Grants:IEG/Wiki Image Ballot (WIB)
Commons, Meta, all
total amount requested:
2013 round 2
What is the problem you're trying to solve?Edit
Well, there is a huge set of images that need to be voted on. Since publishing one's opinion about an image is less sensitive than over a person, on-wiki voting is used for that, which is also more transparent than a secret ballot.
However, this set of images must be managed, votes must be counted, voters must be able to vote without a lot of hassle like edit conflicts or multiple clicks and the ballot must be fair.
What is your solution?Edit
A tool is required capable of handling all these aspects, Wiki Image Ballot (WIB).
A working draft is EnhancedPOTY.js. It powered the Picture of the Year contests for 2 years now - with 130,000 votes in 2013 but has no intuitive setup-wizard and support for other systems than a simple majority vote is lacking. I was asked to provide these but this would break spare-time quota.
- Voting systems supported
- Possibility to limit vote count per user
- Multilingualism, as less text as possible, instead use of intuitive symbols
- Flex-API. Modularity for the possibility of overwriting everything by custom functionality
For the voterEdit
- Eligibility check (cross-wiki, SUL) and saving the result in the browser's storage
- For a predefined time-span (both saving as well as contribution counting)
- Including or excluding deleted contributions
- Registration date check
- Dynamic resizing of thumbnail images and saving the last used size in the browser's storage, reapplying this when the user re-visits the vote page
- Automatic language detection for new users
- A customizable welcome-screen for new voters
- Randomization of the images in the gallery using the username as a seed (so the sorting of the candidates remains constant between visits of the same user)
- Button to invoke the Slideshow
- Control center showing the votes casted and allowing the user to manage these votes.
- Adding or removing votes with just one click
- Ballot-SetUp-Wizard advising about the different voting systems and automatically configuring other features of MediaWiki required to make the vote secure against manipulation including setting up AbuseFilters or TitleBlacklist entries, creating voting pages and providing information about all the matters that are important for an image vote.
- Eligibility verification
- Vote counting and table creation
- Statistics-tool. E.g. (
votecount = f(time)) for analysing which kind of advertising is most efficient.
- Patrol script. The "bad side" of on-wiki voting is the spam of the recent-changes-log with unpatrolled edits.
- Using the MediaWiki API.
- One maintained version, temporarily as Gadget at Wikimedia Commons with instructions how to make it available at other sites.
- This may be turned into a global gadget, once Gadgets 2.0 are completed.
- One version having all dependencies compiled-into that can be copied and pasted.
Tools, technologies, and techniquesEdit
C.f. #Design specification. All code I write will validate through JSHint/CSS-validator with sensible options.
I will further educate myself on how to make good user interfaces. Almost everything I need is available freely on the web or the library I do have free access to.
Total amount requestedEdit
- Food, drink and a nice, calm place for efficient coding for 8 weeks 3 hrs/day: EUR 200
Administrators and voters of large scale image ballots will benefit from WIB.
Fit with strategyEdit
By taking away workload from administrators of large scale image ballots, they can care for more important tasks like answering voter's questions or further improving the quality of the vote. Providing a frustration-free and well-working voting environment will enhance participation giving all users the felling their vote is welcome and important.
Since Extension:VisualEditor and Extension:UploadWizard obviously do somehow fit in the Wikimedia Foundation's "strategy", this tool will also. We are experiencing an ever growing number of people who are not able to contribute with the basics of wiki-markup; instead they wish nice user interfaces where they can just press some buttons. WIB will provide some nice buttons to the end-users who do not have to care about anything then, except making their choice if they are eligible for voting, which is also checked by WIB. And since WIB will be less complex than VE, it will be also less error-prone.
Image ballots always have been and will be held, whether it is POTY or a new logo election. Thus, it will be certainly further used and maintained. I personally intend doing so for the time I can.
Measures of successEdit
Need target-setting tips? The goals are already very specific, so by their implementation one big step towards the goal is already achieved. Step 2 is listening and evaluating the voter's feedback in POTY 2013 (which will be held in January 2014). Whether the project was successful is then determined by the use of the end-product on large wiki image ballots.
Please paste a link to where the relevant communities have been notified of this proposal, and to any other relevant community discussions, here.
Do you think this project should be selected for an Individual Engagement Grant? Please add your name and rationale for endorsing this project in the list below. Other feedback, questions or concerns from community members are also highly valued, but please post them on the talk page of this proposal.
- I should note first that the Wikivoyage logo contest of 2013 could not have happened without the long hours that User:Rillke put in making it work. We will have other such events in the future, and there are many events that do or could involve large-scale voting on images. Having a tool such as this would be extremely valuable for those who hope to engage community in fair selections of this sort and seems potentially quite useful in helping with photographer recruitment, as competition encourages participation. :) For instance, if used in conjunction with Wiki Loves Monument type events, might it encourage those who upload for those contests to begin to engage with the community beyond their own entry if they are invited to take part in peer-review of this sort? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Community member: add your name and rationale here.
I withdraw this proposal for 3 reasons: POTY can run without developing WIB and WLM prefers using Facebook for their voting; there is no community remaining that I could notify (specifically/targeted). It would be only a tool for rare cases. If someone discovers this proposal and would find it useful, just let me know at the talk page. Thanks for all the comments. -- Rillke (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)