[09:09:22] leila: sounds good. lets discuss in more detail today in our 1:1 [14:25:48] miriam_: o/ [14:26:01] miriam_: thanks for setting up easychair for wikiworkshop. [14:26:06] leila! good *early* morning!! [14:26:16] mgerlach: great to see that all the pieces for office hours have come together. thanks. [14:26:34] leila, no problem, sending official invitations to PC members now [14:26:55] miriam_: yeah. I have to go to San Francisco, and I realized that unless I catch the 6:15 train I have to move my 1:1 with mgerlach one more time. Soooo, I blame /all/ of it on him. :D [14:27:50] ahaha oh so you are live from caltrain? [14:28:26] miriam_: I AM. [14:29:02] miriam_: if you need a proof, I can even record the honking sound. lol. [14:35:26] leila :D I believe you! enjoy the morning ride! [15:04:20] hi all - we are preparing to publish the november research newsletter next week, and welcome contributions: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/WRN201911 [15:04:36] e.g. there are a couple of interesting papers from CSCW this month that could use a review [15:07:25] (reading scrollback) miriam_ leila in case they aren't on your radar yet, there are a couple of wikipedia eyetracking studies that also looked at the role of images https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Which_parts_of_an_article_do_readers_read#Eyetracking [15:10:08] nice, thanks HaeB!! [15:10:31] when is the deadline for newsletter reviews? [15:12:01] wednesday [15:12:28] leila: (distraction ;) btw I have been wondering why there seem to be few winning images that focus on details or parts of monuments (like say https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2019_winners#/media/File:Balmaseda_-_La_Encartada_017.jpg ) ... seems it almost always has to be a shot of the entire building [15:12:58] ...are the juries biased towards that, or does that just reflect the submissions? [15:38:04] thanks for the reminder HaeB re WRN -- I'll try to grab one and actually get it in before the deadline this time :) [15:41:24] isaacj: great, looking forward to reading it! [15:46:11] HaeB: re your reintroduction of distraction ;). First off, I'd say user:Effeietsanders is in the best position to respond to you as he has worked with the international jury for many years. If I have to guess, I'd say couple of challenges with these more detailed images: [15:47:31] 1. it's not immediately clear if they are a photo of a monument. While the jury is not required to read the description of the photos, all winning photos at the national level are encouraged to have a description to help someone who may not know the monument deeply understand the significance/use/etc. of the particular image. (When you have a full shot of the monument, you have less explaining to do, imo.) [15:48:55] 2. One of the criteria that the jury assesses the photos based on is "usefulness for Wikipedia". I don't see many very detailed images of monuments in Wikipedia articles. I don't say it's a good thing, but I definitely don't see them. And I /think/ this has impact on the judgement that the photo receives. [15:49:01] See jury criteria: https://www.wikilovesmonuments.org/jury/ [15:49:31] HaeB: now that you asked I'm curious though: what happens if one year a lot of the photos are much more granular. That will be a new and nice challenge, imo. :) [15:52:16] HaeB: one thing (that you may already know) is that miriam_ is going to work more on understanding the role of images (current and potential) in Wikipedia. That learning can shift the dynamics of how we communicate knowledge on Wikipedia (we know not everyone is a text-based-learner; the question is, how should an encyclopedia react to this.) [15:53:15] leila: thanks, that's interesting! re 2. i do think that details can actually be more encyclopedically useful (e.g. i took various shots for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_cable_car_system that the tourists all miss - yes, it's a monument and eligible for WLM) [15:53:57] ...also, it seems that WLM has a bit of a problem that many monuments already have an image, encouraging explanatory detail shots could be interestin in that respect [15:54:04] anyway, distraction ;) [15:55:29] HaeB: yeah. so I have a few thoughts on that front. one is that even if a photo of a monument exists, more photos over time have values (they can capture the decay process more accurately, for example). This is from a purely documentation-centric perspective. [15:55:32] yes, i think it would be great if one could present research that helps editors understand that (and how) images help readres [15:56:00] apropos, related current discussion in the trump article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump#Veracity_graphs [15:56:03] HaeB: the other thing is the "community building" aspect of the contest. The photos are one reason to run the contest, the other one is to build a community around monuments, documentation, free knowledge, etc. [15:56:09] HaeB: all of that being said, I'm with you. ;) [15:57:02] HaeB: I would love for us to have as many images of a monument that we can reconstruct it fully (3D) and be able to see the monument over time. That's a good documentation level to me. ;) [15:57:25] * leila checks the link and shivers [15:58:19] HaeB: oh! interesting conversation. I was actually looking for one of this type just yesterady. thanks! [15:58:27] miriam_: check the link HaeB shared above. [15:59:33] HaeB: I'm going to a meeting. ttyl. (and nice talking here.)