The Signpost

News and notes

Wikimedian photographic talent on display in national submissions to Wiki Loves Monuments

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Jan eissfeldt

The photo of ruins of the 13th-century medieval Catholic church of Arač (Aracs) near Novi Bečej is among the finalists submitted by Serbia.

WLM update

The gate of the public gardens in Halifax, Canada's submission to the 2nd international jury round.
The Larabanga Mosque in the west African country of Ghana was among its top ten.
The Scorpions Pass, a steep, twisted section of Route 227 came third in Israel's competition.
Mount Rainier, a natural monument finalist from the US.
The interior of a mill in Huaco, among the Argentine finalists.

The results of most of the national heats for Wiki Loves Monuments (WLM) have been published on Commons. WLM is the movement's international photographic competition, which was conducted throughout the month of September. A maximum of 10 images have been submitted by all but eight of the 34 participating countries, and the international jury for what is the largest competition of its type in the world is set to announce the global winner in four weeks' time.

In numerical terms, Poland submitted the highest number, with more than 51,000 files, over Spain, which could not hold its early lead, ending with 39,500. Germany came third with 34,000, and Ukraine fourth, with 33,000. France made the fifth place with 27,000. The US, with 22,000, fell short of the 50,000 Smallbones had hoped for in September, gaining sixth place.

Qualitatively, WLM 2012 has generated more than 1000 quality images on Commons so far. Eighteen photos have already been recognised as featured pictures and 15 as valued pictures. Nearly 2400 submissions are competing for the GLAM prize hosted by Europeana, the meta-aggregator and display space for European digitised works, funded by the European Commission.

The event appears to have succeeded resoundingly in the aim of attracting new editors. The WMF's new editor report stats show Commons jumping from about 1,100 to 4,800 new editors over the competition month, outflanking last year's European-wide competition (2,400 new editors). However, whether the flood of new editors translates into permanent contributors and how the new apps fit into the picture remain to be seen. Last year roughly 70% of the 5,000 participants made their first edit during the competition month and more than 90% of respondents in a subsequent survey said they would be likely to take part in another round.

The global jury is expected to announce its verdict at the end of November or in early December. All national finalists are displayed on Commons.

Brief notes

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

I am a little bit unhappy with linking the WCA voting to the fact that once Sebastian Moleski (the WMDE chair) applied for a WCA position. Both had nothing to do with each other, to make that clear. Ziko (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some interesting aspects to their decision: First, they concluded that the fact there was discussion of the material on the article talk page did not ameliorate any problems with the page content, because very few people actually looked at the talk page--to most readers, WP means the article text itself at the time or reading. Second, they considered that a major factor in the culpability of the anti-competitive advertising was that the edits were made anonymously using a pseudonym, and considered this a particular unfair competitive practice, and the key point preventing them from considering the material protected by fundamental considerations of free speech. As I understand it, European practices with respect to negative and anti-competitive advertising are much more restrictive than in the US, so the decision may have limited applicability in the US. Nonetheless, if I were engaged in commercial editing without disclosing my true identity, whether for an employer or as an external paid writer, I would take this as a warning. I also think their reasoning on this point can be useful in informing our own guidelines. I recognize my limited understanding of German--especially legal German--and my similarly limited understanding of German commercial law , so I would welcome corrections from those more fluent. (The clearest versions I have found of the judgment are this one from the major German publishing industry journal and this one from a German legal information service; I found the Google translations harder to decipher than the original. Perhaps someone more capable than I can prepare a proper translation.) DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0