I've said it before and I'm happy to repeat. _Storage is meaningless_!
The resource we are wasting is contributor time to keep the new images
well maintained. The payoff is minimal. The image quality is
ridiculous. And if we really have need one of their images we know
about geograph.co.uk. This mass upload is not only unecessary but also
detrimental to the project.
Sure a geograph project for every country would be great, but pleas
without this completely outdated size limit. And even then I see no
need for a mass upload? What is the point? We'll only ever be using a
tiny fraction of the images. Why not upload on demand. The project
goals are very different. Or would you imply that the geograph.co.uk
site will be obsolete once we got all their image content?
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi,
Given that recently the amount of storage was upgraded so that we can
support our large collections, it is no wonder that a picture that is part
of such a collection became the lucky one.
I am really happy with the Geograph project, I blogged twice about them and
personally I would welcome a Geograph project for every country.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 31 January 2010 17:19, Daniel Schwen <lists(a)schwen.de> wrote:
Wow, fantastic :-(
So this had nothing to do with the timing of the mass-upload?
Commons has just reached 6 million files! At
10:17, January 31,
2010, Sailing_on_Ullswater_-_geograph.org.uk_-_173422.jpg became our 6
millionth file on Commons!
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l