Slashdot Mirror
Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad
Reservoir Hill writes "The NY Times has an article investigating why, unlike the articles on Wikipedia which in theory are improved, fact checked, footnoted, and generally enhanced over time, the photos that go with Wikipedia articles are so bad and in many cases there is no photo at all for even well known public figures. Few high-quality photographs, particularly of celebrities, make it onto on Wikipedia because Wikipedia runs only pictures with the most permissive Creative Commons license, which allows anyone to use an image, for commercial purposes or not, as long as the photographer is credited. 'Representatives or publicists will contact us' horrified at the photographs on the site, says Jay Walsh, a spokesman for the Wikimedia Foundation. 'They will say: "I have this image. I want you to use this image." But it is not as simple as uploading a picture that is e-mailed to us.' Recent photographs on Wikipedia are almost exclusively the work of amateurs who don't mind giving away their work. 'Amateur may be too kind a word; their photos tend to be the work of fans who happen to have a camera,' opines the Times's author. Ultimately the issue for professional photographers who might want to donate their work is copyright. 'To me the problem is the Wikipedia rule of public use,' says Jerry Avenaim, a celebrity photographer. 'If they truly wanted to elevate the image on the site, they should allow photographers to maintain the copyright.'"
I swear, I read wikipedia for the articles, not for the pictures!
No, you fool, they're tits. And they're censored. To be worksave, you know.
This explains why Wikipedia's article on breasts has less impressive images than, uh, various other sites. And their article on cleavage is downright horrible.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
And to think I was looking for a 4000x3000 raw bitmap photo of Halle Berry
She would easily fit on a 4000x1500 bitmap, you insensitive clod!
This is not the sig you're looking for.
Then there would be a slashdot article "why the photos on wikipedia are so bad".
Tell your friends about xenu.net
Photos cannot be improved incrementally? Have you never heard of Photoshop?
Memories are getting shorter these days.
Yeah, but on your typical cell phone's picture, it would be hard to attribute limbs of either... Oh I see, you mean two separate photos?