Open main menu


-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 08:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Why I have decided not to nominate pictures for Quality Images any moreEdit

This is an extract of a message I wrote on the talk page of a contributor in August 2016.

first of all I would like to thank you sincerely for the support you have shown in my clumsy, and not so successful attempts, to promote some of my photographic contributions as Quality Images. I will not take much of your time in the future on this subject because I feel that in the very short time that I tried to nominate a few pictures, I have met a series of obstacles the combination of which do not make the effort worthwhile. The last straw for me was the decision by a reviewer to nominate my pictures of the city of Kiev for deletion because of a breach of FOP legislation in Ukraine. I think this decision, though possibly formally valid, is, in effect biased, and I will try to explain why, but please bear with me first as I would like to point out a list of problems which, when added up, give the new contributor that I am the feeling that I fell into a bureaucratic quagmire. The first barrier of entry is of course the text editor. We discussed this and I understand the reasons why it has grown into such a complex system, but it definitely puts new contributors at a disadvantage when discussing nominations, because more time is spent on trying to publish an answer than on the content of the answer.

The second problem lies, if I may, with the technical requirements. I fully understand that if you wish to nominate pictures for quality you need quality guidelines. I have spent a lot of time trying to comply, and again I would like to thank you for your kind guidance. However, when i see that a picture taken with a 20mm lens (on a full-frame camera) is rejected because it is soft on the corners where there is nothing of particular interest and where the shot could not have been taken with anything but a wide angle, I think interpretation of the guidelines are pushed a little far. Granted, it was not the only criteria quoted for rejection. Of course you can ask for a discussion, but then the text editor winks at you again and you are back to square one. More generally, I find striking that nothing is ever said about what the image actually shows, whether it has any meaning. This is of course subjective, but when the guidelines end up allowing as Quality Images pictures of ordinary cars in the street, I am not sure that this was the original intention when the system was created. And if it was, well perhaps I was not in the right place after all. I can say for instance that none of the pictures I nominated represented views that were published before, to the best of my knowledge. In fact, for at least one picture that I wanted to nominate, I found a better sample elected a few years ago and I therefore abstained in order to avoid duplication.

Another issue I encountered is that a picture that I nominated and for which a reviewer asked for modifications came up again nominated by another user. Of course the original reviewer was not very happy and thought I had tried to force my way in by nominating the same picture twice. I tried to explain what happened but may not have been too clear (this is the perfect example when I spent more time trying to woo the editor with very limited success than to express anything that would make sense). Result: three nominations (two by me, taking into account that I did not know then that you can modify a pubilshed file without publishing it as a new file, one by another user), no decision, everything was taken out of the nomination page at some point, leaving me with the sense that I had done something wrong, but not sure what. Of course, I left a message on the talk page of the user who nominated my picture, explaining that he had left me having to justify myself for actions he had taken, and received no reply.

But I have to say (I am entering subjective territory here) that what really beat everything else is the message I received yesterday that four of my Kiev, Ukraine pictures that I nominated had been nominated for deletion because of a breach of FOP law. This included of course the image that had been rejected because of soft corners. I don't know how many new contributors see the same picture rejected twice in a couple days on two different grounds, may be I shouldn't complain because this is standard operating procedure or because someone really wanted to demonstrate that I am a rule breaker, but if the implicit meaning was that I am not wanted in this community, the point is fully taken. Let me say that, for what I know of Ukraine, the chances of anyone suing Wikimedia for a picture of a movie theater built in 1925 or of a metro station entrance are limited. Also a quick search shows that other similar pictures, by other contributors are alive and well in the repository, and even though I am fully aware that i cannot take example on the actions of others to justify my own misdeeds, I feel unfairly treated at best and actually discriminated against. As would have to be expected from such a Kafkaesque system, the reviewer didn't bother to send a personal message of explanation.

If you are still with me, I would like to conclude that I contribute pictures here on Wikimedia because I love photography, I think that some of my work is worth publishing and show something that has not been shown a dozen times before, and above all I like to share. Getting pictures nominated as Quality Images is always nice but doesn't pay any bills, takes a lot of time, and overall has not been a positive experience

I do hope you change your mind Albert. Freedom of panorama sends me as insane as the law itself but the editors have no choice.On one occasion I asked and got a permission from the American architect of a building in Rome but to no avail.Photos which are free publicity for Italy are also sometimes not allowed by the Italian authorities (obscure museums with no websites for instance).Again the editors have no choice but to delete.Please do stay.Regards Robert aka Notafly (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Notafly for your comment. I never thought anyone would read this, even less comment on it. This is not only about FOP law enforcement, even though it came as a surprise. What I tried to point out is that there are, besides the guidelines, in the Quality Image nomination process, many other rules and obstacles that discourage newcomers from nominating. Each of these rules taken individually surely have their reasons for being there, but their combination creates what I consider to be a very bureaucratic system. I may still contribute, but not nominate anything for Quality Image. As a matter of fact, I'd like to know if there is a process for demoting images that have been promoted to Quality Images. When I begun to attempt to familiarize myself with the way things are working around here, I looked at the excellent work of many contributors and I wondered why they never nominate their pictures. Now I know they are the wise ones.--Albert Bergonzo (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello again Albert, your withdraw of a pic at QIC made me come here and take a look. You could raise the issue with your pics at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard, but technically your pictures have already been released to Wikimedia (you did that by clicking "Save" see below) and if other users find that your images are of good quality they are legally free to nominate them. They may refrain out of curtesy to you, but time will pass and things forgotten. The only way to be sure that no one will nominate your pictures for anything is to not upload them here. But please ask the admins, hopefully they can help you better. Also, please forgive me for formatting the posts here so it is clearer who says what. cart-Talk 10:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello cart-Talk and thanks for your comments. I may have reacted differently if more time had passed and if the nominator had not been the same user who nominated one of my pics a few weeks before, a pic that I had already submitted and for which I had received comments, resulting in the same picture being nominated twice and the original reviewer thinking I tried not to take his review into consideration.
What surprises me more is that each time I raise an issue your answer is based on legal grounds. I think this is a community and it is common courtesy and normal human interaction to ask the author of a picture if he is ok with a third party nominating the picture. Likewise, trying to contact a contributor before starting a deletion request procedure doesn't seem out of bounds.
I am a very new contributor, and again I joined without any afterthought except I am happy to share and I try to contribute photographs that are meaningful for the purpose of Wikimedia. I was not happy with the Quality Image Candidates process so I thought better to look for less visibility and continue to contribute quietly. Now you are telling me that If I want to avoid my pictures nominated i have to stop contributing. At this stage there are two options: 1) I am a bad tempered imbecile and good riddance; 2) There is something wrong with a system that, through its combination of rules, each of them certainly valid, results in pushing new contributors out, even though it is claimed that lack of new contributors is an even bigger problem than funding.
Which one it is, I don't know. One option I am now considering for my contributions is to release them as Public Domain and be damned what happens with them: promote them, delete them, or use them as virtual cat litter. Thanks again for your time. --Albert Bergonzo (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I answer with the legal thing only because those are the only rules we have here. I can not answer for the conduct of individual users. As for your options, it is safe to say that 2) is the correct one, something we all agree on but don't know how to fix. Almost all of us have raved against it when we were new here, same as you do, but since this did not help and we like to share in public space we try our best to navigate this imperfect community and ignore the wrongs influcted upon us in the process. It is an international site where anyone can join and as a result you get a "mini-world" with all the different tempers and ways of behaviour that exists in the real world. cart-Talk 08:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi cart-Talk. So may be I am not a Wikimedia social outcast after all, and the system is dysfunctional. That's a relief of sorts. Anyway, as I said earlier, I intend to release future work here in the public domain, like I did for the picture to the right.
 
Société Parisienne de Tranchage et Déroulage
. Anyone can praise it, burn it, wrap fish with it. All the best, and my renewed very sincere gratitude for your time and exchange of views. --Albert Bergonzo (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC).

File:Centre Beaugrenelle.jpgEdit

 
File:Centre Beaugrenelle.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Tiraden (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletionEdit

 
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, lNeverCry 07:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

This is getting better. Digging a little further, I realize that this deletion request has been carried out with a tool called MediaWiki:VisualFileChange.js. There is a page for the tool of course. It is explained that VisualFileChange is also known as "AjaxMassDelete" and allows you to create "mass deletion requests". So here I am, publishing my personal work, and someone will take the liberty of requesting a deletion without even looking at it. Regardless of the outcome, this deletion request ends my contributions to Wikimedia.--Albert Bergonzo (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Albert Bergonzo".