Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2010/Results/Final/Checking

Ready to post?

I think we're done. Is there some custom about checking each other's work on this?--Chaser (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

There are still three unchecked votes, but only one of them would make a difference to the image rankings. I'll do that one now. --Avenue (talk) 03:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

More importantly, I see checkers have disagreed over eligibility in some cases (diff). The issue is how to determine eligibility for people who did not meet the eligibility requirements on Commons, but didn't vote from an SUL account. The POTY page on eligibility says that to vote, their eligible account "must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL." However a method of gaining exemption from this requirement has been given on the eligibility talk page. This is that users who provide a link to their Commons user page from their user page on the other wiki, and vice versa, can still vote.

I've come across several voters for which accounts with the same username on other wikis would be eligible if they had followed this procedure, but they had not done so. I marked them as ineligible if the link from the other wiki to Commons was missing. (I didn't require a link from Commons to the other wiki, thinking this was unnecessary if they shared the same username.) However it seems that some checkers have not required any such links to be in place when the usernames were identical (as in the diff provided above). What should we do about this? --Avenue (talk) 09:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

A good point. I've been checking this in some other ways, like asking them on their talk pages of the local wiki where they are eligible. I think we ought to just contact them all. An alternative is to confirm them by use of images uploaded by their Commons accounts [1]. Unless you think either option will take too long or is unfair...--Chaser (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I have always been concerned about this taking too long, but it wouldn't hurt to notify people, as long as we can do it for everyone affected. What seems unfair here is the application of different standards to different votes. My main concerns about investigating voters' use of images are that it seems labour-intensive (e.g. how far do you have to investigate someone's 150 Commons edits, on the three other wikis they contribute substantially to) and more open to dispute than a simple clear-cut test. For those reasons, I would prefer uniform application of an agreed simple test. I don't really care whether it's a link back to Commons, or just sharing the same username, as long as it has sufficient agreement. --Avenue (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right, and that we ought to just not check eligiblity of those that don't have SUL accounts. We'd have to re-check probably every voter that was found ineligible to do this consistently--which is a herculanean task. The issue is what to do with those that I've already contacted on their home wikis. I think that will affect only two rankings. File:Calliphora vomitoria Portrait.jpg will drop to 71 or 72 votes, depending on whether one counts the vote for the person I contacted; in either case, it will drop below the two images with 73 votes (from 11th to 13th). File:4th FW Strike Eagles assist shuttle launch.jpg will drop to 50 votes, making it tie with the other two images with 50, so instead of 18th, it's tied for 19th. File:Mostar Old Town Panorama 2007.jpg loses five to bring it to only twelve votes ahead of the third place picture. I don't think these are very consequential changes, so I'll run them all this way.--Chaser (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't advocating restricting eligibility to SUL accounts only (and I don't think your changes have gone far enough, if we want that to be consistently applied throughout). That would be a nice straightforward approach, but given the commitments previously made at Commons_talk:Picture_of_the_Year/2010/Eligibility, I think we should at least allow votes from people with a suitable link back to Commons. I do agree that numerically the differences between these methods are essentially inconsequential for the highest ranking images, so in that sense none of this really matters. But people often get upset when they feel they haven't been treated fairly, so I would like us to adopt a reasonably consistent approach if possible. I will not have much time to look at this over the next 24 hours, though. --Avenue (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Those I didn't touch. Where they were already counted and I found a link back, I left them. I take your point about people getting upset. In that vein, it may make more sense to just count the people that I contacted. It would be easy to go back and fix that, and I think the only case where it would make a difference is File:4th FW Strike Eagles assist shuttle launch.jpg, which is far out of the top ten anyway.--Chaser (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)