Encyclographia

R.I.P Garden warbler illustration

13 January 2015

R.I.P. Xerochrysum bracteatum illustration (shortest lived and most politely declined)

"I think the animation is very distracting and doesn't add to understanding of this plant. Sorry."

11 December 2014

(Featured Article)

10 December 2014

(Featured Article)

From December 2010 to January 2011, Brooklyn-based artist David Horvitz drove up the West Coast from Mexico to Oregon, stopping to take pictures of himself staring off into various vistas as a part...

Found this posted on Wikipedia's Twitter. (A refreshing break from their typical tirade of probably fabricated/poorly paraphrased #keepitfree user quotes about how great Wikipedia is.)

This project is a very neat way to visualize Wikipedia articles and how they connect to each other in the Wikiverse. I especially like how you can see other users flying through space or "standing still" to inspect an article and its surroundings. In fact, as I've sifted through the space, the bulk of articles I encounter without searching are "Talk" pages (i.e. pages where (in theory) users/editors can discuss questions, comments, and concerns in order to improve Wikipedia articles).

I'll reserve a lot of the user experience questions I have for now, but I reeeeallly wish this had an inset window that allowed users to see the distance and the vectors they travel within the nebula of information points...

After receiving that message from the Wikipedia editor who was policing articles for problematic content/images, I've become curious about how the parameters of "no original research" (and "original research" in general) relates to visual content. For written content, the ability to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented is a requisite that meets the standard of "no original research".

Serving the purpose of encyclopedic content, can images/visual content be cited? Can they be neutral? Can they be verified?

The images included in Wikipedia articles are for the most part:

photographs scanned/photographed/otherwise extracted from original source

photographs taken directly by Wikipedia editors

illustrations scanned/photographed/otherwise extracted from original source

photographs/scans of paintings

charts/diagrams/graphs/maps, scanned/photographed/otherwise extracted from original source/composed according to data that can be traced to existing sources (THIS is where I can understand visual content containing "no original research", as these forms are most often derived from existing data points)

Below are the image guidelines as outlined on the Wikimedia Commons upload page:

(The use of the word "created" is problematic, as they evidently value visual content of a documentary and/or photographic nature. Hoping to photographically punk Wikipedia (without the use of photo manipulation) sooner rather than later.)

"You can upload your original works", my ass. And exactly how does this conclusion align with that Wikipedia editor's assessment of my content as problematic because it "[violates] WP: no original research"?

Message from an opposing party:

"I see that you have been uploading images to Wikimedia Commons and linking to them here. Every one of your images has a problem with it: from violating WP: No original research to just plain uselessness. Please stop inserting your images in Wikipedia."

R.I.P. SMS Scharnhorst illustration

R.I.P. Ford Island illustration

R.I.P. 2008 ACC Championship Game illustration

"An ironic illustration more suited for a blog than a featured article"

R.I.P. Alpha-Bits illustration

08 December 2014:

(Featured Article)