#visualwikipedia

R.I.P Garden warbler illustration

I know I've only worked on one article under the new Visual Wikipedia m.o. I outlined two days ago, but I must admit...the Enhanced Random Wikiverse is a very unstable place. (I know, I know—DUH.)

I spent the better part of my afternoon post-work yesterday clicking on Enhanced Random over and over again, not feeling satisfied with the results. It felt like pulling things out of my ass—or rather, Wikipedia's ass. (Which I guess is part of the point?)

With that, I'm going to revert back to the Featured Article lineup for a few reasons:

1. Utilizing Enhanced Random, while it does embrace flux, also opens the selection up to my discretion and personal taste. Which means the articles I end up visualizing will be primarily significant to me, and I don't want my personal taste to be a guiding principle in this project.

2. Enhanced Random tends to pull articles that are questionable in terms of quality/verifiability/completeness (...because the vast majority of article on Wikipedia fall into that category...), and I don't necessarily want the visual content I generate to be an element that fills in the missing gaps. I want my visuals to serve as extensions rather than integral parts.

3. If I'm going to continue publishing my images/animations/videos directly to the articles, the random articles are typically not monitored with the same frequency as their Featured counterparts...which means my visual input poses little to no risk to the consistency of article content. I would rather have my contribution be an active and possibly disruptive participant in information, as opposed to a static, one-time act.

So how will Visual Wikipedia be moving forward (once again)? I will generate my content with both the Featured Article and a randomly selected article. The Featured Articles will give my content an opportunity to be disruptive in the arena of active/living information. The random articles will give my content the space to activate information that goes unwatched or unchanged—information that is, relatively speaking, dying or dead. My special human captured what my content could become for these articles beautifully:

"graffiti on the walls of a shrine"

Another update to how Visual Wikipedia will work moving forward:

All images generated will be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and published to their respective article pages.

Visual Wikipedia is finally returning from a month+ long pause, but it will be running on a slightly different set of tracks.

As some of you may know, I've been generating my content according to the Featured Article lineup. In following the featured articles, however, I've come to question the parameters of quality, comprehensiveness, and neutrality by which Wikipedia featured article content is judged. While I'm sure the editors that choose these articles have good judgment in determining what content is most complete for the purposes of an online encyclopedia, their bias to certain subjects is evident in the article patterns that form from month to month. For example, is it really necessary to feature articles on not one, but two white male politicians from Kentucky in as many months? Same goes for two female Australian artists, or two state highways...

To those who are looking:

Visual Wikipedia will be taking a pause for about the next month or so. Whenever I do have time between my other studio projects/works-in-progress/personal and actual deadlines, I will post. But I can't guarantee complete, uninterrupted coverage of the Featured Article lineup.

blah blah blah