Maybe I'm just dense, but I've had a look at the category and while a lot of them are probably of limited use for an encyclopaedia article, we must remember that Commons is more than an image hosting solution for Wikipedia. Then again, I'm one of those "if you don't think it's worth it, then don't bother working on it" people. People who do think this has some value will do it.
Cheers, Craig
-----Original Message----- From: commons-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:commons-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Schwen Sent: Sunday, 31 January 2010 8:54 AM To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Geograph images
Just dug through the ML archives. This is the thread I had in mind http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2008-October/004235.html
The image quality, which was unimpressive back then, is by todays standards even more ridiculous. The images are on the level of sub-stubs. Flooding commons with hundreds of thousands of low quality images, just because a few hundred maybe even a few thousand are potentially interesting for articles is a _waste_ of resources. And by resources I do _not_ mean disk space, I mean valuable resources like contributor time (all that stuff will have to be categorized too). We are not doing a service to our users either if we essentially spam our category pages with tons of those images, drowning the good stuff that we have.
_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l