Commons talk:Wiki Loves Earth 2015/Winners

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

[edit]

Choose some finalists photos was just ridiculous, for example: Azerbaijan - File:Günəbaxan, F:Row of trees, F:Şirvan milli parkı; Estonia - F:Mähu kivi (repeat of F:Mähu kivid); Russia - F:Река Иркут в районе Шаманского утёса.Вид с левого берега., etc.--Philip J.1987qazwsx (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Philip J.1987qazwsx: --アンタナナ 10:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tunisia

[edit]

the results of Tunisia, will be announced July 25, 2015 --Touzrimounir (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

oh, that's a trouble. the international jury is to start working on the 15th of July... is there a way to have the results sooner? if you have them, but do not want to announce publicly before the 25th of July, you can send the links to the international team directly --アンタナナ 22:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Antanana: The results will be announced on the 15th of July --Touzrimounir (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

final result

[edit]

Hi @Antanana:
when the final result will be announced? thank you --Touzrimounir (talk) 09:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hello! @Touzrimounir: as you can see from the page, we still lack Syria (they are to have the results published in two days), Morocco and Palestine. the international jury is to start working this week. the winners are to be announced in August (maybe at the beginning of September) --アンタナナ 09:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Antanana: thank you for your quick reply --Touzrimounir (talk) 09:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Antanana: still waiting for the final Result, when it will be announced? thank you --Touzrimounir (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
hello! @Touzrimounir: as far as I know one more jury member is to finish rating. so we are still waiting :) --アンタナナ 11:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It takes so much time! ViseMoD (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Antanana: still waiting for the final Result ?????? --Touzrimounir (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's somewhat unserious. Meanwhile I regret that I worked as member of Russian jury. --A.Savin 20:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with A. Savin. I read above in a comment from July 13th that "The results will be announced on the 15th of July". How is that possible that instead of 2 days you need at least 3 months? I find no plausible explanation for that. If the feedback of a jury member is still missing, just let it be and proceed with the existing reviews. Poco2 21:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Poco a poco: First of all you misunderstood the statement from July 13th. It's a statement of a Tunisian organizer when Tunisian results will be available. --Ilya (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In fact in the same section the was a statement that jury is only expected to start work at 15th of July. But many countries did not submit their winners by that time --Ilya (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm informed, not the international jury is in delay, but the organizers (≈ WM Ukraine). --A.Savin 21:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you regret that you worked in Russian jury, seriously? About the delay, we had results from Palestine on 17th of August and Morocco on 19th of August. International jury started to work on 23th of August, and finished 1st rating round on 15th of September. Unfortunately Austria only had their winners announced on 16th of September, so we asked jurors to additionally rate the photos from Austria. We where busy organizing Wikimedia Ukraine's conference that took place on 18-20th of September, so only gave the Austria's photographs at September 25th. Jury rated them by September 28th and on the same day the second round started. Jury rated the photos in the second round by October 8th. The same day we started negotiating about announcing the winners in the Wikimedia Foundation blog. --Ilya (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The post blog is scheduled for Thursday, October 15. We are to prepare 'Wiki Loves Earth 2015 international jury report' (like this one) to be published there as well. And @NickK: is responsible for that, and @Ата: is preparing the post. We had to request the grant extension because of the delay, but everything seems okay now --アンタナナ 17:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I confirm that winners are to be announced on 15 October 2015 — NickK (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is of course the organizers' decision how to handle this situation, but I can understand Alexander Savin's frustration. Together with many other countries, we worked hard to choose our winners by July 1, and now it turns out that we could easily postpone the selection by 1.5 months. This is a bit demotivating, and next year we may end up in a situation when most countries do not choose their winners on time. --Alexander (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsirlin and A.Savin: and for this we are really sorry, but yes, it was the organizers' decision to try to have the final entries of all countries participating in the contest. it is usually easier for bigger communities like Russian one to have everything ready in time, but for Syria, Nepal, Algeria for example, there are more obstacles to overcome to have the results needed. things really improved since 2014 (the winners were announced in December 2014) :) this time we knew that we are to ask and offer some real help (setting up a local jury may be a problem for a small commnity). yes, we didn't succeed to keep to the timeline planned, and for this we are truly sorry. but one of the priorities was to help everybody to participate in the international round, and we have worked hard to (well, to some extent, of course) reach it --アンタナナ 09:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Putting on my hat of Ukrainian WLE team member, we were in the same situation: we also published our results about 1 July, and it was also a bit of a hurry. However, we do understand that some countries had less experience and they either finished late (some finished on 30 June, thus just could not submit winners by 1 July) or took more time to build their jury (especially given that evaluation period is during summer holidays and Wikimania, which is not the case of WLM). Putting back on my hat of internation WLE team member, I confirm that we did our best to submit the images to the jury as soon as they were available, which was about mid-August. It could be an option to disqualify the countries that were late but we decided that it would not be quite fair to do that, as Wikipedians are kind of people who do things in the last minute. It took an international jury a bit over one month to evaluate all photos, and we understand that we are about one month behind the schedule. However, this is not a win-win situation: if we disqualify those who do not submit photos on 15 July they would not be quite happy about their experience, and if we do not disqualify them, then someone else (like Russians) will be unhappy — NickK (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the problem could me mitigated by keeping national organizers informed about the progress of the international jury. This will also put some additional pressure on those countries that are late, and it is not unfair to do so, because deadlines should be respected. Otherwise, things simply do not work. Please, don't take this as a criticism, but consider this idea as a suggestion for future competitions. --Alexander (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion after all

[edit]

The terrible and non-transparent work of the organizing committee, any unknown rules, lack of communication with national teams and many, many etc. I will not participate in the Russian team and jury in WLE-2016. Digr (talk) 09:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Digr: Hello. D'you mean the work of International organizing committee? Could you please define more clearly what (apart from being late with the final results) was 'terrible and non-transparent'? And what do you mean by 'any unknown rules'? --アンタナナ 09:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the problems described above. Plus: Overdue deadlines always, before the start and during the same. The lack of reports and information from the international jury. It is no secret that there were problems with the provision of jury-tool for Russian team.
According to the rules: Commons:Wiki Loves Earth 2015/Rules & FAQ - it's complete and sufficient rules? for examle - "Contain an identified natural monument / natural park / protected area etc.". I don't understand why we have winners in macro animals? It's Wiki loves animal safari? Maybe ear of gamekeeper or junk bin in the national park can become a winner? And high-quality macro of ear? Why is there an international jury of representatives of all the participating countries? On what basis the jury chosen? Some of the reviews and comments on the photos of the winners appear somewhat strange and unprofessional at least. Why 10 winners turned into 15 +1? This means that there are no rules at all. It's enough? --Digr (talk) 10:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, let's try to be more careful in the communication. We have discussed that international organizers did not inform national teams about the progress of the grading, but I hope that this discussion was taken positively, and there will be more information next year.
I think that we have got the jury tool at the same time when other countries did, and the problem is that Ilya has to do all the development alone. He also has to start the grading manually for each round and for each country. Recently, other countries were interested in getting the source code and working on it, so again I hope that the situation will improve, and there is clearly room for communication on how to improve the situation.
The number of animals/birds/insects among the finalists is indeed a bit strange. From our side, we tried to drop such photos because we believed that they were out of scope. Now it turns out that such photos were in fact eligible and even preferred by the jury. It would be nice to clarify this issue.
Lastly, the booklet is a bit confusing indeed. I guess that the length was somehow restricted to 24 pages, but would not it be natural to publish only 10 winners or the whole short-list? --Alexander (talk) 11:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsirlin: I didn't get the last one. All 29 photos from the shortlist are in the jury report here: File:Wle-jury-report-2015-lores.pdf --アンタナナ 11:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, I did not phrase it correctly. When you see the report, you think that there were 15 winners and 13 other photos that received high grades. But, as far as I understand, there are 10 winners only. Right? --Alexander (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no, all top 15 are going to receive the prizes: m:Grants:PEG/WM UA/Wiki Loves Earth 2015. I believe that it is a tradition to add only 10 winners to that page Commons:Wiki Loves Earth 2015/Winners from WLM, but it can be edited of course --アンタナナ 11:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good document! "International team is responsible for: setting up clear timeline, rules, documentation of best practices;". Where can I read them? Commons:Wiki Loves Earth 2015/Rules & FAQ (with grant money) - 3681 bytes, compare [2] (w/o grant money) - 15193 bytes plus FAQ - 9282 bytes. About main themes of WLE: 2015 - "is an international photographic competition that takes place – with the subject natural heritage (protected areas)", 2014 (at Concept) - "The aim of the contest is to collect pictures of natural heritage sites – such as nature reserves, nature/landscape conservation areas, natural parks, scenic/landscape areas, remarkable gardens, etc. – to illustrate articles in the worldwide free Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia and other Wikimedia Foundation projects. Like Wiki Loves Monuments (WLM), we use official lists of protected areas, usually available from a government agency. The focus is not only on sites of national importance, but also on those protected at the regional level, and on the widest variety of natural sites possible: forests, parks, gardens, rocks, caves and whatever is protected in your country. This means that most users will be able to find several natural heritage sites close to them." I don't understand nothing. Digr (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Digr: I am sorry but I don't get your point. It is quite obvious that local rules are more detailed than international ones, as local rules are for uploaders and international ones are for local organisers. We did have a timeline, but it was broken from the point when some countries did not submit their results on time, in some cases international team had to help them to establish the jury process. Concerning your quotes, that's a general concept of WLE and I don't see any issues with that. I do believe that Russian theam did exactly what you are quoting and included different types of protected areas all over the country, didn't you? — NickK (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad we do not understand each other. Even worse, I do not understand what the objectives and goals must comply with international organizers. Apparently, write reports. Closed. --Digr (talk) 14:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Digr: if it is easier for you, you can write in Russian. it seems to me that your expectations from International team were not met, but it is still unclear to me what you wanted them to do (apart from creating a grant proposal, getting it approved, presenting the project to other countries, helping local teams to have all the banners, templates; helping with the jury if there was a request for help with that, answering questions from the local organisers, contacting with the jury, preparing the blog posts, the jury report and the leaflets, distributing prizes, preparing the final report etc). so please write it down. it is impossible to improve the process if we just shut down this converstion --アンタナナ 14:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Наталия, спасибо. Для семантической точности напишу по-русски. Все описанные организационные моменты, которые делают организаторы безусловно важны в случае если нет международного выбора. Тогда просто, проводим национальные конкурсы, поддержка, сайты, жюри-тулс и т.д. Если речь идет о международном конкурсе (конкурсе!!!), то должны быть четкие критерии и правила, по которым будут определяться победители. Их нет. Есть общие цели, концепция, общие правила и некоторый FAQ, который, как выяснилось, уже не актуален текущим тенденциям. Насколько я понял, жюри, которое особо не вникало в исходные принципы конкурса. Ровно по FAQ 2014 года с идеей о том, что в украинской части конкурса (почему украинской, масштаб должен быть международный) не поощряются фотографии локальных зверушек и цветочков, российская команда в наших правилах обозначила приоритеты, и следовала им при отборе. В настоящее время у многих членов российской команды искреннее удивление по победителям с животными, кроме того мы ввели в заблуждение участников нашего конкурса. Формально, кроме декларации участников, нет никаких косвенных данных где сделано фото, а может быть птичка из зоопарка, или паучок с соседнего луга - аналогия с цветочком на балконе на лицо. Ситуация неприятная, могла бы быть решена более четким позиционированием объектов конкурса, детальными правилами и разъяснениями на глобальном уровне. Или разделением на номинации (Вики любит Природу, Вики любит макро, макро за счет "вау-эффекта" всегда будет смотреться выигрышнее). Таким образом, формулирование корректных правил - задача оргкомитета. Равно как и регулирование кадров, которые не соответствуют правилам. В чем я не прав или заблуждаюсь? PS. Сразу и по жюри-тулс. С 15 мая мы пытались решить вопрос с жюри-тулс. Даже если он не был готов, то можно было дать какие-то ориентиры. В ответ молчание и пропадание на почте. В итоге - нервозная обстановка, перебор альтернативных инструментов, включая вариант, тупого перебора в галереях. И вдруг по прошествии нескольких дней после окончания конкурса инструмент нам дают. Извините, но так дела не делаются. Впрочем, если опустить эмоциональные подробности, вопрос технический и gj следующим конкурсам может быть решен. Digr (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
я дал 17 мая потестировать жури тул на фотографиях разных стран с ВЛЗ 2014, чтобы было ясно подходит ли функционал, вообще убедиться, что он рабочий. Насчет использования жури тула с 15 мая, очевидно, я должен был сделать одно из 1) дать вам его 2) не обещать его до конца конкурса. --Ilya (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ilya, да, так было бы лучше. Я понимаю, что баги непредсказуемы, а времени на написание кода всегда не хватает, но мы (и, наверное, не только мы) были в довольно странной ситуации, когда нужно было сказать своим и внешним оценщикам, в какие сроки мы что оцениваем, а сроки были совершенно неясными и зависели вообще не от нас.
Где-то в конце мая - начале июня действительно была наша внутренняя переписка, в которой обсуждались альтернативы и что вообще делать в такой ситуации, когда jury tool то ли есть, то ли нет, но потом jury tool всё-таки появился и всем в итоге понравился. Когда я перед WLM спросил, что мы хотим использовать, ответ был вполне однозначным, и Вы его знаете
@NickK, ниже Игорь имел в виду именно ту переписку конца мая-начала июня, о которой я написал выше. Мне кажется, что мы давно проехали этот вопрос, благо с тех пор уже много воды утекло. --Alexander (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Конкурс ВЛЗ (как и ВЛП) всегда проводился по федеративному принципу: есть локальные организаторы, которые проводят конкурс в своих странах и передают победителей на рассмотрение международному оргкомитету. И в этом году, кстати, мы впервые установили требования к фото на международному уровне. Мы ещё можем как-то обобщить правила в рамках Евросоюза, где есть единая система охраны природы Natura 2000, но у нас нет возможности сформулировать единые требования в условиях, когда 26 стран-участниц имеют 26 разных понятий об охране природы. Мы чётко написали, что у нас условие одно: это конкурс фото природоохранных территорий, но мы не можем ни советовать, ни запрещать фотографии отдельных растений или животных — мы предоставили представителям каждой страны решать, насколько это соответствует их определению охраны природы. Например, в прошлом году нидерландские организаторы сообщили, что для них охрана флоры и фауны является главной частью охраны природы, поэтому они предложили преимущественно фотографии растений и животных, две из которых и попали в топ-15. В чём действительно была недоработка, так это в том, что мы слишком поздно проверили, на самом ли деле все эти фото сделаны на природоохранных территориях, и уже только во время финального раунда обнаружили, что бразильские соты к таковым не относятся — очевидно, мы должны были это заметить ранее, и это один из «уроков» на следующий год — NickK (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NickK, смотрите: на официальной странице конкурса в разделе FAQ чёрным по белому написано "So far, we focused our photographers on taking pictures of wide views and representative biotopes. There was an idea of taking pictures of significant or rare plants, but as a) none of us could make a list of them and b) nobody can prove the photo of a separate flower was taken in the nature reserve (and not on somebody's own balcony), we decided not to encourage this." Ну мы как честные люди и отсеивали цветочки, а заодно с ними зверушек, поскольку я не знаю, как жучка на цветочке можно сопоставить с охраняемой природной территорией (про соты я понял, а в остальных случаях кто-то проверял по независимым источникам, где сделана фотография? и если да, то как? правда интересно). В конечном итоге это ваш выбор, как проводить конкурс, а наш выбор – участвовать в нём или нет (делать национальный конкурс без международного – тоже вполне себе вариант, как минимум с оценкой фотографий можно не торопиться), но я считаю, что в 2015 году имеется нестыковка между формулировками в правилах и тем, что вы говорите сейчас. Наверное, в будущем можно решить этот вопрос в ту или иную сторону (либо запретить зверушек, либо разрешить травинки) и явно об этом написать. --Alexander (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsirlin: Да, мы так и написали: not to encourage this. В то же время, мы упомянули representative biotopes (то есть репрезентативные виды для данных природоохранных территорий), и попавшие в десятку фото такими были: например, четвёртое фото из заказника, охраняющего насекомых, а пятое — из природного парка, где охраняются птицы. Для проверки такого мы включили в жюри людей, которые разбираются в теме, и они смогли отличить те же бразильские соты от видов, характерных для охраняемых территорий. Насчёт того, принимать такие фото или нет, собственно, должна решать не международная команда, а сообщество обсуждением в более широком кругу. Мы провели обсуждение в 2014-м году, нам нидерландские коллеги возразили, что фото отдельных видов у них приветствуются, и мы сняли категорический запрет. Если этот вопрос вновь всплыл, очевидно, следует перед конкурсом 2016 года провести более широкое обсуждение — NickK (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Biotope, он же habitat – это, как я всегда считал, место, где кто-то живёт, а не сами зверушки. Болотная заводь может считаться representative biotope, а фотография лягушки крупным планом – едва ли. --Alexander (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Digr and Atsirlin: да, решение иметь отдельную номинацию на зверушек/травинки кажется очевидным. даже на ВЛП это логично (памятники истории, архитектуры и археологии слишком разные могут быть), но на ВЛЗ это просто просится. и жюри было б намного лучше работать. как категории изображений на ESPC. но это нужно будет обговорить еще... --アンタナナ 20:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Спасибо, надеюсь наше обсуждение будет хорошим стимулом для развития конкурса в следующем году. Извините, если кого обидел своей эмоциональной реакцией. Digr (talk) 07:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
all 15 are present here: See the stunning winning photographs from Wiki Loves Earth 2015. btw, the translation into russian is only 4% completed: m:Wikimedia Blog/Drafts/See the stunning winning photographs from Wiki Loves Earth 2015. can you help with that? --アンタナナ 12:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Natalia, not before WLM ends. --Alexander (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have added 5 more finalists, I think it is correct? @NickK: --アンタナナ 12:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Antanana: Yes, it is correct.
@Atsirlin: The length of the jury report was not restricted to 24 pages, it could have had any number of pages. We included the top-15 (photos receiving prizes) and all other photos that made it to the final round and were ranked (28 + 1). In theory we could have published all 259 finalists, but we did not think it would be of any use, especially given that the booklet would be some 90 pages long and most likely would be never downloaded or printed. Concerning animals and plants from protected areas, we have stated from the very beginning that we neither endorse nor forbid thism and the organising team did not have any impact on the jury decision here: it was completely up to the jury to decide whether they find those photos are worth being in top-15 or not — NickK (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NickK, there was a clear mismatch between 10 photos on the winners page and 15 photos in the booklet. I understood that 10 photos get prizes, and others were added to fill the space. Now, it turns out to be different, 15 winners altogether, but that was not obvious at all. --Alexander (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alexander, just in case, I have contacted all winners from the top 15 (well, technically we have two users we cannot contact at the moment, and that means that the authors of works ranked 16th and 17th might get prizes instead), so they at least were aware that they are to expect smth :) --アンタナナ 20:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What problems with jury tool for Russian team? Russian team described their jury configuration in the letter from 02 Jun 2015 11:30 and were given access to jury tool on 4 Jun 2015 00:36. And Russia was the 3rd country to get it, no unfair treatment. While there were requests from Russian team and my promises for ongoing jury process during May and there were plans for configurable admin UI, the tool just doesn't support it yet. It's definitely a serious issue, and I'm going to fix it, but everyone is in the same boat. If you do not like my jury tool you can try using different tools (I listed them on Commons:WLX_Jury_Tool#Alternatives), but Russian organizing committee decided to go on with my tool on WLM too. --Ilya (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ilya, I think that Igor was wrong and confused the WLM and WLE situations. For WLM we had a one-week delay that turns to be a serious problem because we have lots of photos to grade. But I understand that other countries were in the same situation, and I know that you do your best. Therefore, no complaints from our side.
PS. An admin UI would be, of course, great. --Alexander (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, no problem. So be it, everyone can see your own mail. --Digr (talk) 12:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point with seeing someone's mail? The issue was exactly opposite: jury members could not see emails of each other. This was seen as a problem by some members of the international jury who wanted to discuss something with their colleagues but could not contact them without passing by the international team. Could you please be more specific in which cases everyone can see your mail? — NickK (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NickK, I think, the matter should be closed. It's not about the correspondence between the members of the jury. --Digr (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Wiki_Loves_Earth_2015/Winners&oldid=176141957"