The voting process format. It is different from on-wiki process because it's "secret". There was concern on how this was not compatible with wiki processes, but there are also concerns about how feasible is to handle voting on wiki when several hundreds of people participate. So the technical question is: can this be done in a more transparent way but with still some sort of automated vote counting and checking?
A possible "special jury prize". I like this idea a lot. Pick up some FPC regulars, maybe from Commons:Meet our photographers?, and have a separate prize. It wouldn't be "the" Picture of the Year, but it would have Main Page honours (Joaquim, como se traduz "menção honrosa"? :D) Patríciamsg22:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who opposed the secrecy, mainly because it takes almost all the fun from contesters and voters. That really hapened last year and IMO the whole process was a bit boring. I would recomend to keep the voting process exactely as it was (it ran smoothly last year) but complement it with period information on the results. For example, I believe it wouldn't be too hard to automatically maintain a list of all pictures with the corresponding votes, as well as a gallery with the 100 best (or whatever), updated twice a day (or whatever). I don't find relevant the access to the individual votes but even that shouldn't be too diffficult to obtain. As for the special prize of the jury (não sei, Patrícia ;-)), remember that most of the people from Commons:Meet our photographers will be deeply involved in the contest. A third point: maybe it is time to also consider (that was discussed last year) some thematic prizes (one for each category?) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with Alves here. If that is impossible, we should announce the winner exactly at midnight GMT to add to the fun. Last year I would refresh constantly all day to see, and the results were 14 hours late. I think that they should be published almost instantly if not displayed live along the process. If we have sockpuppets etc. to check for, we can probably do it during the vote. Another idea (that half of Commons would probably kill me for) is to get a corporate sponsor to sponsor the jury award (i.e. Zeiss, Sigma as their lenses are quite compatible across many mounts). What do you think? If we move quickly to contact a sponsor and agree on the terms, it would be really cool if we could achieve something with that. What do you think, Freedom to share (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the secrecy is one of the best things (secrecy on who voted what, not on what image received how many votes). It helps people choose what images they genuinely want rather than those elections becoming a means to make friends, enemies or try to end personal conflicts. Freedom to share (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From my point of view the most of informations should be public as soon as possible including individual votes. I do not see anything unnatural on fact, that another people will see my votes. Why not? And I believe that is quite normal to give a vote to my own picture, if I think that it is really good. I believe, that most of us are normal adult poeple voting decently without creation of some sockpuppets etc. But to avoid this type of behaviour I do not like the idea of sponzoring. First of all, it seems to be against the idea of Wiki and second - the possibility of getting something material for the first place can lead some poeple to try illegal tricks. --Karelj (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My idea of sponsorship is that it would be chosen by a jury, which is quite an impartial process. Yes, the jury could be biased, but without the possibility of anonymous messaging (through talk pages) in Commons, I do not see it as much as a problem. You might consider the sponsorship concept to against the GFDL and wiki ideology. I personally feel that it would support it. The primary reason for POTY is to encourage more image submissions. If people see that there is real material goods to be earned through giving a free license to their content, they will be more likely to give. Some people would probably give their images away if they had a chance to win Jury's Choice POTY. Imo this does not conflict with the free nature of Commons. Freedom to share (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've nothing against finding a sponsor for the jury's prize. But also have no idea on how that could be done, or if it would be allowed by the Wikimedia Foundation and the present Commons rules. I agree it would be nice to have the results permanentely updated but maybe that is not possible with the present software. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How the pictures will be sorted in the candidate page? I'm asking that question because there is a lot of candidates, and I think first pictures on the page will probably be seen often than others. Is there a possibility of random sort each time a user open the page? or can we display pictures depending on their vote counts, but pictures that have less votes before? --sanchezn (talk) 09:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That problem is already solved. Pictures are organized in galleries, accordint to the subject. For voting, both the galleries and their content are randomized (please ee here). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed last year and, as far as I remember, there was no strong justification for not considering all the pictures of the year. I agree with that. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All FPs from 2008 should be included. It wouldn't be fair to exclude those promoted in December. Sorting into galleries straight away is a good idea. Shall we start with the same galleries as last year, and see if we need to create some more or merge some? Pruneautalk20:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work! Yes, I think it will have to be something like that. Of course, we'll have to manipulate the final categories so that they all have more or less the same number of pictures. Smaller galleries tend to have more attention. For the Jan-Aug pictures, maybe we should split the "arthtopod" gallery and merge "Objects" and Miscellaneous". Also, I'm not sure we should create a "pano" gallery. Maybe it should be more rational to distribute all panos by the corresponding thematic categories. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should have include FPs from all the year (from January 1, 2008 up to December 31, 2008). Second option is to include pictures of December 2007. First option is easy to understand by people, but second is more fair, and I think voting would start faster in 2009. What do you think? --Sfu (talk) 13:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was my understanding that in the end, POTY 2007 included all 2007 FPs, including those from December. We should be doing the same thing this year. Pruneautalk14:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I like the idea, it depends on whether "historical images" can be defined or not, e.g., non-digital camera or B/W film, {{PD-old}} and its variants, of a subject that no longer exists, taken prior to a certain date, etc. My point is that it may take months to obtain a consensus on what constitutes "historical images". Since technology has improved continuously, it may be argued that the criteria for judging a photo taken in 1950 should be different than for 1900 or 1850. One way forward may be to specify a definition in the proposal and ask people to comment. My suggestion is to restrict the category to pictures taken prior to 1950. That includes the important period of WWII and restricts the material to mostly B/W. Also, that was a time of rapid change in the technology of photography and printing. Walter Siegmund(talk)19:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you look at the candidates I think it's pretty clear which are "historic" and which are not. I doubt there will in practice be difficult problems of definition. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to pop in here and spoil the fun for everybody, but I completely disagree with you all :) (as usual). I don't at all think that the definition of a historical image should stop at 1950. Until when do most history textbooks write about? The period from 1989-1991, a time of perestroika, the end of the Cold War, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the last turning point in modern society that redefined our politics and society once more. I think that 1989 should therefore be the cut-off point for what constitutes a historical image. Freedom to share (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt that defining what a "historical picture" is would take us to an endless discussion. Maybe the very concept of "historical" is ambiguous and should be abandoned. What about "journalistic pictures", assuming that we have enough to create a category? All pictures that, though being "historical" (here, I mean "old"), could not be considered as journalistic (for example, the portrait of my grandfather) should be put in the other categories ("people", in particular) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about "Newsworthy"? We could define that in an objective manner. "Pictures of subjects (events, things or people) that have been specifically reported on by national news sources" --J.smith (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do it like last year? Two voting phases: in the first n finalists are chosen (5-10% of the universe?); in the second, the winners are elected. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure... This adds a little bit of excitement and even gives us an excuse to generate a bit of extra publicity on the other projects. J.smith (talk) 21:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree too, also the users who voted last year will already have some idea on how the process runs, so it's easier that they come back for more :). Patríciamsg12:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to start the discussion. Assuming that some group of users has been chosen to integrate the juri (they could be the members of MOP/MOI plus some regulars [chosen by election?], summimg up to about 20?), it seems obvious that the object of the voting cannot be the whole set of pictures. Two ways to solve the problem: (i) limiting the voting universe to the finalist pictures; (2) having a preliminary phase, in which all members of the juri choose a set of n pictures (depending on the number of members), and then proceed with the voting with the selected images. I prefer the second option, as there are less chances of acumulation of prizes. The voting should be secret and sent by email to a secretary. The winner will be the first picture to gather more than some percentage of votes (absolute majority?). Of course, there will be as many voting sessions as necessary. Also, a wiki discussion between members should be carried out, just like in the pope's election. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After sleeping over the subject, I think that the juri should be chosen by election. We will start by defining the number n of elements and then there will be a poll with a list of candidates. The n candidates with more support votes (or a better ratio support/oppose, or whatever) will be chosen. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The elected jury is certainly a good idea. But how do we draw up the list of candidates? Can everybody run for? I suppose that's the easiest and fairest way. -- MJJR (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, though we might make the process a bit simpler. As for how to choose the winning picture, the best way would be to leave the question to the juri. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
n = 7? Does this sound good, or were you thinking about a larger number? Agree with an RfA style. We could have a 75% {{Support}} threshold for a candidate to be part of the jury; if we have more people than places in those conditions, we'd take the ones who had more votes. Patríciamsg12:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Last year we discussed the possibilty of having thematic prizes but it was not implemented for lack of consensus. I think we should go ahead with the idea this time. The simplest way would be to automatically attribute the prizes among the finalist images, without the need of having a separate voting. How many categories? They could match the categories of the voting galleries or not (maybe not). Any proposal? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some issues which need discussion:
Should reproductions of artworks (paintings, drawings, maps, sculptures,…) be eligible to the thematic prizes?
I think not, because it would be near to impossible to separate the value of the artwork from the value of the reproduction, this last one being the only relevant to the contest. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can only do it, if you have a separate theme "reproductions of art" and if you only consider the technical qualities of the reproductions, apart from the artistic qualities of the reproduced objects which are indeed not relevant for the contest. In the same way, you can have a separate theme "historical pictures", where also the technical qualities of the reproduction (and eventually the cleaning up or restoration) are considered. -- MJJR (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should the themes subject to prize be created to cover all pictures (except maybe the artworks referred above)?
This is a difficult issue because it won’t be possible to create homogeneous categories, each of them with more or less the same number of pictures. Either we leave some of the pictures behind (because their themes are less representative or more difficult to classify) or we will have to accept non-homogeneous categories, in terms of subject and number of pictures. Since the first solution is hardly acceptable, I guess we will have to do our best with the second. Here is a possible solution (notice that the themes do not necessarily coincide with the categories of the voting galleries):
Nature: Plant life
Nature: Animal life (all animals except arthropods)
Nature: Insects & etc (arthropods)
Nature: Land and sea
Constructions & urban views
Nature: the Universe (pictures of the sky, planets, etc.)
People & human activities (the least homogeneous theme)
I think that we shouldn't exclude art and restoration from prizes - it just makes this less of a community project and more photographers-only. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is an Olympics year maybe we can bring a bit of Olympic feel to the barnstar? Maybe not.. it's been done to death. J.smith (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to come up with a mini-competition for the logo, but I feel that would take too long. How about if we just ask someone to make a new one? Patríciamsg12:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it will work, thak you! Unless someone comes forward with a brand new proposal. But we still have to make the barnstars for the thematic prizes, of course!... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider to be a core member to organize POTY2008, at the same time.As of today there are no core members for POTY2008. POTY2007's core members are too busy to be "core" this time, though they would help POTY2008 if possible. Thank you.--miya (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When can the voting start?
The POTY2007 dates were "ROUND 1: 10-17 January 2008" (from Thursday to Thursday) and "FINAL: 20-24 January 2008" (from Sunday to Thursday). --miya (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The software, announcements and sitenotices, which are listed here, still need to be translated into most languages. This mainly means copy-pasting from last year and changing "2007" into "2008".
Ideally, all captions should be translated in as many languages as possible, but I don't think it's realistic to hope to get all 499 images in 20 languages as such short notice. At least, we sould make sure that all the finalists get their captions translated.
So what still needs to be done to get this show on the road? I'm only a casual commons user, more active on Wikipedia, and don't know many languages aside from a little french and russian, but I've been seeing this notice that voting will start soon for a week now, and I was just wondering if there's anything I can do to help.-Runningonbrains (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the reord, we do need to decide how we're going to give out the awards for each of the POTY categories. Should we make special logos for each of them? What template should we use - a modified assessments template, or a new template? Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For example "Nature views No.1", "Nature views No.2", "Nature views No.3", "Nature views honourable mention", or like that (Sorry I don't know adequate wording. I can't handle svg files, either.).--miya (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'd be better to make it more visual: The text isn't going to be readable in any of the dozen other languages participating. I also don't think we should use the same really fancy ribbon as we'll be using for the overall winners, otherwise, how will you tell the overall winners from the category winners? Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all agreed, but we now need somebody to do it, urgently! Lady of Hats is busy. I think. Are there other volunteers or at least someone whose are we can twist?
This is what we have already:
2008 Awards
and we now need logos for the sectional prizes in round 1. These need to be less impressive than the overall winners, above, and for each we need 1st, 2nd, 3rd and honourable mention logos. Best not to use text, as that may put off non-English speakers.
Emblems and Diagrams
Non-photographic art and historic maps
People and human activities
Objects and outer space
Cities, architecture, constructions, and related
Nature views
Panoramas
Plants and fungi
Arthropods
Birds
Other animals
Also, although not yet discussed, it might be nice to have an honourable mention logo for the final, eg that we can use for the 4th to 10th places (there will be 50 images in the final, in total). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Download
~1900
1909
1944
1960
1989
.jpg)
Info - Previous barnstarts have been designed by our offical illustrator, LadyofHats (see here). I'm sure she will be glad to make these too. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
