Paid drawing Options Rating

[thekohser]

As we know from Wikipedia Review's and Anvil Media's experience on Wikipedia, being paid to create and edit text content about corporations is forbidden on Wikipedia.

However, if you're interested in being paid money that was deliberately set aside from Jimbo's "massage fund", in order to foster new diagrams of different things, here's the roster of what you can "draw for money".

I doubt I could have come up with a more boring list of drawings if I tried.

What I'd like to see is something important and contemporary that could be rendered in an animated GIF, such as a geo-spatial representation of US combat fatalities in Iraq, or the spread of Wal-Marts, or maybe the number of estimated illegal immigrants entering each border state with Mexico on a year-over-year basis.

Instead, I guess we're going to see exciting renderings of apochromatic lenses, a cross-section of a grape, and a dashpot mechanical damping device. I'm on the edge of my seat.

[Robert Roberts]

As we know from Wikipedia Review's and Anvil Media's experience on Wikipedia, being paid to create and edit text content about corporations is forbidden on Wikipedia.

I best not get caught!

[Lar]

As we know from Wikipedia Review's and Anvil Media's experience on Wikipedia, being paid to create and edit text content about corporations is forbidden on Wikipedia.

However, if you're interested in being paid money that was deliberately set aside from Jimbo's "massage fund", in order to foster new diagrams of different things, here's the roster of what you can "draw for money".

I doubt I could have come up with a more boring list of drawings if I tried.

What I'd like to see is something important and contemporary that could be rendered in an animated GIF, such as a geo-spatial representation of US combat fatalities in Iraq, or the spread of Wal-Marts, or maybe the number of estimated illegal immigrants entering each border state with Mexico on a year-over-year basis.

Instead, I guess we're going to see exciting renderings of apochromatic lenses, a cross-section of a grape, and a dashpot mechanical damping device. I'm on the edge of my seat.

Interesting items on your suggested list. However, those things all sound like synthesis/original research items, and US centric. The things on the list are for the most part simpler topics that need high quality illustrations to make better articles in multiple languages.

I'm not sure what you're taking potshots at this for.

[Robert Roberts]

What's the going rate for those diagrams?

[Random832]

I'm not sure what you're taking potshots at this for.

He's taking potshots at it because he was ostensibly banned for offering to write Wikipedia articles for money. (Whether that's reasonable is another matter, but his reason isn't exactly unclear)

[Robert Roberts]

It's $40 per diagram - not worth the effort. I can turn out an article in a similar amount of time for far more cash.

[thekohser]

Interesting items on your suggested list. However, those things all sound like synthesis/original research items, and US centric. The things on the list are for the most part simpler topics that need high quality illustrations to make better articles in multiple languages.

I'm not sure what you're taking potshots at this for.

Lar, get a grip -- potshots are my forte, so that's why I do them.

But, you bring up an interesting point, one which I hope you will expand upon without feeling as though I have set a trap for you...

How, exactly, is the rendering of any human-created illustration of anything not an act of synthesis and original research?

Let's take the Abney effect, for example. After reading the Wikipedia article about it, as well as the dozen or so references cited, how will the illustrator create an original-but-not-synthesized piece that is not a result of his own research, but rather conforms to agreed-upon reliable sources that instruct what the Abney effect "looks like"?

For heaven's sake -- how will "Animal locomotion energy costs" not be a work of synthesis and original research?

And, let me just pat myself on the back, that your very own split-off from my "potshot" is one of the reasons I fire off these potshots so often. Personally, I think I create damn good kernels of discussion on Wikipedia Review, where we get into these more intellectual debates and often find that the very core of "Wikipedia logic" is severely faulty or unfairly applied. And that's why I'm really here, in the end.

I'm delighted that people will apparently be making money for working on behalf of Wikipedia. I'm saddened that the "Hive" couldn't come up with more universally interesting subject matter their first go-round. I mean, seriously, how many people who use the Wikimedia projects have ever heard of the "Abney effect", much less give a crap about it? Compare with how many have heard of and care passionately about the Iraq war, or Wal-Mart, or Mexico-US immigration.

Please. You know I like you, Larry, but don't insult me with YOUR potshot about my potshot!

It's $40 per diagram - not worth the effort. I can turn out an article in a similar amount of time for far more cash.

Even worse: No individual illustrator will receive more than US$600 per financial year.

[Robert Roberts]

I'll respond here to a question here that was asked in a PM.

I don't do wiki-editing as a full-time thing but it's an "additional service" I provide to existing clients (and no what I do for people the rest of time I'm not going to discuss for identification purposes).

I do the following:

1) A consult about what they want - and I assess the chances of keeping an article up by looking at what sources they can provide and what exists.

2) I outline to them what the article will contain and what it will not contain (this always involves explaining to the marketing people why it's not more promotational )

3) I get the article up and then get half the money then, if the article still exists in a month, I get the other half (which is a good hook for getting the business as they like the idea that you are taking a risk in getting the cash).

[Lar]

Interesting items on your suggested list. However, those things all sound like synthesis/original research items, and US centric. The things on the list are for the most part simpler topics that need high quality illustrations to make better articles in multiple languages.

I'm not sure what you're taking potshots at this for.

Lar, get a grip -- potshots are my forte, so that's why I do them.

Practice makes perfect, I guess! And you certainly DO get a lot of practice!

But, you bring up an interesting point, one which I hope you will expand upon without feeling as though I have set a trap for you...

This is different than our normal interaction how? That escapade on that dialect wikisource ... er... stunk.

How, exactly, is the rendering of any human-created illustration of anything not an act of synthesis and original research?

That's a good point, to a certain extent every artist's rendition of *anything* is an interpretive act. Some are more so than others, though. Your examples struck me as particularly so, but YMMV. I think things like cutaway drawings, diagrams of machines and organs, and the like, tend to be less synthesis than say, interpretation of data to show spread of Walmarts over time. YMMV.

Still, why is this a bad thing? Some philathropist wants to foster pretty pictures... leaves it to the community to decide which ones get suggested (I put some suggestions in myself, actually, way back when) and that's that. Seems win win.

But then, I didn't quite get why writing articles for pay, if then they were subjected to normal Wikiprocesses, was a bad thing either. Also seems win win to me. But that's just me.

[thekohser]

Still, why is this a bad thing? Some philathropist wants to foster pretty pictures... leaves it to the community to decide which ones get suggested (I put some suggestions in myself, actually, way back when) and that's that. Seems win win.

But then, I didn't quite get why writing articles for pay, if then they were subjected to normal Wikiprocesses, was a bad thing either. Also seems win win to me. But that's just me.

Maybe if the "community" didn't ban all of the reasonable commercial editors from Wikipedia, the list of drawings that Wikipedia is willing to pay for wouldn't have been so mind-numbingly uninspiring and assuredly unuseful.

How many visitors to Wikipedia look at the article about the Abney effect?

How many visitors to Wikipedia look at the article about Wal-Mart?

Here's the answer: 9 per day, versus 8500 per day.

Nonetheless, you're here to tell me that the "simpler" Abney effect illustration is a better choice than some "US-centric original research" illustration about the geographic spread of Wal-Mart?

This is why Wikipedia is rotting from within. Even those I don't consider "Wikipediots" have apparently separated themselves from the real-world needs and wishes of the common person.

Oh, and if you're going to say there aren't sources that document the timeline and locations of Wal-Mart, then how's this for a brilliant idea -- call Bentonville and ask them to publish a database of their store location history. I'm sure they'd be delighted to help. But, oh, that would be violating the SHDPOV (Socialist Hippie-Dippy Point of View) that Wikipedia must adhere to at all costs.

Fulfill the educational needs of the 9. Screw the 8500. They shouldn't be looking up info about a capitalist abomination like Wal-Mart on our beautiful sanctuary from commercialism in the first place, should they?

[Somey]

What's the implication here, though? If there were an animated GIF on the spread of the Wal-Mart scourge over time, would that simply be promoting Wal-Mart, or would it act more as a call to arms for people concerned about the economic destruction of their communities, and ultimately the US economy as a whole?

And you weren't being facetious about Wal-Mart being an abomination, were you? Because, you know, it is.

Anyway, as for the original point, I agree that it's somewhat hypocritical (not to mention pathically cheap) to offer $40 to people for illustrations while dropping the hammer on people who are getting paid to write articles. But hypocrisy has certainly never stopped them in the past...

[Lar]

How many visitors to Wikipedia look at the article about the Abney effect?

How many visitors to Wikipedia look at the article about Wal-Mart?

Here's the answer: 9 per day, versus 8500 per day.

Nonetheless, you're here to tell me that the "simpler" Abney effect illustration is a better choice than some "US-centric original research" illustration about the geographic spread of Wal-Mart?

Well, when you put it like that, no, I'm not, because you're saying the spread diagram would get 1000x more views. (that's not exactly the same as 1000x more important, but it's certainly a standin for importance...)Sounds like some "general usefulness" metric should have been used.

It's really annoying when you are right and stuff like that. Cut it out.

[Milton Roe]

Even worse: No individual illustrator will receive more than US$600 per financial year.

And you know why that is, of course. Nobody at WMF wants to worry about W-2's and 1099's.

I'm telling you, this has to be why Knol decided on ID. If it's going to give anybody more than $600 a year from Adsense in the US, it has to collect all that ID info anyway. All that stuff that WP always rejected and couldn't be bothered with, and said wasn't good ID info anyway.

[thekohser]

Well, when you put it like that, no, I'm not, because you're saying the spread diagram would get 1000x more views. (that's not exactly the same as 1000x more important, but it's certainly a standin for importance...)Sounds like some "general usefulness" metric should have been used.

It's really annoying when you are right and stuff like that. Cut it out.

Woo HOOO! Lar, you made me feel like I just watched Joel Zumaya pitch two straight innings for a save.

(When will we see THAT again?)

As for the Wal-Mart bashing, Somey... It doesn't get me hot under the collar, but if it's bothering you, then the geo-spatial data could just as easily have been tried with Target stores. Or Trader Joe's. Or the Body Shop. Or Kia dealerships.

I simply thought it would be interesting to watch the spread of a retail operation in visual form. Much more fascinating and instructive than staring at a cross-section of a grape, which I can pretty much render in my kitchen any time I care to.

Oooh, also interesting would be a time-lapse of growth AND decline of a retail operation, such as Ames stores, or Kay-Bee Toys, or Woolworth's. Admittedly, the data would be tough to come by -- but surely someone out there has a historical log of the locations of Woolworth's stores on a year-by-year basis? That, to me, is where the collective power of crowds could help.

Full disclosure: some of my fascination with time-lapse maps was inspired by the interesting renderings of surname distribution on this site.

Quite seriously, I would have loved to help with selecting interesting and useful topics for this visualization grant project, but I'm banned from Wikipedia. (That, and I probably would have wanted a modest consulting fee for my professional time. Something like 1/100th what Jimbo gets for a speaking gig.)

[Lar]

Quite seriously, I would have loved to help with selecting interesting and useful topics for this visualization grant project, but I'm banned from Wikipedia. (That, and I probably would have wanted a modest consulting fee for my professional time. Something like 1/100th what Jimbo gets for a speaking gig.)

IIRC the discussion was spearheaded by a Commons admin (in fact, one of Commons' "elder statesmen", pfcdayelise) and held on Meta.

You're banned on the ENGLISH Wikipedia, yes... did you manage to get yourself banned from Meta too? I didn't think so but maybe I'm wrong.

[thekohser]

You're banned on the ENGLISH Wikipedia, yes... did you manage to get yourself banned from Meta too? I didn't think so but maybe I'm wrong.

No, I rule the roost on Meta.

It's just that Commons, and Meta, and even the Tajik Wikibooks has this certain can't-wash-it-off-no-matter-how-many-times-you-lather... stink of Jimmy Wales and his hypocrisy and falsehoods.

It would be too hard for me to be a "perfect" and "good" Metazoid or Commonster while Jimbo jets around soaking up dollars and massages, without the world knowing how he dicked me over in October 2006. How could I work for free on a project that carries even a hint of his stench?

[thekohser]

Imagine the interesting sorts of animated GIFs that could be constructed from public domain information, such as comparing the spread of the surname Lopez throughout the United States, versus the surname Olsen.

I hope I'm not the only one intrigued by this and similar ideas. Another example, one of the most provocative maps I have ever seen in my lifetime is this one that tracks Iraq force fatalities.

No slight to perfect-day-elise, or whatever her screen name is, but the Wikimedia Foundation blew it to leave $20,000 of donated grant money in the hands of an already over-extended volunteer. I am sure that a paid professional (even if it had been $2,000 of the total grant) would have done a better job compiling a first-phase list of the images that would be most helpful and inspiring for Wikimedians to enjoy for posterity.

Instead, we got grapes and klaxons.

That's my potshot, in a nutshell (similar physiologically to a grape).

[Lar]

Imagine the interesting sorts of animated GIFs that could be constructed from public domain information, such as comparing the spread of the surname Lopez throughout the United States, versus the surname Olsen.

I hope I'm not the only one intrigued by this and similar ideas. Another example, one of the most provocative maps I have ever seen in my lifetime is this one that tracks Iraq force fatalities.

No slight to perfect-day-elise, or whatever her screen name is, but the Wikimedia Foundation blew it to leave $20,000 of donated grant money in the hands of an already over-extended volunteer. I am sure that a paid professional (even if it had been $2,000 of the total grant) would have done a better job compiling a first-phase list of the images that would be most helpful and inspiring for Wikimedians to enjoy for posterity.

Instead, we got grapes and klaxons.

That's my potshot, in a nutshell (similar physiologically to a grape).

It's easy to take potshots now but where were you when the stuff was getting picked? Maybe the right stuff would have been picked if you'd been there and graced us all with your wisdom. (my picks didn't get picked but I'm not here complaining about it) ... paying someone to take the place of consensus... not the wiki way.

BTW: That surname thing is cool but the one you pointed me at first only had like 4 datapoints? I think every 10 years would make a smoother, more dramatic animation. Census data underneath????

Also, producing those really just takes some programming, if the data's out there, coloring in a map is childs play. Not art... Cool, but not art. The stuff that is supposed to be drawn takes... um... artistic talent. You know, interpretation of multiple inputs, synthesis, etc. Not just data grinding.

[jd turk]

Even worse: No individual illustrator will receive more than US$600 per financial year.

That's probably to keep from having to declare it for tax purposes. Less than $600, you don't get a W-2 or 1099.

[Milton Roe]

Also, producing those really just takes some programming, if the data's out there, coloring in a map is childs play. Not art... Cool, but not art. The stuff that is supposed to be drawn takes... um... artistic talent. You know, interpretation of multiple inputs, synthesis, etc. Not just data grinding.

There is no such thing as "just" data grinding. The world is a buzzing, blooming confusion-- far more than anybody can ever deal with. It takes several levels of reduction (yes, synthetic reduction) to decide what "data" even is. That's easy to see with the output of the Large Hadron Collider, where you have all these dramatic stages of filtering, selection, and dumping, but it applies also to any experiment or study.

As I said some time ago, you can imagine some primatologist, out in the forest. The photons that go into her eyes are discarded, and only conclusions remain. Complex image processing that no computer could do is used to "look for" and "identify" a band of chimps, and individual chimps. Now various prejudgement filters are used to decide which social behaviors are taking place, and which of these are important and worth noting. Finally through all this it emerges that Chimp Alice is grooming Chimp Bob at 08:23:43. At last, raw data is now being taken!

Of course, drawing requires a lot of original synthesis. But so does taking a decent photograph, which is why it's not so easy to do (give a camera to a 5 year-old some time and see what kind of stuff comes out). Everything else that happens on, or is put on Wikipedia, is the same. Only pretending like crazy makes it seem otherwise.

Oooh, also interesting would be a time-lapse of growth AND decline of a retail operation, such as Ames stores, or Kay-Bee Toys, or Woolworth's. Admittedly, the data would be tough to come by -- but surely someone out there has a historical log of the locations of Woolworth's stores on a year-by-year basis? That, to me, is where the collective power of crowds could help.

Here is Minard's 1869 chart of Napoleon's Russian campaign, which is one of the classic quantitative illustrations of all time. But such stuff is justly famous, and rare. It has been used in many textbooks on illustration of quantitative data, and of course it's already a Wikipedia featured illustration. If you don't know it, it's worth studying closely as a work of genius: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fea...ussian_Campaign

This post has been edited by Milton Roe: Wed 30th July 2008, 4:50am