all when you disagree. Your suggestions are very constructive.

So, just to be clear, in email or talk page communication with artists, say something like "You can tell us you are working on a piece by adding your name to XXXXX or asking us to add it for you. You don't have to use your real name." When a work is created....??? The purpose is only to inform others, right? I'm still not clear on the exact purpose. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

That's close. Let me write my suggested wording at Wikipedia:Donated artwork/List of articles needing images#Instructions, then you can adjust it as you see fit. I'm leaving out "or asking us to add it for you", because it looks like Stabila will make it super easy. (Note: I will soon be away for 15 hours, and then also have very little time for another day.) — Sebastian 05:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

That looks good. Should we modify "...That will prevent the unpleasant situation that several artists accidentally compete against each other..."? It seems to imply that once someone has their name down, nobody else should try to create a portrait. Multiple names may be on one item, right? Also, "will" could maybe be "will help to". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we should modify it; I agree with your concern. And yes, "will help to" will help to make that clear. And a third yes, at least according to my specs, multiple names are allowed, but I don't know whether it's possible for Stabila to implement it. Good night! — Sebastian 05:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, and thank you. :) Sorry to keep you up. Sleep well, my friend. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Emails sent out

• I sent sample 2 email to 12 colleges all together, mostly in New Zealand, Australia, and Scotland. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• I sent sample 2 email to another 12 colleges, mostly in Australia and the Netherlands. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Only three automated responses returned. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

  I wouldn't worry about how many replies you have gotten just yet. People who are interested probably have to run it by a few people at the University first. Cut through the red tape so to speak. Have you sent any to American art schools? Perhaps places like the Rhode Island School of Design or the Massachusetts College of Art and Design? --Stabila711 (talk) 04:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Good points. And no, not yet. These would be my first sources: [1][2]

Best may be flickr, facebook, and deviantart groups. The first two are blocked here in China. Are you interested in contacting them? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure I can compile a list and send some out if you want. Blind carbon copies would make the entire thing quick and relatively painless. Just have to register a new email account since I kinda don't want to do this from my personal account. --Stabila711 (talk) 05:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Or do you think it would be better if a real name was used? --Stabila711 (talk) 05:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Fantastique! I'd avoid BCC because spamfilters might be a problem. Also, the recipient may not like it. I've been doing one by one. Also, if you paste the letter to a new message, the links may not always be present and you have to go to end of url line and hit enter then backspace to make the links blue. If that happens, send a copy to yourself, dump it into an email folder, then keep forwarding the same one again and again. You'll have to remove the "fwd:" and top text saying it's a forward, but it's faster than activating links each time. Anyhow, I'd make a new email that is for Wikipedia only. It can be a username name or pseudo. You pick. Mine is a sort of numbered non-descript account name unrelated to my username or real name. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

With social media you have the benefit of being in contact with the artists directly. IMO emails to colleges are likely to go straight in the bin - they will want their students to be busy getting on with their accredited course work!! The idea of artist involvement in Wikipedia is a nice one, of course, it's a shame I can't be more directly involved - at the mo I'm not keen to reveal my 'real world' identity ;) Sionk (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes! No response so far. You are probably right!! Clever bunny!! Okay, so let's go in the backdoor to contact the artists. Social media groups. You can be involved, Sionk, by registering an anon account and contacting these groups at flickr, facebook, deviantart, etc. I can handle deviant if others can handle flickr. I know at facebook you cannot be anon, right. I may post at village pump to find someone who is okay with showing their face. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @Stabila711, SebastianHelm, and Sionk:. I started Wikipedia:Donated artwork/Emailing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Good idea! As for the responses, I'm not ready yet to admit I lost the bet; it's barely Monday morning for them. — Sebastian 06:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @Stabila711, SebastianHelm, and Sionk:. I posted at Commons, Wikiproject arts and village pump misc. asking for partipants. No luck so far. Can we chat over at Wikipedia talk:Donated artwork/Emailing? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Request for Wikipedians to post at Facebook

Hello:

• User:ArnoldReinhold
• User:Dennis Bratland
• User:Divinity76
• User:Eric Corbett
• User:Hoho24
• User:Ijon
• User:Jantangring
• User:John Cline
• User:Looie496
• User:MirkoS18
• User:Mlewan
• User:MPFitz1968
• User:Scott
• User:SteveBish
• User:Suso

I have pinged you here to ask if you would help Wikipedia:Donated artwork.

Because you state that you use your real name, I am wondering if one or more of you can post at Facebook somewhere to see if artists would be interested in creating drawings for Wikipedia.

I cannot access Facebook here in China, so I do not know how it all works. I have heard that there are groups, some of which may be about art. I have already emailed numerous art schools and posted at DeviantArt. The schools did not respond and DeviantArtists would only be interested if money were offered.

Below is the post I made at DeviantArt (now with a link added).

Thoughts?

Notice A number of high-traffic Wikipedia articles on famous individuals lack images. Some of these articles receive substantial page hits. A few examples are: Caitlyn Jenner received 328,901 page hits in 2015 09, yet there is no image of her since her gender transition. Kim Jong-un received 113,513 page hits in 2015 09. The lead image at that article could easily be replaced with a better one. Creating a good likeness, even a sketch, could mean good exposure. If you are interested, please respond here or visit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Donated_artwork. Many thanks.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Good evening (at least in my time zone) Anna Frodesiak! I can share your call on my profile. Still, I am really not sure how well it might work since I do not have to many people who might qualify for this. I have another idea. You might send your request to local volunteer centers since this might be good way for distance online volunteering. I am just not sure in what way you can recognize volunteers contributions (maybe with thanks cards or something?). If you need help in contacting local centers in Croatia/Serbia/Bosnia/Montenegro I can give you help with translation. Still, I will need some time since I am just getting into final exams period that will last until 6 of January.--MirkoS18 (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I just put it on Facebook in case someone might be interested :) .--MirkoS18 (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much, MirkoS18. I am not sure what a volunteer centre is, but thank you so much for the facebook post. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Volunteers' Centre would be organization like this one (http://www.vcz.hr/english-info/). They share information and organize some of the local volunteers at local, national and European level activities.--MirkoS18 (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Further art discussions

• hand-drawn medical images

Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

AI tools generate artwork

There is a new technological development. For some years now artificial intelligence tools have been able to generate artwork. I just found this tool which is an example of this technology, and which I think Wikipedia editors should consider for developing new policy.

See https://artflow.ai/

This tool takes portraits of people as input then returns a new original portrait of that person in a new pose as output. The tool designers are saying that this tool produces images with Wikimedia compatible Creative Commons licenses. The effect of this is that anyone can feed this tool copyrighted photos of people for which Wikipedia has articles but no available free photo, and get back images which we can post into Wikipedia articles. Right now the technology is early and the photos are not perfect, but with the pace of development, this kind of artworks is only going to get better and easier to generate.

Now would be a good time to have some pilot cases exploring using this tool and also to discuss Wikipedia policy for when and how to use tools such as these. Tools such as this likely also have biases, and may for example produce better art for demographics of people on whom the tool has been trained but fail to produce usable art for minority demographics. We should talk. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I just tried it with Frances Ames, an article I wrote, but it didn't produce a useful image. I also couldn't get the hard coded URL it provides to work. And the file size available is only 5 KB. I've reviewed many of the contributions from other users, and as it stands, it seems to provide more accurate representations if you give it rich descriptions. For example, "goth Joe Biden" looks pretty cool, as does "Edgar A. Poe traffic cone", but ultimately aren't usable. Viriditas (talk) 09:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Viriditas: The tool also failed to produce a working URL for the product for me. It seems that this technology is still new and developing and not ready for Wikipedia.

sample artwork from this tool is at their twitter https://twitter.com/artflow_ai

Perhaps this and other tools will be more ready after some years. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

It seems very close to ready. It did something interesting when I entered in "Frances Ames". First, it seemed to draw upon a famous image of her in her 80s, and then reversed the framing so that she was facing the opposite direction. Then, it de-aged her to a woman in her 30s, drawing upon the composite faces of other women to do this. The finished product resembled Evan Rachel Wood. After thinking about it for a bit, I think a younger Frances Ames might resemble Wood quite a bit, so the accuracy was somewhat unexpected. I'm going to play around with the keyword features that allow you to tune the design and see if I can't figure out how to make it more accurate. Viriditas (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)