Talk:Wikimania 2005 media competition

Incentive for new media

Should media already used on a project be eligible? On the one hand, the idea is to get lots of excellent new media for us to use; but on the other not allowing this could exclude some of people's best work. --sannse

How about this: * Submissions may not have been uploaded to a Wikimedia project prior to Jan. 1, 2005. sj

Sounds a very good solution to me, added -- sannse

Video format

MPEG isn't an open format. See Talk:Video policy. The choice seems to be between Ogg Theora and the BBC's Dirac. I'd vote for the latter, simply because it's got the huge support of the BBC behind it. Encoding tools are free and open; we can help out anyone who asks, write tutorials, etc. If we're going to require Vorbis files for audio, we'd better require Dirac or Theora video. Grendelkhan 18:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Photo size in pixels

20x30cm at 150dpi (is that too much?) is 1771×1181 pixels (so approximately 1600×1200). At 100dpi, it's 1181×787 pixels (so approximately 1200×800). The typical 2 megapixel shot is 1600×1200, the typical 1.3 megapixel shot is 1200×900. Since a lot of contributors will be using digital cameras, these pixel sizes should be given. As soon as someone can say what dpi is required :-) - David Gerard 09:48, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we need to require any particular dpi - just ask competitors to be aware that the final judging will be at the conference and that the images will be printed for that purpose. So they will need to aim for a resolution that shows their work off well under those circumstances. Other than that, I think we should be flexible -- sannse

Illustrations

no illustration category?

Yes, there will be an illustration category (or maybe two)- they will be added shortly. We need to decide exactly what we should ask for here - perhaps "Illustration - Drawings" and "Illustration - 3D models". But certainly illustrations will be included -- sannse

This question is relevant to Wikibuilder too, so any ideas and thoughts you have be sure to share them over at Talk:Wikibuilder. Christiaan 18:22, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Licencing

Can someone explain why CC-by-SA is not an option for this competition (especially when is does seem to be an option when uploading media to Commons)? What are the major difference between CC-by-SA and GFDL? Christiaan 18:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My intent was to keep things as simple as possible for reuse - but given the complicated nature of the GFDL, that probably backwards anyway :) I'm OK with including CC-by-sa or other fully equivalent licence. sj: you OK with this? -- sannse 21:34, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm not adverse to either way, I'm just curious. I have a bunch of photos I'm going to upload and I'll probably be dual-licencing it with GFDL and CC-by-SA because, apparently, this is the only way that Wikitravel can use them (I might be wrong). Which could be a good reason to make such dual-licencing a prerequisite. Worth looking into anyway. —Christiaan 21:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)