User:Jjron/FP discussion

Prior to August 2010 I was heavily involved in the Featured pictures project, both in the creation and nomination side, as well as the voting process. I also originally proposed and briefly participated in the (now defunct) Valued pictures project. Despite no longer taking part in either of these projects, I do continue to contribute high quality images to Wikipedia and am now able to spend more time contributing constructively to the encyclopaedia than when those projects absorbed too much of my efforts.

As some may be interested why I am no longer involved at Featured Pictures (FP) in particular, I will briefly outline some of my reasons for leaving that project, while avoiding excessive detail and all my reasoning. I'm probably more interested in why a once thriving project has become something of a backwater, attracting little attention or participation - for example my first FP, the tulip, attracted twenty-seven votes at FPC in 2006, which was not particularly uncommon back then, while few nominations today attract even ten votes. Some may disagree with my reasoning, but I was a regular and influential contributor at FP/FPC for over four years, so know something of which I speak.

Probably the greatest error with FP has been an increasing trend towards promoting non-Wikipedia content. While content sourced from outside Wikipedia has been accepted for as long as I participated there, in early times more of the content came from Wikipedians, and this helped to generate interest. A number of users, including myself, have always felt that FP should only recognise Wikipedian content. As an analogy, I doubt that an article copied verbatim from another source would be accepted at Featured Articles, yet that is what happens as a matter of course at FP. The issue that non-Wikipedian content is often held to lower standards for promotion than Wikipedian generated content is an important factor at play here also. Sometimes it has been reasoned that promoting content from outside Wikipedia at FP will help to encourage organisations such as museums and libraries to open their collections to Wikipedia (this has been argued in depth and accepted on several occasions, driving through below par images to FP), yet I am unaware of proof of this concept being forthcoming. This is akin to naming a visiting American dignitary as Australian of the Year in the vain hope that they will chose to stay. A short time after I left FP this error was further compounded, as the long held practice of displaying content in the FP galleries in two sections - by Wikipedians, and by Others - has been abolished (a change made with the agreement of just three users), and all content is now displayed together with no distinction made, disrespecting the years of input of countless Wikipedians.

Whenever I think about FPC the famous statement attributed to Burke always springs to mind: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing". Unfortunately FPC to an fair extent over the last year or two fell victim to a few overly influential participants whose involvement was not to the benefit of the project; rather they simply became increasingly strident in getting their own minority opinions through. There have been (and are) a lot of good people involved at FPC, but unfortunately in spite (and perhaps sometimes because) of this, the pushy minority have been able to enforce practices and changes that were not supported, wanted, nor beneficial to the project. FPC is in many ways an unusual place, and certainly a good argument for anonymous voting. As many contributors are voters, and vice-versa, the unethical minority are able to coerce others to fall in line with them—argue with them, or oppose their nominations, and they will give 'pay back' opposes. This is very easy at FPC as, despite the criteria, the process is inherently subjective; I doubt I have ever seen an image that I could not give a 'valid' oppose for if I so wished. A few others at the project (perhaps unknowingly) have supported this behaviour by, usually in good faith, rising to the defence of the minority if they are challenged. Thus we have seen the regular (good) contributors increasingly cowed, avoiding controversy, avoiding discussion, and avoiding giving negative opinions on images, except in those cases they feel it very safe to do so. And if the regular nominators feel unable to give an honest opinion, we will soon see a project in crisis—and this is what is becoming increasingly apparent at FPC. FPC may not quite be moribund yet, but it seems to be heading that way. --jjron (talk) August 2010 – April 2011