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.'"
What more is there to say?
gofuckyourself
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
. Great idea, poor execution, Wikipedia. .
blog me no blogs
Apparently they care more about freedom than having the highest quality images available. What more is there to say?
We ought to have a derogatory comment or two about RMS here. Like something about how he and his ideals are just too far out of the mainstream and that what wikipedia really needs is to forget about this "free as in speech" ideology that just keeps good writing and good images from ever being incorporated into wikipedia. That foot-lickin hippie is just out of touch with the rest of the world.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Apparently they care more about freedom than having the highest quality images available. What more is there to say?
Correction: Apparently, they care more about not getting sued than having the highest quality images available. What more is there to say?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Looks more like assholes.
rewriting history since 2109
I thought, we only care about freedom of people here. Well, maybe, of animals too. But of source material? Please...
And the people's freedom is diminished, when high-quality options are rejected.
I do have an axe with Wikipedia, and so should you, if, indeed, freedom is important to you. Their handling of Obama's page is just another example, of how the site, that's "free for everyone to modify" is able to push the agenda of its more dedicated contributors. To the detriment of freedom of us all.
I am sorry for looking at the Beloved Leader with anything short of utter admiration. I shall repent — please, stop calling me names now...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
A million F/OSS programmers and Indie musicians aren't engaging in a business model.
Free does not run a business. At some point they make money, or they do something that earns money to subsidize the free work.
Short of waiting to be blessed by some rich benefactor, how do YOU suggest a photographer make money at their trade?
Oh wait, right this is Slashdot. Shaft first, think of ways to compensate later.