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.'"
They don't wanna be harassed by **AA
frostypiss?
endlEss conflict percent of the *BSD Who sell another be on a wrong
>>>the paper's editors denounce the rest of us for being reluctant to commit to trillions of dollars worth of government medicine. The implicit premise of the Times' yammering is that they are smarter than you.
>>>
Yes. They are smarter than the average person. That's not the problem. The problem is that the New York Times is a biased paper that favors Big Government solutions. They think we'd all be better-off with more laws and more regulations. i.e. More control. That explains virtually all their stories, such as wanting wikipedia controlled by copyright instead of being free, or desiring regulations to remove those "bad SUVs" off the road, or wanting a healthcare monopoly. It's about control. That's the NYT's bias.
Aside -
My issue against healthcare is not cost. It's loss of freedom. Just recently a man of about 70 years needed a heart transplant but the Canadian government health monopoly said "no" because they determined he was too old, and therefore should just pass-away. That's loss of choice to determine your own future.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Aaaand what a surprise. Downmodded for speaking truth to left-wingers with mod points.