[Commons-l] Appropriate surprise (Commons stuff)

[Andre Engels]

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Ting Chen <wing.philopp at gmx.de> wrote:

> There is also a suggestions from me to the dilemmas you illustrated with
> your penis-example. It is certainly a premature consideration, and maybe
> it is also flawed and not practible. The suggestions is that we put a
> number limit for images in a category. I would suggest for all
> categories, not only sexuality related. If new images are included in
> that category when that category had already met its limit, it should be
> stated which value it brings that is not already there. For example
> because it depicts a desease, or it has a higher resolution. The same is
> also for other categories. If let's say we have already hundreds of
> panorama of the Rhine river in the city of Mainz than I would not add
> any value to our repository if I put another panorama depicts the same
> scene. But if it is took by a festival, or by a daytime that is not yet
> depicted, or by a certain weather phenomenon then it would add value
> into the gallary.

Definitely a point I agree with, in fact it is something I have been
saying from the beginning of Commons: We should not want to have yet
another picture of the Tower of Pisa, but if it is a picture from an
unusual angle, or a particularly good picture, or one at another time
of day, then we do want it.

I think we should not be restricting this to new images. Rather, I
would like to see people go over (connected) groups of categories,
recategorize the files that are there, and in this process also
propose the images that give no additional value. Only files that are
in use on a project should be fully exempt, but of course almost
anything could be a valid objection against such a deletion.


--
André Engels, andreengels at gmail.com