Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Request for feedback: transparency jury & process
In our case, in the very first competition WL I've organized with WMPT in 2018, we came to the clear conclusion that at this point a pre-announced jury does not work, let alone a pre-announced jury taking care of gender parity and other diversity issues. So we do it, as we say, with the "house silverware", with the very precious help of members of other affiliates and other members of the wiki community (country independent). It has been working quite well that way. As I said, all members of the jury (which can be confirmed on Montage) are usually tanked in our blog post afterwards. We also came to the clear conclusion that the voting alone is not enough, for the reasons described by Ivo, so we set up a kind of final core jury or grand jury that has a final word on the voting results, adjusting them according to quality, scope and diversity, something that often does not came out of the voting results. The whole process, as it is, is transparent (or can be fully released in any moment). Forcing bureaucratic measures, such as the pre-announcement of the juri, would make the organization much more difficult, at least to the ones like us who are doing this uniquely on their volunteer time. Best, Paulo Ivo Kruusamägi escreveu no dia domingo, 4/10/2020 à(s) 03:49: > In Estonia, I think we have always published the names of jury members (or > in some cases, their wiki names) in all of the article and image > competitions we've had over the last 10+ years. At least any exceptions > don't come to my mind. So I don't see a problem with the expectation that > jury members should be clearly brought out. > > It becomes even more important on the international level. Like with Wiki > Science Competition we have even published the results on how have jury > members voted. Like: > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Science_Competition_2019/Winners/People_in_Science/round_2 > Not that it needs to be that specific, but still... With the local version > of the science photo competition, it has even been common that all the jury > physically comes together to review the files and discuss them. It really > helps to use the competence of the jury (I'm "bit" critical to relying only > on casting votes, as this clearly works against the images that are > actually more special). Occasionally it has happened that one of the jury > members can't participate, but I haven't taken the name out for that and > he/she has always had the possibility to provide feedback via email. And > with the physical gathering is also obvious, that there can't be any > numerical values to be published later except to say that "jury reached a > consensus" or to bring out what the jury members thought about some images. > > What has happened a few times (can remember 3) over the years is that the > results have been so weak or one-sided, that I didn't assemble a jury [with > smaller competitions that may take place at the same time the > articles/photos are being collected] or I not used it (as there are so > clear winners that it would a total waste of time to do so). That is: > setting up a fancy jury only makes sense if there would be results worthy > of that jury. It there would only be a few not-so-good files, then the jury > members may not want to return the next year. And when it is the first time > to organize something it may not be clear on what may be the result. As > privacy issues can easily be avoided, then the only possible edge case that > comes to my mind is the possibility that the results may end up being too > weak to justify some decent pre-announced jury... but with WLM I'd guess > there should anyway be like at least 500 images to choose from whatever > participating country, so that should not be a problem. > > Correction: when looking at the list of ca 70 competitions we've had then > there wasn't jury listed here: https://www.miljonpluss.ut.ee/24h/ (even > thou there still was something in the press release) > > Regards > Ivo Kruusamägi > > Kontakt attolippip () kirjutas kuupäeval L, 3. > oktoober 2020 kell 20:25: > >> Last year we did publish an overview of how the evaluation/selection >> process was organised (in Ukrainian): http://wlm.org.ua/top123_2019/ >> while introducing top 123 pictures of the last round (as it was published >> before announcing our top 10). I think it also helped to engage people on >> social media, as we asked our followers to submit their guesses about top >> 10 from these 123 in the comments :) >> >> On Sat, Oct 3, 2020, 19:56 effe iets anders >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Mykola, >>> >>> I would encourage WLX Jury Tool to follow suit and provide a similar >>> option to give easy openness to its users. There is no obligation to use >>> either or any tool. This overview is just a convenient way to make it >>> easier for organizers to be transparent. >>> >>> Lodewijk >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 9:49 AM Mykola Kozlenko wrote: >>> Hi Lodewijk, As we intend to use
Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Request for feedback: transparency jury & process
In Estonia, I think we have always published the names of jury members (or in some cases, their wiki names) in all of the article and image competitions we've had over the last 10+ years. At least any exceptions don't come to my mind. So I don't see a problem with the expectation that jury members should be clearly brought out. It becomes even more important on the international level. Like with Wiki Science Competition we have even published the results on how have jury members voted. Like: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Science_Competition_2019/Winners/People_in_Science/round_2 Not that it needs to be that specific, but still... With the local version of the science photo competition, it has even been common that all the jury physically comes together to review the files and discuss them. It really helps to use the competence of the jury (I'm "bit" critical to relying only on casting votes, as this clearly works against the images that are actually more special). Occasionally it has happened that one of the jury members can't participate, but I haven't taken the name out for that and he/she has always had the possibility to provide feedback via email. And with the physical gathering is also obvious, that there can't be any numerical values to be published later except to say that "jury reached a consensus" or to bring out what the jury members thought about some images. What has happened a few times (can remember 3) over the years is that the results have been so weak or one-sided, that I didn't assemble a jury [with smaller competitions that may take place at the same time the articles/photos are being collected] or I not used it (as there are so clear winners that it would a total waste of time to do so). That is: setting up a fancy jury only makes sense if there would be results worthy of that jury. It there would only be a few not-so-good files, then the jury members may not want to return the next year. And when it is the first time to organize something it may not be clear on what may be the result. As privacy issues can easily be avoided, then the only possible edge case that comes to my mind is the possibility that the results may end up being too weak to justify some decent pre-announced jury... but with WLM I'd guess there should anyway be like at least 500 images to choose from whatever participating country, so that should not be a problem. Correction: when looking at the list of ca 70 competitions we've had then there wasn't jury listed here: https://www.miljonpluss.ut.ee/24h/ (even thou there still was something in the press release) Regards Ivo Kruusamägi Kontakt attolippip () kirjutas kuupäeval L, 3. oktoober 2020 kell 20:25: > Last year we did publish an overview of how the evaluation/selection > process was organised (in Ukrainian): http://wlm.org.ua/top123_2019/ > while introducing top 123 pictures of the last round (as it was published > before announcing our top 10). I think it also helped to engage people on > social media, as we asked our followers to submit their guesses about top > 10 from these 123 in the comments :) > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2020, 19:56 effe iets anders > wrote: > >> Hi Mykola, >> >> I would encourage WLX Jury Tool to follow suit and provide a similar >> option to give easy openness to its users. There is no obligation to use >> either or any tool. This overview is just a convenient way to make it >> easier for organizers to be transparent. >> >> Lodewijk >> >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 9:49 AM Mykola Kozlenko wrote: >> >>> Hi Lodewijk, >>> >>> As we intend to use WLX Jury Tool and not Montage in Ukraine, what is >>> expected from us? >>> >>> We always publish the list of our jury members here: >>> http://wlm.org.ua/juri/ , you can see all our jury members between 2012 >>> and 2019. The 2020 list is still being finalised as we are still waiting >>> for final confirmations, but we will also publish it as we did in previous >>> years. >>> >>> On the other side, as we have 47.5K images in Ukraine, we will have to >>> organise multiple rounds, including checking the images before submitting >>> them to the jury (as no jury is able to review that many images) and >>> possibly a final call between jury members to distribute places among the >>> top photos. We are happy to explain our selection process but we may not >>> have the same details as for the teams using Montage. >>> >>> Best regards >>> Mykola (NickK) >>> WLM Ukraine team >>> >>> --- Оригінальне повідомлення --- >>> Від кого: "effe iets anders" >>> Дата: 1 жовтня 2020, 00:49:56 >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> After getting feedback both on- and offlist, we arrived at the >>> following: the Montage developers will make a page available to each jury >>> coordinator, that they can copy and paste to a wiki page to share their >>> process settings easily. That way it's easy to be transparent. At some >>> point in the future, we will likely make this public by default. >>> >>> I do express the
Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Request for feedback: transparency jury & process
Last year we did publish an overview of how the evaluation/selection process was organised (in Ukrainian): http://wlm.org.ua/top123_2019/ while introducing top 123 pictures of the last round (as it was published before announcing our top 10). I think it also helped to engage people on social media, as we asked our followers to submit their guesses about top 10 from these 123 in the comments :) On Sat, Oct 3, 2020, 19:56 effe iets anders wrote: > Hi Mykola, > > I would encourage WLX Jury Tool to follow suit and provide a similar > option to give easy openness to its users. There is no obligation to use > either or any tool. This overview is just a convenient way to make it > easier for organizers to be transparent. > > Lodewijk > > > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 9:49 AM Mykola Kozlenko wrote: > >> Hi Lodewijk, >> >> As we intend to use WLX Jury Tool and not Montage in Ukraine, what is >> expected from us? >> >> We always publish the list of our jury members here: >> http://wlm.org.ua/juri/ , you can see all our jury members between 2012 >> and 2019. The 2020 list is still being finalised as we are still waiting >> for final confirmations, but we will also publish it as we did in previous >> years. >> >> On the other side, as we have 47.5K images in Ukraine, we will have to >> organise multiple rounds, including checking the images before submitting >> them to the jury (as no jury is able to review that many images) and >> possibly a final call between jury members to distribute places among the >> top photos. We are happy to explain our selection process but we may not >> have the same details as for the teams using Montage. >> >> Best regards >> Mykola (NickK) >> WLM Ukraine team >> >> --- Оригінальне повідомлення --- >> Від кого: "effe iets anders" >> Дата: 1 жовтня 2020, 00:49:56 >> >> Hi all, >> >> After getting feedback both on- and offlist, we arrived at the following: >> the Montage developers will make a page available to each jury coordinator, >> that they can copy and paste to a wiki page to share their process settings >> easily. That way it's easy to be transparent. At some point in the future, >> we will likely make this public by default. >> >> I do express the expectation that each national coordinator will publish >> their jury members (either real life name or username). It may well be that >> we ask you to submit this list of jurors when you submit your nominees >> (although we will not publish it on your behalf, that is your >> responsibility). >> >> Warmly, >> Lodewijk >> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 11:01 PM effe iets anders < >> effeietsand...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> All great suggestions. >> >> In the past the WLM international team has also maintained a database of >> jurors to be backup. We had very little requests in recent years though, >> probably because so many people know organizers form other countries. If >> you're stuck, I would suggest to either ask someone you already know, or to >> ask this list. Most likely you have a response within 48h. But don't wait >> until the last minute, if you can avoid it. Jurors typically like a week to >> get things done (if the country isn't huge). >> >> Lodewijk >> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 3:48 AM Rebecca O'Neill >> wrote: >> >> Thank you Yaroslav, I will send you a separate email now! >> >> Having the WLE team setting up a pool of jurors like that was so helpful >> Anton. Yes, I could find the names and email other WLM organisers, but this >> system took that extra work away from me - which was hugely appreciated, >> especially in our first year! >> >> On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 at 11:45, Anton Protsiuk < >> anton.prots...@wikimedia.org.ua> wrote: >> >> The international WLE team this year has tried to create a database of >> jurors from different countries for local contests. We had a Google form >> for these purposes (https://forms.gle/Pj61adjgYiE6Jn687) & asked local >> teams whether they needed help with jury. >> We haven't estimated the results yet, since the local selection process >> is still ongoing, but it seems to have worked well. >> >> Best Regards >> Anton Protsiuk >> Project Manager at Wikimedia Ukraine >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 11:05 AM Yaroslav Blanter >> wrote: >> >> If WLM Ireland is in September I can help as a juror. If it is in October >> this could be more difficult because I am also in the jury for Russia, and >> there is typically a lot of work there. >> >> Generally, asking around (may be also on Commons) typically helps. In the >> past I have been on jury for a few different countries. Somebody would just >> approach me and ask.If I can make it, I agree. >> >> Yaroslav >> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 9:50 AM Mārtiņš Bruņenieks >> wrote: >> >> Hi, Rebecca! >> >> I have organized multiple WLM/WLE editions in Latvia. We have used >> Montage in most of them. >> After experiencing problems with jurors dropping out or being known at >> the last moment, we created new Wikimedia accounts just for the jury and >> sent the
Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Request for feedback: transparency jury & process
Dear effe, I consider that Paulo's point is very important to be remembered. A poor quality jury results in the best images not being selected. I remember that at a WLM event, the organizer came up with the wonderful idea of using Facebook likes to choose the best photos. The result was that the best photographers not only stopped participating in WLM, but after years they left wikimedia commons. I strongly recommend involving the QIC and FPC community to use them as juries. I myself have been a judge all these years in various WLMs. Finally, corruption scandals should always be present and we should tattoo it on our forehead to never forget them when we see ourselves in the mirror. On Sat., Oct. 3, 2020, 12:56 p.m. effe iets anders wrote: > Hi Mykola, > > I would encourage WLX Jury Tool to follow suit and provide a similar > option to give easy openness to its users. There is no obligation to use > either or any tool. This overview is just a convenient way to make it > easier for organizers to be transparent. > > Lodewijk > > > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 9:49 AM Mykola Kozlenko wrote: > >> Hi Lodewijk, >> >> As we intend to use WLX Jury Tool and not Montage in Ukraine, what is >> expected from us? >> >> We always publish the list of our jury members here: >> http://wlm.org.ua/juri/ , you can see all our jury members between 2012 >> and 2019. The 2020 list is still being finalised as we are still waiting >> for final confirmations, but we will also publish it as we did in previous >> years. >> >> On the other side, as we have 47.5K images in Ukraine, we will have to >> organise multiple rounds, including checking the images before submitting >> them to the jury (as no jury is able to review that many images) and >> possibly a final call between jury members to distribute places among the >> top photos. We are happy to explain our selection process but we may not >> have the same details as for the teams using Montage. >> >> Best regards >> Mykola (NickK) >> WLM Ukraine team >> >> --- Оригінальне повідомлення --- >> Від кого: "effe iets anders" >> Дата: 1 жовтня 2020, 00:49:56 >> >> Hi all, >> >> After getting feedback both on- and offlist, we arrived at the following: >> the Montage developers will make a page available to each jury coordinator, >> that they can copy and paste to a wiki page to share their process settings >> easily. That way it's easy to be transparent. At some point in the future, >> we will likely make this public by default. >> >> I do express the expectation that each national coordinator will publish >> their jury members (either real life name or username). It may well be that >> we ask you to submit this list of jurors when you submit your nominees >> (although we will not publish it on your behalf, that is your >> responsibility). >> >> Warmly, >> Lodewijk >> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 11:01 PM effe iets anders < >> effeietsand...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> All great suggestions. >> >> In the past the WLM international team has also maintained a database of >> jurors to be backup. We had very little requests in recent years though, >> probably because so many people know organizers form other countries. If >> you're stuck, I would suggest to either ask someone you already know, or to >> ask this list. Most likely you have a response within 48h. But don't wait >> until the last minute, if you can avoid it. Jurors typically like a week to >> get things done (if the country isn't huge). >> >> Lodewijk >> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 3:48 AM Rebecca O'Neill >> wrote: >> >> Thank you Yaroslav, I will send you a separate email now! >> >> Having the WLE team setting up a pool of jurors like that was so helpful >> Anton. Yes, I could find the names and email other WLM organisers, but this >> system took that extra work away from me - which was hugely appreciated, >> especially in our first year! >> >> On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 at 11:45, Anton Protsiuk < >> anton.prots...@wikimedia.org.ua> wrote: >> >> The international WLE team this year has tried to create a database of >> jurors from different countries for local contests. We had a Google form >> for these purposes (https://forms.gle/Pj61adjgYiE6Jn687) & asked local >> teams whether they needed help with jury. >> We haven't estimated the results yet, since the local selection process >> is still ongoing, but it seems to have worked well. >> >> Best Regards >> Anton Protsiuk >> Project Manager at Wikimedia Ukraine >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 11:05 AM Yaroslav Blanter >> wrote: >> >> If WLM Ireland is in September I can help as a juror. If it is in October >> this could be more difficult because I am also in the jury for Russia, and >> there is typically a lot of work there. >> >> Generally, asking around (may be also on Commons) typically helps. In the >> past I have been on jury for a few different countries. Somebody would just >> approach me and ask.If I can make it, I agree. >> >> Yaroslav >> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 9:50 AM Mārtiņš
Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Request for feedback: transparency jury & process
Hi Mykola, I would encourage WLX Jury Tool to follow suit and provide a similar option to give easy openness to its users. There is no obligation to use either or any tool. This overview is just a convenient way to make it easier for organizers to be transparent. Lodewijk On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 9:49 AM Mykola Kozlenko wrote: > Hi Lodewijk, > > As we intend to use WLX Jury Tool and not Montage in Ukraine, what is > expected from us? > > We always publish the list of our jury members here: > http://wlm.org.ua/juri/ , you can see all our jury members between 2012 > and 2019. The 2020 list is still being finalised as we are still waiting > for final confirmations, but we will also publish it as we did in previous > years. > > On the other side, as we have 47.5K images in Ukraine, we will have to > organise multiple rounds, including checking the images before submitting > them to the jury (as no jury is able to review that many images) and > possibly a final call between jury members to distribute places among the > top photos. We are happy to explain our selection process but we may not > have the same details as for the teams using Montage. > > Best regards > Mykola (NickK) > WLM Ukraine team > > --- Оригінальне повідомлення --- > Від кого: "effe iets anders" > Дата: 1 жовтня 2020, 00:49:56 > > Hi all, > > After getting feedback both on- and offlist, we arrived at the following: > the Montage developers will make a page available to each jury coordinator, > that they can copy and paste to a wiki page to share their process settings > easily. That way it's easy to be transparent. At some point in the future, > we will likely make this public by default. > > I do express the expectation that each national coordinator will publish > their jury members (either real life name or username). It may well be that > we ask you to submit this list of jurors when you submit your nominees > (although we will not publish it on your behalf, that is your > responsibility). > > Warmly, > Lodewijk > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 11:01 PM effe iets anders > wrote: > > All great suggestions. > > In the past the WLM international team has also maintained a database of > jurors to be backup. We had very little requests in recent years though, > probably because so many people know organizers form other countries. If > you're stuck, I would suggest to either ask someone you already know, or to > ask this list. Most likely you have a response within 48h. But don't wait > until the last minute, if you can avoid it. Jurors typically like a week to > get things done (if the country isn't huge). > > Lodewijk > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 3:48 AM Rebecca O'Neill > wrote: > > Thank you Yaroslav, I will send you a separate email now! > > Having the WLE team setting up a pool of jurors like that was so helpful > Anton. Yes, I could find the names and email other WLM organisers, but this > system took that extra work away from me - which was hugely appreciated, > especially in our first year! > > On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 at 11:45, Anton Protsiuk < > anton.prots...@wikimedia.org.ua> wrote: > > The international WLE team this year has tried to create a database of > jurors from different countries for local contests. We had a Google form > for these purposes (https://forms.gle/Pj61adjgYiE6Jn687) & asked local > teams whether they needed help with jury. > We haven't estimated the results yet, since the local selection process is > still ongoing, but it seems to have worked well. > > Best Regards > Anton Protsiuk > Project Manager at Wikimedia Ukraine > > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 11:05 AM Yaroslav Blanter wrote: > > If WLM Ireland is in September I can help as a juror. If it is in October > this could be more difficult because I am also in the jury for Russia, and > there is typically a lot of work there. > > Generally, asking around (may be also on Commons) typically helps. In the > past I have been on jury for a few different countries. Somebody would just > approach me and ask.If I can make it, I agree. > > Yaroslav > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 9:50 AM Mārtiņš Bruņenieks > wrote: > > Hi, Rebecca! > > I have organized multiple WLM/WLE editions in Latvia. We have used Montage > in most of them. > After experiencing problems with jurors dropping out or being known at the > last moment, we created new Wikimedia accounts just for the jury and sent > the passwords to them. > > Montage allows some editing of jurors after the round has started but > results can be unexpected. > > Mārtiņš > > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 2:13 AM Rebecca O'Neill > wrote: > > Hi Lodewijk, > > As a slight aside to this, and perhaps something that might help ease some > of the worries around judging processes in other countries, would it be an > idea to have a pool of international WLM Wikimedia jurors that could help > judge other countries? Here in Ireland we have done this with Malta, > exchanging jurors over the past few years, and for our first WLE this year > we had
Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Request for feedback: transparency jury & process
Sure. The point is already made, anyway. effe iets anders escreveu no dia sábado, 3/10/2020 à(s) 17:53: > Hi all, > > while I appreciate the efforts of providing examples, I don't think we > need to dig deep into negative claims about previous competitions. This > risks going to the level of gossip-speculation (you're explaining your own > interpretation of what happened) and potentially harms individuals who are > being accused in a public forum without form of recourse or decent process. > > Paulo: please stop sharing your views on this example on this list. I > don't think it helps the discussion at this point. > > Thank you. > > Lodewijk > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 9:41 AM Yaroslav Blanter wrote: > >> Well, sounds like a horror story. I would personally never agree to get >> monetary reimbursement for participating in a WLM or a WLE jury. >> >> Best regards >> Yaroslav >> >> On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 6:19 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < >> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hey Yaroslav, >>> >>> It is (was) quite easy, actually. Referring to the specific case I >>> mentioned: >>> >>> >>>- The organizer (who was an ex-WMF staff and member of the >>>international WLE team) was being paid by WMF to locally organize WL >>>contests; >>>- The organizer was not transparent about this towards the >>>community, coaching and engaging members of the wiki community, who, in >>> the >>>belief it was an all volunteer effort, would do his own work for free and >>>greatly help him fulfill his objectives; >>>- The organizer decided in a totally closed process who would be the >>>winners - these routinely included offwiki friends of the organizer; >>>- The jury, who allegedly participated in that closed selection >>>process, was also paid. Again, this jury routinely included offwiki >>> friends >>>of the organizer; >>>- On at least one occasion, an exhibition place was rented by a very >>>expensive amount, which was never satisfactorily explained. Other costs >>>were also apparently overfactured. >>> >>> This was back in 2016. I don't believe it still works that way, >>> thankfully. >>> >>> Best, >>> Paulo >>> >>> >>> >>> Yaroslav Blanter escreveu no dia sábado, 3/10/2020 >>> à(s) 16:38: >>> Hi Paulo, I have difficulties parsing your post. For Russia, after we had serious issues with Wikimedia.ru (who, for example, at some point wanted to interfere with the decisions of the jury) we converged to symbolic prizes which we essentially buy out of our own pocket and send them using our own money (things like mugs). We (a group of self-selected people) are doing everything on our own and we are not using any funding. I do not quite see how we could misuse the competition, even if we wanted to. Best Yaroslav On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 4:22 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote: > Forgot to say, but I'm one of the organizers of WLM for WM Portugal. > > As for corruption, I must say back in 2016 or around it I was > contacted offwiki on Facebook by a WLE/WLM organizer, enticing me to > organize WL in Portugal, and teaching how to milk the cow. That's how bad > the situation was. I'm glad things have changed since then. > > Best, > Paulo > > > Paulo Santos Perneta escreveu no dia > sábado, 3/10/2020 à(s) 15:12: > >> Hello, >> >> In WLM since 2019 we are totally transparent about the jury members >> that help on montage, and usually thank them for their precious help at >> our >> blog post about the competition. Since last year, we have been exchanging >> jurors with Tuscany and Wiki Classics, and had a lot of help from Brazil. >> This year we are also exchanging jurors with Brazil. I must say it's a >> total PIA to find jurors for this kind of competition, so we generally >> gave >> up with finding professional photographers (which had a lot of trouble to >> engage with the technical part of this, anyway) and are doing this with >> Commoners, Wikipedians and punctually with "outsiders", which may be >> photographers or not - could be data journalists, ppl from the academia, >> etc. - to experiment. A global bank of jurors would be a precious asset. >> >> After the last round in montage, the organizers do the final >> selection, using the montage results as a starting point. This is to >> avoid >> repetitions, bad quality photos, previously undetected copyvios, out of >> scope photos, and so on. >> >> I absolutely support transparency in the selection process, >> especially given past situations where corruption, game of marked cards >> and >> schemes to get $$ out of WL competitions were at least apparent - As long >> as it does not hinder the selection process, and does not create >> additional >>
Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Request for feedback: transparency jury & process
Hi all, while I appreciate the efforts of providing examples, I don't think we need to dig deep into negative claims about previous competitions. This risks going to the level of gossip-speculation (you're explaining your own interpretation of what happened) and potentially harms individuals who are being accused in a public forum without form of recourse or decent process. Paulo: please stop sharing your views on this example on this list. I don't think it helps the discussion at this point. Thank you. Lodewijk On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 9:41 AM Yaroslav Blanter wrote: > Well, sounds like a horror story. I would personally never agree to get > monetary reimbursement for participating in a WLM or a WLE jury. > > Best regards > Yaroslav > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 6:19 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hey Yaroslav, >> >> It is (was) quite easy, actually. Referring to the specific case I >> mentioned: >> >> >>- The organizer (who was an ex-WMF staff and member of the >>international WLE team) was being paid by WMF to locally organize WL >>contests; >>- The organizer was not transparent about this towards the community, >>coaching and engaging members of the wiki community, who, in the belief it >>was an all volunteer effort, would do his own work for free and greatly >>help him fulfill his objectives; >>- The organizer decided in a totally closed process who would be the >>winners - these routinely included offwiki friends of the organizer; >>- The jury, who allegedly participated in that closed selection >>process, was also paid. Again, this jury routinely included offwiki >> friends >>of the organizer; >>- On at least one occasion, an exhibition place was rented by a very >>expensive amount, which was never satisfactorily explained. Other costs >>were also apparently overfactured. >> >> This was back in 2016. I don't believe it still works that way, >> thankfully. >> >> Best, >> Paulo >> >> >> >> Yaroslav Blanter escreveu no dia sábado, 3/10/2020 >> à(s) 16:38: >> >>> Hi Paulo, >>> >>> I have difficulties parsing your post. For Russia, after we had serious >>> issues with Wikimedia.ru (who, for example, at some point wanted to >>> interfere with the decisions of the jury) we converged to symbolic prizes >>> which we essentially buy out of our own pocket and send them using our own >>> money (things like mugs). We (a group of self-selected people) are doing >>> everything on our own and we are not using any funding. I do not quite see >>> how we could misuse the competition, even if we wanted to. >>> >>> Best >>> Yaroslav >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 4:22 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < >>> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Forgot to say, but I'm one of the organizers of WLM for WM Portugal. As for corruption, I must say back in 2016 or around it I was contacted offwiki on Facebook by a WLE/WLM organizer, enticing me to organize WL in Portugal, and teaching how to milk the cow. That's how bad the situation was. I'm glad things have changed since then. Best, Paulo Paulo Santos Perneta escreveu no dia sábado, 3/10/2020 à(s) 15:12: > Hello, > > In WLM since 2019 we are totally transparent about the jury members > that help on montage, and usually thank them for their precious help at > our > blog post about the competition. Since last year, we have been exchanging > jurors with Tuscany and Wiki Classics, and had a lot of help from Brazil. > This year we are also exchanging jurors with Brazil. I must say it's a > total PIA to find jurors for this kind of competition, so we generally > gave > up with finding professional photographers (which had a lot of trouble to > engage with the technical part of this, anyway) and are doing this with > Commoners, Wikipedians and punctually with "outsiders", which may be > photographers or not - could be data journalists, ppl from the academia, > etc. - to experiment. A global bank of jurors would be a precious asset. > > After the last round in montage, the organizers do the final > selection, using the montage results as a starting point. This is to avoid > repetitions, bad quality photos, previously undetected copyvios, out of > scope photos, and so on. > > I absolutely support transparency in the selection process, especially > given past situations where corruption, game of marked cards and schemes > to > get $$ out of WL competitions were at least apparent - As long as it does > not hinder the selection process, and does not create additional > bureaucracy. > > Best, > Paulo > > > > > effe iets anders escreveu no dia quarta, > 30/09/2020 à(s) 23:49: > >> Hi all, >> >> After getting feedback both on- and offlist, we arrived at the >>
Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Request for feedback: transparency jury & process
Hi Lodewijk, As we intend to use WLX Jury Tool and not Montage in Ukraine, what is expected from us? We always publish the list of our jury members here: http://wlm.org.ua/juri/ , you can see all our jury members between 2012 and 2019. The 2020 list is still being finalised as we are still waiting for final confirmations, but we will also publish it as we did in previous years. On the other side, as we have 47.5K images in Ukraine, we will have to organise multiple rounds, including checking the images before submitting them to the jury (as no jury is able to review that many images) and possibly a final call between jury members to distribute places among the top photos. We are happy to explain our selection process but we may not have the same details as for the teams using Montage. Best regards Mykola (NickK) WLM Ukraine team --- Оригінальне повідомлення --- Від кого: "effe iets anders" Дата: 1 жовтня 2020, 00:49:56 Hi all, After getting feedback both on- and offlist, we arrived at the following: the Montage developers will make a page available to each jury coordinator, that they can copy and paste to a wiki page to share their process settings easily. That way it's easy to be transparent. At some point in the future, we will likely make this public by default. I do express the expectation that each national coordinator will publish their jury members (either real life name or username). It may well be that we ask you to submit this list of jurors when you submit your nominees (although we will not publish it on your behalf, that is your responsibility). Warmly, Lodewijk On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 11:01 PM effe iets anders wrote: All great suggestions. In the past the WLM international team has also maintained a database of jurors to be backup. We had very little requests in recent years though, probably because so many people know organizers form other countries. If you're stuck, I would suggest to either ask someone you already know, or to ask this list. Most likely you have a response within 48h. But don't wait until the last minute, if you can avoid it. Jurors typically like a week to get things done (if the country isn't huge). Lodewijk On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 3:48 AM Rebecca O'Neill wrote: Thank you Yaroslav, I will send you a separate email now! Having the WLE team setting up a pool of jurors like that was so helpful Anton. Yes, I could find the names and email other WLM organisers, but this system took that extra work away from me - which was hugely appreciated, especially in our first year! On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 at 11:45, Anton Protsiuk wrote: The international WLE team this year has tried to create a database of jurors from different countries for local contests. We had a Google form for these purposes (https://forms.gle/Pj61adjgYiE6Jn687) & asked local teams whether they needed help with jury.We haven't estimated the results yet, since the local selection process is still ongoing, but it seems to have worked well. Best RegardsAnton Protsiuk Project Manager at Wikimedia Ukraine On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 11:05 AM Yaroslav Blanter wrote: If WLM Ireland is in September I can help as a juror. If it is in October this could be more difficult because I am also in the jury for Russia, and there is typically a lot of work there. Generally, asking around (may be also on Commons) typically helps. In the past I have been on jury for a few different countries. Somebody would just approach me and ask.If I can make it, I agree. Yaroslav On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 9:50 AM Mārtiņš Bruņenieks wrote: Hi, Rebecca! I have organized multiple WLM/WLE editions in Latvia. We have used Montage in most of them. After experiencing problems with jurors dropping out or being known at the last moment, we created new Wikimedia accounts just for the jury and sent the passwords to them. Montage allows some editing of jurors after the round has started but results can be unexpected. Mārtiņš On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 2:13 AM Rebecca O'Neill wrote: Hi Lodewijk, As a slight aside to this, and perhaps something that might help ease some of the worries around judging processes in other countries, would it be an idea to have a pool of international WLM Wikimedia jurors that could help judge other countries? Here in Ireland we have done this with Malta, exchanging jurors over the past few years, and for our first WLE this year we had Axel from Sweden be on our jury. You get the benefit of a fellow Wikimedian who understands the whole process, and who could bring some different expertise or perspective to a country's WLM. Having someone who is completely unfamiliar with your local built heritage means they can assess the images with a different take than someone who knows them very well. After 6 years, we have found it harder to recruit a jury from our pool of active Wikimedians and relevant expert judges from the arts and architecture sectors in Ireland. I know I would
Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Request for feedback: transparency jury & process
Well, the story he told WMF, who believed it hook, line and sinker, was that in the country it was very difficult to find professional photographers to be part of the jury (it always is, everywhere, I believe :P ) and that it would make a great difference there, giving more credibility to the contest (or something to the likes of that). So you pay members of a closed jury, and your friends cash the money (or spare the bounty, whatever). One of the most disastrous effects of this scheme was that it alienated the members of the wiki community who in good faith helped with the organization of WLE back then. You can imagine how donkey ears grow out of your head when you realize you have in fact been helping someone to do their paid work, on the covert of a volunteer effort. Best, Paulo Yaroslav Blanter escreveu no dia sábado, 3/10/2020 à(s) 17:41: > Well, sounds like a horror story. I would personally never agree to get > monetary reimbursement for participating in a WLM or a WLE jury. > > Best regards > Yaroslav > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 6:19 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hey Yaroslav, >> >> It is (was) quite easy, actually. Referring to the specific case I >> mentioned: >> >> >>- The organizer (who was an ex-WMF staff and member of the >>international WLE team) was being paid by WMF to locally organize WL >>contests; >>- The organizer was not transparent about this towards the community, >>coaching and engaging members of the wiki community, who, in the belief it >>was an all volunteer effort, would do his own work for free and greatly >>help him fulfill his objectives; >>- The organizer decided in a totally closed process who would be the >>winners - these routinely included offwiki friends of the organizer; >>- The jury, who allegedly participated in that closed selection >>process, was also paid. Again, this jury routinely included offwiki >> friends >>of the organizer; >>- On at least one occasion, an exhibition place was rented by a very >>expensive amount, which was never satisfactorily explained. Other costs >>were also apparently overfactured. >> >> This was back in 2016. I don't believe it still works that way, >> thankfully. >> >> Best, >> Paulo >> >> >> >> Yaroslav Blanter escreveu no dia sábado, 3/10/2020 >> à(s) 16:38: >> >>> Hi Paulo, >>> >>> I have difficulties parsing your post. For Russia, after we had serious >>> issues with Wikimedia.ru (who, for example, at some point wanted to >>> interfere with the decisions of the jury) we converged to symbolic prizes >>> which we essentially buy out of our own pocket and send them using our own >>> money (things like mugs). We (a group of self-selected people) are doing >>> everything on our own and we are not using any funding. I do not quite see >>> how we could misuse the competition, even if we wanted to. >>> >>> Best >>> Yaroslav >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 4:22 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < >>> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Forgot to say, but I'm one of the organizers of WLM for WM Portugal. As for corruption, I must say back in 2016 or around it I was contacted offwiki on Facebook by a WLE/WLM organizer, enticing me to organize WL in Portugal, and teaching how to milk the cow. That's how bad the situation was. I'm glad things have changed since then. Best, Paulo Paulo Santos Perneta escreveu no dia sábado, 3/10/2020 à(s) 15:12: > Hello, > > In WLM since 2019 we are totally transparent about the jury members > that help on montage, and usually thank them for their precious help at > our > blog post about the competition. Since last year, we have been exchanging > jurors with Tuscany and Wiki Classics, and had a lot of help from Brazil. > This year we are also exchanging jurors with Brazil. I must say it's a > total PIA to find jurors for this kind of competition, so we generally > gave > up with finding professional photographers (which had a lot of trouble to > engage with the technical part of this, anyway) and are doing this with > Commoners, Wikipedians and punctually with "outsiders", which may be > photographers or not - could be data journalists, ppl from the academia, > etc. - to experiment. A global bank of jurors would be a precious asset. > > After the last round in montage, the organizers do the final > selection, using the montage results as a starting point. This is to avoid > repetitions, bad quality photos, previously undetected copyvios, out of > scope photos, and so on. > > I absolutely support transparency in the selection process, especially > given past situations where corruption, game of marked cards and schemes > to > get $$ out of WL competitions were at least apparent - As long as it does > not hinder the selection process, and does not
Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Request for feedback: transparency jury & process
Well, sounds like a horror story. I would personally never agree to get monetary reimbursement for participating in a WLM or a WLE jury. Best regards Yaroslav On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 6:19 PM Paulo Santos Perneta wrote: > Hey Yaroslav, > > It is (was) quite easy, actually. Referring to the specific case I > mentioned: > > >- The organizer (who was an ex-WMF staff and member of the >international WLE team) was being paid by WMF to locally organize WL >contests; >- The organizer was not transparent about this towards the community, >coaching and engaging members of the wiki community, who, in the belief it >was an all volunteer effort, would do his own work for free and greatly >help him fulfill his objectives; >- The organizer decided in a totally closed process who would be the >winners - these routinely included offwiki friends of the organizer; >- The jury, who allegedly participated in that closed selection >process, was also paid. Again, this jury routinely included offwiki friends >of the organizer; >- On at least one occasion, an exhibition place was rented by a very >expensive amount, which was never satisfactorily explained. Other costs >were also apparently overfactured. > > This was back in 2016. I don't believe it still works that way, thankfully. > > Best, > Paulo > > > > Yaroslav Blanter escreveu no dia sábado, 3/10/2020 > à(s) 16:38: > >> Hi Paulo, >> >> I have difficulties parsing your post. For Russia, after we had serious >> issues with Wikimedia.ru (who, for example, at some point wanted to >> interfere with the decisions of the jury) we converged to symbolic prizes >> which we essentially buy out of our own pocket and send them using our own >> money (things like mugs). We (a group of self-selected people) are doing >> everything on our own and we are not using any funding. I do not quite see >> how we could misuse the competition, even if we wanted to. >> >> Best >> Yaroslav >> >> On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 4:22 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < >> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Forgot to say, but I'm one of the organizers of WLM for WM Portugal. >>> >>> As for corruption, I must say back in 2016 or around it I was contacted >>> offwiki on Facebook by a WLE/WLM organizer, enticing me to organize WL in >>> Portugal, and teaching how to milk the cow. That's how bad the situation >>> was. I'm glad things have changed since then. >>> >>> Best, >>> Paulo >>> >>> >>> Paulo Santos Perneta escreveu no dia sábado, >>> 3/10/2020 à(s) 15:12: >>> Hello, In WLM since 2019 we are totally transparent about the jury members that help on montage, and usually thank them for their precious help at our blog post about the competition. Since last year, we have been exchanging jurors with Tuscany and Wiki Classics, and had a lot of help from Brazil. This year we are also exchanging jurors with Brazil. I must say it's a total PIA to find jurors for this kind of competition, so we generally gave up with finding professional photographers (which had a lot of trouble to engage with the technical part of this, anyway) and are doing this with Commoners, Wikipedians and punctually with "outsiders", which may be photographers or not - could be data journalists, ppl from the academia, etc. - to experiment. A global bank of jurors would be a precious asset. After the last round in montage, the organizers do the final selection, using the montage results as a starting point. This is to avoid repetitions, bad quality photos, previously undetected copyvios, out of scope photos, and so on. I absolutely support transparency in the selection process, especially given past situations where corruption, game of marked cards and schemes to get $$ out of WL competitions were at least apparent - As long as it does not hinder the selection process, and does not create additional bureaucracy. Best, Paulo effe iets anders escreveu no dia quarta, 30/09/2020 à(s) 23:49: > Hi all, > > After getting feedback both on- and offlist, we arrived at the > following: the Montage developers will make a page available to each jury > coordinator, that they can copy and paste to a wiki page to share their > process settings easily. That way it's easy to be transparent. At some > point in the future, we will likely make this public by default. > > I do express the expectation that each national coordinator will > publish their jury members (either real life name or username). It may > well > be that we ask you to submit this list of jurors when you submit your > nominees (although we will not publish it on your behalf, that is your > responsibility). > > Warmly, > Lodewijk > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 11:01 PM effe iets anders < >
Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Request for feedback: transparency jury & process
Hey Yaroslav, It is (was) quite easy, actually. Referring to the specific case I mentioned: - The organizer (who was an ex-WMF staff and member of the international WLE team) was being paid by WMF to locally organize WL contests; - The organizer was not transparent about this towards the community, coaching and engaging members of the wiki community, who, in the belief it was an all volunteer effort, would do his own work for free and greatly help him fulfill his objectives; - The organizer decided in a totally closed process who would be the winners - these routinely included offwiki friends of the organizer; - The jury, who allegedly participated in that closed selection process, was also paid. Again, this jury routinely included offwiki friends of the organizer; - On at least one occasion, an exhibition place was rented by a very expensive amount, which was never satisfactorily explained. Other costs were also apparently overfactured. This was back in 2016. I don't believe it still works that way, thankfully. Best, Paulo Yaroslav Blanter escreveu no dia sábado, 3/10/2020 à(s) 16:38: > Hi Paulo, > > I have difficulties parsing your post. For Russia, after we had serious > issues with Wikimedia.ru (who, for example, at some point wanted to > interfere with the decisions of the jury) we converged to symbolic prizes > which we essentially buy out of our own pocket and send them using our own > money (things like mugs). We (a group of self-selected people) are doing > everything on our own and we are not using any funding. I do not quite see > how we could misuse the competition, even if we wanted to. > > Best > Yaroslav > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 4:22 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Forgot to say, but I'm one of the organizers of WLM for WM Portugal. >> >> As for corruption, I must say back in 2016 or around it I was contacted >> offwiki on Facebook by a WLE/WLM organizer, enticing me to organize WL in >> Portugal, and teaching how to milk the cow. That's how bad the situation >> was. I'm glad things have changed since then. >> >> Best, >> Paulo >> >> >> Paulo Santos Perneta escreveu no dia sábado, >> 3/10/2020 à(s) 15:12: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> In WLM since 2019 we are totally transparent about the jury members that >>> help on montage, and usually thank them for their precious help at our blog >>> post about the competition. Since last year, we have been exchanging jurors >>> with Tuscany and Wiki Classics, and had a lot of help from Brazil. This >>> year we are also exchanging jurors with Brazil. I must say it's a total PIA >>> to find jurors for this kind of competition, so we generally gave up with >>> finding professional photographers (which had a lot of trouble to engage >>> with the technical part of this, anyway) and are doing this with Commoners, >>> Wikipedians and punctually with "outsiders", which may be photographers or >>> not - could be data journalists, ppl from the academia, etc. - to >>> experiment. A global bank of jurors would be a precious asset. >>> >>> After the last round in montage, the organizers do the final selection, >>> using the montage results as a starting point. This is to avoid >>> repetitions, bad quality photos, previously undetected copyvios, out of >>> scope photos, and so on. >>> >>> I absolutely support transparency in the selection process, especially >>> given past situations where corruption, game of marked cards and schemes to >>> get $$ out of WL competitions were at least apparent - As long as it does >>> not hinder the selection process, and does not create additional >>> bureaucracy. >>> >>> Best, >>> Paulo >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> effe iets anders escreveu no dia quarta, >>> 30/09/2020 à(s) 23:49: >>> Hi all, After getting feedback both on- and offlist, we arrived at the following: the Montage developers will make a page available to each jury coordinator, that they can copy and paste to a wiki page to share their process settings easily. That way it's easy to be transparent. At some point in the future, we will likely make this public by default. I do express the expectation that each national coordinator will publish their jury members (either real life name or username). It may well be that we ask you to submit this list of jurors when you submit your nominees (although we will not publish it on your behalf, that is your responsibility). Warmly, Lodewijk On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 11:01 PM effe iets anders < effeietsand...@gmail.com> wrote: > All great suggestions. > > In the past the WLM international team has also maintained a database > of jurors to be backup. We had very little requests in recent years > though, > probably because so many people know organizers form other countries. If > you're stuck, I would suggest to either ask someone you
Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Request for feedback: transparency jury & process
Hi Paulo, I have difficulties parsing your post. For Russia, after we had serious issues with Wikimedia.ru (who, for example, at some point wanted to interfere with the decisions of the jury) we converged to symbolic prizes which we essentially buy out of our own pocket and send them using our own money (things like mugs). We (a group of self-selected people) are doing everything on our own and we are not using any funding. I do not quite see how we could misuse the competition, even if we wanted to. Best Yaroslav On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 4:22 PM Paulo Santos Perneta wrote: > Forgot to say, but I'm one of the organizers of WLM for WM Portugal. > > As for corruption, I must say back in 2016 or around it I was contacted > offwiki on Facebook by a WLE/WLM organizer, enticing me to organize WL in > Portugal, and teaching how to milk the cow. That's how bad the situation > was. I'm glad things have changed since then. > > Best, > Paulo > > > Paulo Santos Perneta escreveu no dia sábado, > 3/10/2020 à(s) 15:12: > >> Hello, >> >> In WLM since 2019 we are totally transparent about the jury members that >> help on montage, and usually thank them for their precious help at our blog >> post about the competition. Since last year, we have been exchanging jurors >> with Tuscany and Wiki Classics, and had a lot of help from Brazil. This >> year we are also exchanging jurors with Brazil. I must say it's a total PIA >> to find jurors for this kind of competition, so we generally gave up with >> finding professional photographers (which had a lot of trouble to engage >> with the technical part of this, anyway) and are doing this with Commoners, >> Wikipedians and punctually with "outsiders", which may be photographers or >> not - could be data journalists, ppl from the academia, etc. - to >> experiment. A global bank of jurors would be a precious asset. >> >> After the last round in montage, the organizers do the final selection, >> using the montage results as a starting point. This is to avoid >> repetitions, bad quality photos, previously undetected copyvios, out of >> scope photos, and so on. >> >> I absolutely support transparency in the selection process, especially >> given past situations where corruption, game of marked cards and schemes to >> get $$ out of WL competitions were at least apparent - As long as it does >> not hinder the selection process, and does not create additional >> bureaucracy. >> >> Best, >> Paulo >> >> >> >> >> effe iets anders escreveu no dia quarta, >> 30/09/2020 à(s) 23:49: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> After getting feedback both on- and offlist, we arrived at the >>> following: the Montage developers will make a page available to each jury >>> coordinator, that they can copy and paste to a wiki page to share their >>> process settings easily. That way it's easy to be transparent. At some >>> point in the future, we will likely make this public by default. >>> >>> I do express the expectation that each national coordinator will publish >>> their jury members (either real life name or username). It may well be that >>> we ask you to submit this list of jurors when you submit your nominees >>> (although we will not publish it on your behalf, that is your >>> responsibility). >>> >>> Warmly, >>> Lodewijk >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 11:01 PM effe iets anders < >>> effeietsand...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> All great suggestions. In the past the WLM international team has also maintained a database of jurors to be backup. We had very little requests in recent years though, probably because so many people know organizers form other countries. If you're stuck, I would suggest to either ask someone you already know, or to ask this list. Most likely you have a response within 48h. But don't wait until the last minute, if you can avoid it. Jurors typically like a week to get things done (if the country isn't huge). Lodewijk On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 3:48 AM Rebecca O'Neill wrote: > Thank you Yaroslav, I will send you a separate email now! > > Having the WLE team setting up a pool of jurors like that was so > helpful Anton. Yes, I could find the names and email other WLM organisers, > but this system took that extra work away from me - which was hugely > appreciated, especially in our first year! > > On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 at 11:45, Anton Protsiuk < > anton.prots...@wikimedia.org.ua> wrote: > >> The international WLE team this year has tried to create a database >> of jurors from different countries for local contests. We had a Google >> form >> for these purposes (https://forms.gle/Pj61adjgYiE6Jn687) & asked >> local teams whether they needed help with jury. >> We haven't estimated the results yet, since the local selection >> process is still ongoing, but it seems to have worked well. >> >> Best Regards >> Anton Protsiuk >> Project Manager at
Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Request for feedback: transparency jury & process
Forgot to say, but I'm one of the organizers of WLM for WM Portugal. As for corruption, I must say back in 2016 or around it I was contacted offwiki on Facebook by a WLE/WLM organizer, enticing me to organize WL in Portugal, and teaching how to milk the cow. That's how bad the situation was. I'm glad things have changed since then. Best, Paulo Paulo Santos Perneta escreveu no dia sábado, 3/10/2020 à(s) 15:12: > Hello, > > In WLM since 2019 we are totally transparent about the jury members that > help on montage, and usually thank them for their precious help at our blog > post about the competition. Since last year, we have been exchanging jurors > with Tuscany and Wiki Classics, and had a lot of help from Brazil. This > year we are also exchanging jurors with Brazil. I must say it's a total PIA > to find jurors for this kind of competition, so we generally gave up with > finding professional photographers (which had a lot of trouble to engage > with the technical part of this, anyway) and are doing this with Commoners, > Wikipedians and punctually with "outsiders", which may be photographers or > not - could be data journalists, ppl from the academia, etc. - to > experiment. A global bank of jurors would be a precious asset. > > After the last round in montage, the organizers do the final selection, > using the montage results as a starting point. This is to avoid > repetitions, bad quality photos, previously undetected copyvios, out of > scope photos, and so on. > > I absolutely support transparency in the selection process, especially > given past situations where corruption, game of marked cards and schemes to > get $$ out of WL competitions were at least apparent - As long as it does > not hinder the selection process, and does not create additional > bureaucracy. > > Best, > Paulo > > > > > effe iets anders escreveu no dia quarta, > 30/09/2020 à(s) 23:49: > >> Hi all, >> >> After getting feedback both on- and offlist, we arrived at the following: >> the Montage developers will make a page available to each jury coordinator, >> that they can copy and paste to a wiki page to share their process settings >> easily. That way it's easy to be transparent. At some point in the future, >> we will likely make this public by default. >> >> I do express the expectation that each national coordinator will publish >> their jury members (either real life name or username). It may well be that >> we ask you to submit this list of jurors when you submit your nominees >> (although we will not publish it on your behalf, that is your >> responsibility). >> >> Warmly, >> Lodewijk >> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 11:01 PM effe iets anders < >> effeietsand...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> All great suggestions. >>> >>> In the past the WLM international team has also maintained a database of >>> jurors to be backup. We had very little requests in recent years though, >>> probably because so many people know organizers form other countries. If >>> you're stuck, I would suggest to either ask someone you already know, or to >>> ask this list. Most likely you have a response within 48h. But don't wait >>> until the last minute, if you can avoid it. Jurors typically like a week to >>> get things done (if the country isn't huge). >>> >>> Lodewijk >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 3:48 AM Rebecca O'Neill >>> wrote: >>> Thank you Yaroslav, I will send you a separate email now! Having the WLE team setting up a pool of jurors like that was so helpful Anton. Yes, I could find the names and email other WLM organisers, but this system took that extra work away from me - which was hugely appreciated, especially in our first year! On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 at 11:45, Anton Protsiuk < anton.prots...@wikimedia.org.ua> wrote: > The international WLE team this year has tried to create a database of > jurors from different countries for local contests. We had a Google form > for these purposes (https://forms.gle/Pj61adjgYiE6Jn687) & asked > local teams whether they needed help with jury. > We haven't estimated the results yet, since the local selection > process is still ongoing, but it seems to have worked well. > > Best Regards > Anton Protsiuk > Project Manager at Wikimedia Ukraine > > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 11:05 AM Yaroslav Blanter > wrote: > >> If WLM Ireland is in September I can help as a juror. If it is in >> October this could be more difficult because I am also in the jury for >> Russia, and there is typically a lot of work there. >> >> Generally, asking around (may be also on Commons) typically helps. In >> the past I have been on jury for a few different countries. Somebody >> would >> just approach me and ask.If I can make it, I agree. >> >> Yaroslav >> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 9:50 AM Mārtiņš Bruņenieks >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, Rebecca! >>> >>> I have organized
Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Request for feedback: transparency jury & process
Hello, In WLM since 2019 we are totally transparent about the jury members that help on montage, and usually thank them for their precious help at our blog post about the competition. Since last year, we have been exchanging jurors with Tuscany and Wiki Classics, and had a lot of help from Brazil. This year we are also exchanging jurors with Brazil. I must say it's a total PIA to find jurors for this kind of competition, so we generally gave up with finding professional photographers (which had a lot of trouble to engage with the technical part of this, anyway) and are doing this with Commoners, Wikipedians and punctually with "outsiders", which may be photographers or not - could be data journalists, ppl from the academia, etc. - to experiment. A global bank of jurors would be a precious asset. After the last round in montage, the organizers do the final selection, using the montage results as a starting point. This is to avoid repetitions, bad quality photos, previously undetected copyvios, out of scope photos, and so on. I absolutely support transparency in the selection process, especially given past situations where corruption, game of marked cards and schemes to get $$ out of WL competitions were at least apparent - As long as it does not hinder the selection process, and does not create additional bureaucracy. Best, Paulo effe iets anders escreveu no dia quarta, 30/09/2020 à(s) 23:49: > Hi all, > > After getting feedback both on- and offlist, we arrived at the following: > the Montage developers will make a page available to each jury coordinator, > that they can copy and paste to a wiki page to share their process settings > easily. That way it's easy to be transparent. At some point in the future, > we will likely make this public by default. > > I do express the expectation that each national coordinator will publish > their jury members (either real life name or username). It may well be that > we ask you to submit this list of jurors when you submit your nominees > (although we will not publish it on your behalf, that is your > responsibility). > > Warmly, > Lodewijk > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 11:01 PM effe iets anders > wrote: > >> All great suggestions. >> >> In the past the WLM international team has also maintained a database of >> jurors to be backup. We had very little requests in recent years though, >> probably because so many people know organizers form other countries. If >> you're stuck, I would suggest to either ask someone you already know, or to >> ask this list. Most likely you have a response within 48h. But don't wait >> until the last minute, if you can avoid it. Jurors typically like a week to >> get things done (if the country isn't huge). >> >> Lodewijk >> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 3:48 AM Rebecca O'Neill >> wrote: >> >>> Thank you Yaroslav, I will send you a separate email now! >>> >>> Having the WLE team setting up a pool of jurors like that was so helpful >>> Anton. Yes, I could find the names and email other WLM organisers, but this >>> system took that extra work away from me - which was hugely appreciated, >>> especially in our first year! >>> >>> On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 at 11:45, Anton Protsiuk < >>> anton.prots...@wikimedia.org.ua> wrote: >>> The international WLE team this year has tried to create a database of jurors from different countries for local contests. We had a Google form for these purposes (https://forms.gle/Pj61adjgYiE6Jn687) & asked local teams whether they needed help with jury. We haven't estimated the results yet, since the local selection process is still ongoing, but it seems to have worked well. Best Regards Anton Protsiuk Project Manager at Wikimedia Ukraine On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 11:05 AM Yaroslav Blanter wrote: > If WLM Ireland is in September I can help as a juror. If it is in > October this could be more difficult because I am also in the jury for > Russia, and there is typically a lot of work there. > > Generally, asking around (may be also on Commons) typically helps. In > the past I have been on jury for a few different countries. Somebody would > just approach me and ask.If I can make it, I agree. > > Yaroslav > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 9:50 AM Mārtiņš Bruņenieks > wrote: > >> Hi, Rebecca! >> >> I have organized multiple WLM/WLE editions in Latvia. We have used >> Montage in most of them. >> After experiencing problems with jurors dropping out or being known >> at the last moment, we created new Wikimedia accounts just for the jury >> and >> sent the passwords to them. >> >> Montage allows some editing of jurors after the round has started but >> results can be unexpected. >> >> Mārtiņš >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 2:13 AM Rebecca O'Neill < >> rebeccanin...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Lodewijk, >>> >>> As a slight
Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Request for feedback: transparency jury & process
Hi all, After getting feedback both on- and offlist, we arrived at the following: the Montage developers will make a page available to each jury coordinator, that they can copy and paste to a wiki page to share their process settings easily. That way it's easy to be transparent. At some point in the future, we will likely make this public by default. I do express the expectation that each national coordinator will publish their jury members (either real life name or username). It may well be that we ask you to submit this list of jurors when you submit your nominees (although we will not publish it on your behalf, that is your responsibility). Warmly, Lodewijk On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 11:01 PM effe iets anders wrote: > All great suggestions. > > In the past the WLM international team has also maintained a database of > jurors to be backup. We had very little requests in recent years though, > probably because so many people know organizers form other countries. If > you're stuck, I would suggest to either ask someone you already know, or to > ask this list. Most likely you have a response within 48h. But don't wait > until the last minute, if you can avoid it. Jurors typically like a week to > get things done (if the country isn't huge). > > Lodewijk > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 3:48 AM Rebecca O'Neill > wrote: > >> Thank you Yaroslav, I will send you a separate email now! >> >> Having the WLE team setting up a pool of jurors like that was so helpful >> Anton. Yes, I could find the names and email other WLM organisers, but this >> system took that extra work away from me - which was hugely appreciated, >> especially in our first year! >> >> On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 at 11:45, Anton Protsiuk < >> anton.prots...@wikimedia.org.ua> wrote: >> >>> The international WLE team this year has tried to create a database of >>> jurors from different countries for local contests. We had a Google form >>> for these purposes (https://forms.gle/Pj61adjgYiE6Jn687) & asked local >>> teams whether they needed help with jury. >>> We haven't estimated the results yet, since the local selection process >>> is still ongoing, but it seems to have worked well. >>> >>> Best Regards >>> Anton Protsiuk >>> Project Manager at Wikimedia Ukraine >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 11:05 AM Yaroslav Blanter >>> wrote: >>> If WLM Ireland is in September I can help as a juror. If it is in October this could be more difficult because I am also in the jury for Russia, and there is typically a lot of work there. Generally, asking around (may be also on Commons) typically helps. In the past I have been on jury for a few different countries. Somebody would just approach me and ask.If I can make it, I agree. Yaroslav On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 9:50 AM Mārtiņš Bruņenieks wrote: > Hi, Rebecca! > > I have organized multiple WLM/WLE editions in Latvia. We have used > Montage in most of them. > After experiencing problems with jurors dropping out or being known at > the last moment, we created new Wikimedia accounts just for the jury and > sent the passwords to them. > > Montage allows some editing of jurors after the round has started but > results can be unexpected. > > Mārtiņš > > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 2:13 AM Rebecca O'Neill < > rebeccanin...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Lodewijk, >> >> As a slight aside to this, and perhaps something that might help ease >> some of the worries around judging processes in other countries, would it >> be an idea to have a pool of international WLM Wikimedia jurors that >> could >> help judge other countries? Here in Ireland we have done this with Malta, >> exchanging jurors over the past few years, and for our first WLE this >> year >> we had Axel from Sweden be on our jury. You get the benefit of a fellow >> Wikimedian who understands the whole process, and who could bring some >> different expertise or perspective to a country's WLM. Having someone who >> is completely unfamiliar with your local built heritage means they can >> assess the images with a different take than someone who knows them very >> well. >> >> After 6 years, we have found it harder to recruit a jury from our >> pool of active Wikimedians and relevant expert judges from the arts and >> architecture sectors in Ireland. I know I would really appreciate it if >> we >> could "borrow" a juror from another Wikimedia group (in the past we have >> had some UK help with this too with jurors). We have suffered from jurors >> dropping out of the process at the last minute or after judging has begun >> (which results in having to restart rounds in Montage), generally it has >> been those who are not Wikimedians who perhaps did not fully understand >> the >> commitment when they agreed. Not only is it frustrating, it's
Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Request for feedback: transparency jury & process
All great suggestions. In the past the WLM international team has also maintained a database of jurors to be backup. We had very little requests in recent years though, probably because so many people know organizers form other countries. If you're stuck, I would suggest to either ask someone you already know, or to ask this list. Most likely you have a response within 48h. But don't wait until the last minute, if you can avoid it. Jurors typically like a week to get things done (if the country isn't huge). Lodewijk On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 3:48 AM Rebecca O'Neill wrote: > Thank you Yaroslav, I will send you a separate email now! > > Having the WLE team setting up a pool of jurors like that was so helpful > Anton. Yes, I could find the names and email other WLM organisers, but this > system took that extra work away from me - which was hugely appreciated, > especially in our first year! > > On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 at 11:45, Anton Protsiuk < > anton.prots...@wikimedia.org.ua> wrote: > >> The international WLE team this year has tried to create a database of >> jurors from different countries for local contests. We had a Google form >> for these purposes (https://forms.gle/Pj61adjgYiE6Jn687) & asked local >> teams whether they needed help with jury. >> We haven't estimated the results yet, since the local selection process >> is still ongoing, but it seems to have worked well. >> >> Best Regards >> Anton Protsiuk >> Project Manager at Wikimedia Ukraine >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 11:05 AM Yaroslav Blanter >> wrote: >> >>> If WLM Ireland is in September I can help as a juror. If it is in >>> October this could be more difficult because I am also in the jury for >>> Russia, and there is typically a lot of work there. >>> >>> Generally, asking around (may be also on Commons) typically helps. In >>> the past I have been on jury for a few different countries. Somebody would >>> just approach me and ask.If I can make it, I agree. >>> >>> Yaroslav >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 9:50 AM Mārtiņš Bruņenieks >>> wrote: >>> Hi, Rebecca! I have organized multiple WLM/WLE editions in Latvia. We have used Montage in most of them. After experiencing problems with jurors dropping out or being known at the last moment, we created new Wikimedia accounts just for the jury and sent the passwords to them. Montage allows some editing of jurors after the round has started but results can be unexpected. Mārtiņš On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 2:13 AM Rebecca O'Neill wrote: > Hi Lodewijk, > > As a slight aside to this, and perhaps something that might help ease > some of the worries around judging processes in other countries, would it > be an idea to have a pool of international WLM Wikimedia jurors that could > help judge other countries? Here in Ireland we have done this with Malta, > exchanging jurors over the past few years, and for our first WLE this year > we had Axel from Sweden be on our jury. You get the benefit of a fellow > Wikimedian who understands the whole process, and who could bring some > different expertise or perspective to a country's WLM. Having someone who > is completely unfamiliar with your local built heritage means they can > assess the images with a different take than someone who knows them very > well. > > After 6 years, we have found it harder to recruit a jury from our pool > of active Wikimedians and relevant expert judges from the arts and > architecture sectors in Ireland. I know I would really appreciate it if we > could "borrow" a juror from another Wikimedia group (in the past we have > had some UK help with this too with jurors). We have suffered from jurors > dropping out of the process at the last minute or after judging has begun > (which results in having to restart rounds in Montage), generally it has > been those who are not Wikimedians who perhaps did not fully understand > the > commitment when they agreed. Not only is it frustrating, it's very > stressful. It may be less of an issue this year, given that the deadline > for submitting to the international jury won't be at the end of October. > > Hope that helps clarify some of the issues some of the smaller > countries can face over the years of WLM! > Thanks, > Rebecca > > On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 at 23:57, effe iets anders < > effeietsand...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Alexander, >> >> As for the status of Montage requests: I suggest that you start a >> separate thread on that, and would like to leave this to the maintainers >> to >> respond to. >> >> As for publishing the settings: I was imagining some kind of >> log-style publication, not a near write-up. This won't be pretty, but it >> will allow people to figure out how it worked out in practice. If we >> follow >> a
Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Request for feedback: transparency jury & process
Thank you Yaroslav, I will send you a separate email now! Having the WLE team setting up a pool of jurors like that was so helpful Anton. Yes, I could find the names and email other WLM organisers, but this system took that extra work away from me - which was hugely appreciated, especially in our first year! On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 at 11:45, Anton Protsiuk wrote: > The international WLE team this year has tried to create a database of > jurors from different countries for local contests. We had a Google form > for these purposes (https://forms.gle/Pj61adjgYiE6Jn687) & asked local > teams whether they needed help with jury. > We haven't estimated the results yet, since the local selection process is > still ongoing, but it seems to have worked well. > > Best Regards > Anton Protsiuk > Project Manager at Wikimedia Ukraine > > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 11:05 AM Yaroslav Blanter wrote: > >> If WLM Ireland is in September I can help as a juror. If it is in October >> this could be more difficult because I am also in the jury for Russia, and >> there is typically a lot of work there. >> >> Generally, asking around (may be also on Commons) typically helps. In the >> past I have been on jury for a few different countries. Somebody would just >> approach me and ask.If I can make it, I agree. >> >> Yaroslav >> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 9:50 AM Mārtiņš Bruņenieks >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, Rebecca! >>> >>> I have organized multiple WLM/WLE editions in Latvia. We have used >>> Montage in most of them. >>> After experiencing problems with jurors dropping out or being known at >>> the last moment, we created new Wikimedia accounts just for the jury and >>> sent the passwords to them. >>> >>> Montage allows some editing of jurors after the round has started but >>> results can be unexpected. >>> >>> Mārtiņš >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 2:13 AM Rebecca O'Neill >>> wrote: >>> Hi Lodewijk, As a slight aside to this, and perhaps something that might help ease some of the worries around judging processes in other countries, would it be an idea to have a pool of international WLM Wikimedia jurors that could help judge other countries? Here in Ireland we have done this with Malta, exchanging jurors over the past few years, and for our first WLE this year we had Axel from Sweden be on our jury. You get the benefit of a fellow Wikimedian who understands the whole process, and who could bring some different expertise or perspective to a country's WLM. Having someone who is completely unfamiliar with your local built heritage means they can assess the images with a different take than someone who knows them very well. After 6 years, we have found it harder to recruit a jury from our pool of active Wikimedians and relevant expert judges from the arts and architecture sectors in Ireland. I know I would really appreciate it if we could "borrow" a juror from another Wikimedia group (in the past we have had some UK help with this too with jurors). We have suffered from jurors dropping out of the process at the last minute or after judging has begun (which results in having to restart rounds in Montage), generally it has been those who are not Wikimedians who perhaps did not fully understand the commitment when they agreed. Not only is it frustrating, it's very stressful. It may be less of an issue this year, given that the deadline for submitting to the international jury won't be at the end of October. Hope that helps clarify some of the issues some of the smaller countries can face over the years of WLM! Thanks, Rebecca On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 at 23:57, effe iets anders wrote: > Hi Alexander, > > As for the status of Montage requests: I suggest that you start a > separate thread on that, and would like to leave this to the maintainers > to > respond to. > > As for publishing the settings: I was imagining some kind of log-style > publication, not a near write-up. This won't be pretty, but it will allow > people to figure out how it worked out in practice. If we follow a logical > naming convention, people should be able to puzzle it together. Ideally, > the national organizers also publish their process on the website, but > this > log would be a way to verify that. But I accept your note that we may need > to add a context explaining that more process may happen before/after this > tool is used. > > Lodewijk > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 3:17 PM Alexander Tsirlin > wrote: > >> Dear Lodewijk, >> >> We also intend to publish by default the settings of the montage jury >> tool, and the number of photos in each round that the national >> competitions >> have used. We're debating whether there should be an opt-out for this >> year. >> >> This is
Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Request for feedback: transparency jury & process
The international WLE team this year has tried to create a database of jurors from different countries for local contests. We had a Google form for these purposes (https://forms.gle/Pj61adjgYiE6Jn687) & asked local teams whether they needed help with jury. We haven't estimated the results yet, since the local selection process is still ongoing, but it seems to have worked well. Best Regards Anton Protsiuk Project Manager at Wikimedia Ukraine On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 11:05 AM Yaroslav Blanter wrote: > If WLM Ireland is in September I can help as a juror. If it is in October > this could be more difficult because I am also in the jury for Russia, and > there is typically a lot of work there. > > Generally, asking around (may be also on Commons) typically helps. In the > past I have been on jury for a few different countries. Somebody would just > approach me and ask.If I can make it, I agree. > > Yaroslav > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 9:50 AM Mārtiņš Bruņenieks > wrote: > >> Hi, Rebecca! >> >> I have organized multiple WLM/WLE editions in Latvia. We have used >> Montage in most of them. >> After experiencing problems with jurors dropping out or being known at >> the last moment, we created new Wikimedia accounts just for the jury and >> sent the passwords to them. >> >> Montage allows some editing of jurors after the round has started but >> results can be unexpected. >> >> Mārtiņš >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 2:13 AM Rebecca O'Neill >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Lodewijk, >>> >>> As a slight aside to this, and perhaps something that might help ease >>> some of the worries around judging processes in other countries, would it >>> be an idea to have a pool of international WLM Wikimedia jurors that could >>> help judge other countries? Here in Ireland we have done this with Malta, >>> exchanging jurors over the past few years, and for our first WLE this year >>> we had Axel from Sweden be on our jury. You get the benefit of a fellow >>> Wikimedian who understands the whole process, and who could bring some >>> different expertise or perspective to a country's WLM. Having someone who >>> is completely unfamiliar with your local built heritage means they can >>> assess the images with a different take than someone who knows them very >>> well. >>> >>> After 6 years, we have found it harder to recruit a jury from our pool >>> of active Wikimedians and relevant expert judges from the arts and >>> architecture sectors in Ireland. I know I would really appreciate it if we >>> could "borrow" a juror from another Wikimedia group (in the past we have >>> had some UK help with this too with jurors). We have suffered from jurors >>> dropping out of the process at the last minute or after judging has begun >>> (which results in having to restart rounds in Montage), generally it has >>> been those who are not Wikimedians who perhaps did not fully understand the >>> commitment when they agreed. Not only is it frustrating, it's very >>> stressful. It may be less of an issue this year, given that the deadline >>> for submitting to the international jury won't be at the end of October. >>> >>> Hope that helps clarify some of the issues some of the smaller countries >>> can face over the years of WLM! >>> Thanks, >>> Rebecca >>> >>> On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 at 23:57, effe iets anders >>> wrote: >>> Hi Alexander, As for the status of Montage requests: I suggest that you start a separate thread on that, and would like to leave this to the maintainers to respond to. As for publishing the settings: I was imagining some kind of log-style publication, not a near write-up. This won't be pretty, but it will allow people to figure out how it worked out in practice. If we follow a logical naming convention, people should be able to puzzle it together. Ideally, the national organizers also publish their process on the website, but this log would be a way to verify that. But I accept your note that we may need to add a context explaining that more process may happen before/after this tool is used. Lodewijk On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 3:17 PM Alexander Tsirlin wrote: > Dear Lodewijk, > > We also intend to publish by default the settings of the montage jury > tool, and the number of photos in each round that the national > competitions > have used. We're debating whether there should be an opt-out for this > year. > > This is unrealistic, because jury process may involve several > campaigns that are later merged together (in Russia, we do it all the time > in order to meet your submission deadline). Moreover, some of the photos > can be accepted for the next round within Montage but excluded later on if > we find that they do not depict cultural heritage. The end result is that > any number you take from Montage will not match the number of photos that > we publish (e.g., as a short-list).
Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Request for feedback: transparency jury & process
If WLM Ireland is in September I can help as a juror. If it is in October this could be more difficult because I am also in the jury for Russia, and there is typically a lot of work there. Generally, asking around (may be also on Commons) typically helps. In the past I have been on jury for a few different countries. Somebody would just approach me and ask.If I can make it, I agree. Yaroslav On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 9:50 AM Mārtiņš Bruņenieks wrote: > Hi, Rebecca! > > I have organized multiple WLM/WLE editions in Latvia. We have used Montage > in most of them. > After experiencing problems with jurors dropping out or being known at the > last moment, we created new Wikimedia accounts just for the jury and sent > the passwords to them. > > Montage allows some editing of jurors after the round has started but > results can be unexpected. > > Mārtiņš > > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 2:13 AM Rebecca O'Neill > wrote: > >> Hi Lodewijk, >> >> As a slight aside to this, and perhaps something that might help ease >> some of the worries around judging processes in other countries, would it >> be an idea to have a pool of international WLM Wikimedia jurors that could >> help judge other countries? Here in Ireland we have done this with Malta, >> exchanging jurors over the past few years, and for our first WLE this year >> we had Axel from Sweden be on our jury. You get the benefit of a fellow >> Wikimedian who understands the whole process, and who could bring some >> different expertise or perspective to a country's WLM. Having someone who >> is completely unfamiliar with your local built heritage means they can >> assess the images with a different take than someone who knows them very >> well. >> >> After 6 years, we have found it harder to recruit a jury from our pool of >> active Wikimedians and relevant expert judges from the arts and >> architecture sectors in Ireland. I know I would really appreciate it if we >> could "borrow" a juror from another Wikimedia group (in the past we have >> had some UK help with this too with jurors). We have suffered from jurors >> dropping out of the process at the last minute or after judging has begun >> (which results in having to restart rounds in Montage), generally it has >> been those who are not Wikimedians who perhaps did not fully understand the >> commitment when they agreed. Not only is it frustrating, it's very >> stressful. It may be less of an issue this year, given that the deadline >> for submitting to the international jury won't be at the end of October. >> >> Hope that helps clarify some of the issues some of the smaller countries >> can face over the years of WLM! >> Thanks, >> Rebecca >> >> On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 at 23:57, effe iets anders >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Alexander, >>> >>> As for the status of Montage requests: I suggest that you start a >>> separate thread on that, and would like to leave this to the maintainers to >>> respond to. >>> >>> As for publishing the settings: I was imagining some kind of log-style >>> publication, not a near write-up. This won't be pretty, but it will allow >>> people to figure out how it worked out in practice. If we follow a logical >>> naming convention, people should be able to puzzle it together. Ideally, >>> the national organizers also publish their process on the website, but this >>> log would be a way to verify that. But I accept your note that we may need >>> to add a context explaining that more process may happen before/after this >>> tool is used. >>> >>> Lodewijk >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 3:17 PM Alexander Tsirlin >>> wrote: >>> Dear Lodewijk, We also intend to publish by default the settings of the montage jury tool, and the number of photos in each round that the national competitions have used. We're debating whether there should be an opt-out for this year. This is unrealistic, because jury process may involve several campaigns that are later merged together (in Russia, we do it all the time in order to meet your submission deadline). Moreover, some of the photos can be accepted for the next round within Montage but excluded later on if we find that they do not depict cultural heritage. The end result is that any number you take from Montage will not match the number of photos that we publish (e.g., as a short-list). This will only lead to confusion and won't be of any use for anyone. Since you mentioned Montage, let me also ask when two important pull requests, which were done by one of our team members, are going to be merged into the code: https://github.com/hatnote/montage/pull/169 https://github.com/hatnote/montage/pull/175 These are really, really important fixes. Without them I would have a problem creating new Montage campaigns in October. Sincerely, Alexander On 9/2/2020 11:49 PM, effe iets anders wrote: Hi all, over the past years,
Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Request for feedback: transparency jury & process
Hi, Rebecca! I have organized multiple WLM/WLE editions in Latvia. We have used Montage in most of them. After experiencing problems with jurors dropping out or being known at the last moment, we created new Wikimedia accounts just for the jury and sent the passwords to them. Montage allows some editing of jurors after the round has started but results can be unexpected. Mārtiņš On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 2:13 AM Rebecca O'Neill wrote: > Hi Lodewijk, > > As a slight aside to this, and perhaps something that might help ease some > of the worries around judging processes in other countries, would it be an > idea to have a pool of international WLM Wikimedia jurors that could help > judge other countries? Here in Ireland we have done this with Malta, > exchanging jurors over the past few years, and for our first WLE this year > we had Axel from Sweden be on our jury. You get the benefit of a fellow > Wikimedian who understands the whole process, and who could bring some > different expertise or perspective to a country's WLM. Having someone who > is completely unfamiliar with your local built heritage means they can > assess the images with a different take than someone who knows them very > well. > > After 6 years, we have found it harder to recruit a jury from our pool of > active Wikimedians and relevant expert judges from the arts and > architecture sectors in Ireland. I know I would really appreciate it if we > could "borrow" a juror from another Wikimedia group (in the past we have > had some UK help with this too with jurors). We have suffered from jurors > dropping out of the process at the last minute or after judging has begun > (which results in having to restart rounds in Montage), generally it has > been those who are not Wikimedians who perhaps did not fully understand the > commitment when they agreed. Not only is it frustrating, it's very > stressful. It may be less of an issue this year, given that the deadline > for submitting to the international jury won't be at the end of October. > > Hope that helps clarify some of the issues some of the smaller countries > can face over the years of WLM! > Thanks, > Rebecca > > On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 at 23:57, effe iets anders > wrote: > >> Hi Alexander, >> >> As for the status of Montage requests: I suggest that you start a >> separate thread on that, and would like to leave this to the maintainers to >> respond to. >> >> As for publishing the settings: I was imagining some kind of log-style >> publication, not a near write-up. This won't be pretty, but it will allow >> people to figure out how it worked out in practice. If we follow a logical >> naming convention, people should be able to puzzle it together. Ideally, >> the national organizers also publish their process on the website, but this >> log would be a way to verify that. But I accept your note that we may need >> to add a context explaining that more process may happen before/after this >> tool is used. >> >> Lodewijk >> >> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 3:17 PM Alexander Tsirlin >> wrote: >> >>> Dear Lodewijk, >>> >>> We also intend to publish by default the settings of the montage jury >>> tool, and the number of photos in each round that the national competitions >>> have used. We're debating whether there should be an opt-out for this year. >>> >>> This is unrealistic, because jury process may involve several campaigns >>> that are later merged together (in Russia, we do it all the time in order >>> to meet your submission deadline). Moreover, some of the photos can be >>> accepted for the next round within Montage but excluded later on if we find >>> that they do not depict cultural heritage. The end result is that any >>> number you take from Montage will not match the number of photos that we >>> publish (e.g., as a short-list). This will only lead to confusion and won't >>> be of any use for anyone. >>> >>> Since you mentioned Montage, let me also ask when two important pull >>> requests, which were done by one of our team members, are going to be >>> merged into the code: >>> https://github.com/hatnote/montage/pull/169 >>> https://github.com/hatnote/montage/pull/175 >>> These are really, really important fixes. Without them I would have a >>> problem creating new Montage campaigns in October. >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> Alexander >>> >>> >>> On 9/2/2020 11:49 PM, effe iets anders wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> over the past years, we have had various requests to encourage national >>> organizers to be transparent in their judging processes and who sits on >>> their jury. Most of the national organizers are currently transparent about >>> this already. In the past weeks/month, more conversation around this has >>> continued with some concerns (valid or not) on certain jury processes. >>> >>> In this light, the international team intends to institute a new >>> expectation for national organizers, namely to publish the members of their >>> jury (be it their username or real life name) at some
Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Request for feedback: transparency jury & process
Hi Lodewijk, As a slight aside to this, and perhaps something that might help ease some of the worries around judging processes in other countries, would it be an idea to have a pool of international WLM Wikimedia jurors that could help judge other countries? Here in Ireland we have done this with Malta, exchanging jurors over the past few years, and for our first WLE this year we had Axel from Sweden be on our jury. You get the benefit of a fellow Wikimedian who understands the whole process, and who could bring some different expertise or perspective to a country's WLM. Having someone who is completely unfamiliar with your local built heritage means they can assess the images with a different take than someone who knows them very well. After 6 years, we have found it harder to recruit a jury from our pool of active Wikimedians and relevant expert judges from the arts and architecture sectors in Ireland. I know I would really appreciate it if we could "borrow" a juror from another Wikimedia group (in the past we have had some UK help with this too with jurors). We have suffered from jurors dropping out of the process at the last minute or after judging has begun (which results in having to restart rounds in Montage), generally it has been those who are not Wikimedians who perhaps did not fully understand the commitment when they agreed. Not only is it frustrating, it's very stressful. It may be less of an issue this year, given that the deadline for submitting to the international jury won't be at the end of October. Hope that helps clarify some of the issues some of the smaller countries can face over the years of WLM! Thanks, Rebecca On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 at 23:57, effe iets anders wrote: > Hi Alexander, > > As for the status of Montage requests: I suggest that you start a separate > thread on that, and would like to leave this to the maintainers to respond > to. > > As for publishing the settings: I was imagining some kind of log-style > publication, not a near write-up. This won't be pretty, but it will allow > people to figure out how it worked out in practice. If we follow a logical > naming convention, people should be able to puzzle it together. Ideally, > the national organizers also publish their process on the website, but this > log would be a way to verify that. But I accept your note that we may need > to add a context explaining that more process may happen before/after this > tool is used. > > Lodewijk > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 3:17 PM Alexander Tsirlin > wrote: > >> Dear Lodewijk, >> >> We also intend to publish by default the settings of the montage jury >> tool, and the number of photos in each round that the national competitions >> have used. We're debating whether there should be an opt-out for this year. >> >> This is unrealistic, because jury process may involve several campaigns >> that are later merged together (in Russia, we do it all the time in order >> to meet your submission deadline). Moreover, some of the photos can be >> accepted for the next round within Montage but excluded later on if we find >> that they do not depict cultural heritage. The end result is that any >> number you take from Montage will not match the number of photos that we >> publish (e.g., as a short-list). This will only lead to confusion and won't >> be of any use for anyone. >> >> Since you mentioned Montage, let me also ask when two important pull >> requests, which were done by one of our team members, are going to be >> merged into the code: >> https://github.com/hatnote/montage/pull/169 >> https://github.com/hatnote/montage/pull/175 >> These are really, really important fixes. Without them I would have a >> problem creating new Montage campaigns in October. >> >> Sincerely, >> Alexander >> >> >> On 9/2/2020 11:49 PM, effe iets anders wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> over the past years, we have had various requests to encourage national >> organizers to be transparent in their judging processes and who sits on >> their jury. Most of the national organizers are currently transparent about >> this already. In the past weeks/month, more conversation around this has >> continued with some concerns (valid or not) on certain jury processes. >> >> In this light, the international team intends to institute a new >> expectation for national organizers, namely to publish the members of their >> jury (be it their username or real life name) at some point. We have not >> figured out the practical details yet, but I can imagine that while we >> encourage publication on the website, we would ask national organizers to >> add a list of jury members to their submission to the international jury - >> which we then will publish as well. >> >> We also intend to publish by default the settings of the montage jury >> tool, and the number of photos in each round that the national competitions >> have used. We're debating whether there should be an opt-out for this year. >> >> We will of course apply at least the same
Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Request for feedback: transparency jury & process
Hi Alexander, As for the status of Montage requests: I suggest that you start a separate thread on that, and would like to leave this to the maintainers to respond to. As for publishing the settings: I was imagining some kind of log-style publication, not a near write-up. This won't be pretty, but it will allow people to figure out how it worked out in practice. If we follow a logical naming convention, people should be able to puzzle it together. Ideally, the national organizers also publish their process on the website, but this log would be a way to verify that. But I accept your note that we may need to add a context explaining that more process may happen before/after this tool is used. Lodewijk On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 3:17 PM Alexander Tsirlin wrote: > Dear Lodewijk, > > We also intend to publish by default the settings of the montage jury > tool, and the number of photos in each round that the national competitions > have used. We're debating whether there should be an opt-out for this year. > > This is unrealistic, because jury process may involve several campaigns > that are later merged together (in Russia, we do it all the time in order > to meet your submission deadline). Moreover, some of the photos can be > accepted for the next round within Montage but excluded later on if we find > that they do not depict cultural heritage. The end result is that any > number you take from Montage will not match the number of photos that we > publish (e.g., as a short-list). This will only lead to confusion and won't > be of any use for anyone. > > Since you mentioned Montage, let me also ask when two important pull > requests, which were done by one of our team members, are going to be > merged into the code: > https://github.com/hatnote/montage/pull/169 > https://github.com/hatnote/montage/pull/175 > These are really, really important fixes. Without them I would have a > problem creating new Montage campaigns in October. > > Sincerely, > Alexander > > > On 9/2/2020 11:49 PM, effe iets anders wrote: > > Hi all, > > over the past years, we have had various requests to encourage national > organizers to be transparent in their judging processes and who sits on > their jury. Most of the national organizers are currently transparent about > this already. In the past weeks/month, more conversation around this has > continued with some concerns (valid or not) on certain jury processes. > > In this light, the international team intends to institute a new > expectation for national organizers, namely to publish the members of their > jury (be it their username or real life name) at some point. We have not > figured out the practical details yet, but I can imagine that while we > encourage publication on the website, we would ask national organizers to > add a list of jury members to their submission to the international jury - > which we then will publish as well. > > We also intend to publish by default the settings of the montage jury > tool, and the number of photos in each round that the national competitions > have used. We're debating whether there should be an opt-out for this year. > > We will of course apply at least the same level of transparency to the > international jury. > > Before we make this decision, I would like to ask for feedback on this, > and whether there are edge cases we should consider where such transparency > would be harmful. I'll take 1 week to gather some feedback on this, and > then we'll make a final decision. You can respond to this on this mailing > list, or privately to me. > > Warmly, > Lodewijk > > ___ > Wiki Loves Monuments mailing > listWikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonumentshttp://www.wikilovesmonuments.org > > > ___ > Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list > WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments > http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org > ___ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Request for feedback: transparency jury & process
Dear Lodewijk, We also intend to publish by default the settings of the montage jury tool, and the number of photos in each round that the national competitions have used. We're debating whether there should be an opt-out for this year. This is unrealistic, because jury process may involve several campaigns that are later merged together (in Russia, we do it all the time in order to meet your submission deadline). Moreover, some of the photos can be accepted for the next round within Montage but excluded later on if we find that they do not depict cultural heritage. The end result is that any number you take from Montage will not match the number of photos that we publish (e.g., as a short-list). This will only lead to confusion and won't be of any use for anyone. Since you mentioned Montage, let me also ask when two important pull requests, which were done by one of our team members, are going to be merged into the code: https://github.com/hatnote/montage/pull/169 https://github.com/hatnote/montage/pull/175 These are really, really important fixes. Without them I would have a problem creating new Montage campaigns in October. Sincerely, Alexander On 9/2/2020 11:49 PM, effe iets anders wrote: Hi all, over the past years, we have had various requests to encourage national organizers to be transparent in their judging processes and who sits on their jury. Most of the national organizers are currently transparent about this already. In the past weeks/month, more conversation around this has continued with some concerns (valid or not) on certain jury processes. In this light, the international team intends to institute a new expectation for national organizers, namely to publish the members of their jury (be it their username or real life name) at some point. We have not figured out the practical details yet, but I can imagine that while we encourage publication on the website, we would ask national organizers to add a list of jury members to their submission to the international jury - which we then will publish as well. We also intend to publish by default the settings of the montage jury tool, and the number of photos in each round that the national competitions have used. We're debating whether there should be an opt-out for this year. We will of course apply at least the same level of transparency to the international jury. Before we make this decision, I would like to ask for feedback on this, and whether there are edge cases we should consider where such transparency would be harmful. I'll take 1 week to gather some feedback on this, and then we'll make a final decision. You can respond to this on this mailing list, or privately to me. Warmly, Lodewijk ___ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org ___ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
