[Foundation-l] [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad

[Peter Gervai]

On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 17:43, Sage Ross<ragesoss+wikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hold up!  This is User:Jerry Avenaim, and he has contributed some of
> his low-resolution photographs, and even a higher-resolution one of
> Mark Marmon that is a Featured Picture on en-wiki.

Thanks for the info, for I was able to actually check the discussion
on the Hale Berry deletion page; so Jerry seems to be a good fellow
because he actually considered the effect of the license and uploaded
smaller pictures instead of removing them all. (Still some pictures he
uploaded are below the usable size, like
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phil_1.jpg which is 250 × 342
pixels, and not good for anything including illustrating an article
apart from having a thumbnail. Most of his picture seems to be just
perfect for use, around the 1-2 Mpixel range which is a good
compromise to make them available for real use while preventing them
to be used in real printed media, which I guess provide Jerry a
living.)

So it seems just what I have guessed: the reporter misinterpreting someone.

Still if not, then Jerry isn't right, since IMHO 1-2 Mpx images aren't
bad [instead of having no image at all], and he contributed to that
pool. (If he'd believe these are bad then he's uploading bad mages,
which is, erm... I won't repeat myself.)

And in my opinion uploading a reduced resolution image, like 1-5
Megapixels is completely good and acceptable for our mission. These
are already quite useful resolutions, while they still aren't fit for
mainstream media. (Of course if people aren't worried about loss of
profit, should it ever could have been existing, then the original,
maximal resolution is preferred.)

-- 
 byte-byte,
    grin