Re: [Commons-l] Neil K intro / Photography Platforms

On 22 March 2010 21:01, Sage Ross <ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com<ragesoss%2Bwikipedia@gmail.com> > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Paul Houle &lt;paul(a)ontology2.com> > > What would you say if I uploaded a bunch of pictures of my son to > > Wikipedia Commons? Would they be deleted? For me there's a lot of > > value of Flickr being a space I can upload photographs that I choose, > > rather than needing to wonder if "it likely to be useful to a Wikimedia > > Foundation <http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/> project?" I'd rather > > give my $25 a year to Flickr than face the prospect of arguing about the > > inclusion of my photos. > > > > I'm not disagreeing; that's why I pay for Flickr. I don't think > Commons can or should try to do *everything* Flickr does, but within > the scope of Commons, there's still room to add a lot of the fun > aspects of Flickr. > > I must agree with Sage that whilst Wikimedia Commons and Flickr are similar they are not the same animal. We could certainly learn from them and incorporate many of their tools/features but it's not a zero-sum-game between the two projects. However, I do see much greater competition between Wikimedia Commons and Flickr *Commons* - Flickr's project for the GLAM sector. For those interested, I wrote a blogpost in January about why Wikimedia Commons was a good thing for GLAMs (arguments you'd all be familiar with) and in response the Sydney Powerhouse Museum wrote this detailed and enlightening reply in defense of Flickr Commons: http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/dmsblog/index.php/2010/01/25/why-flickr-com… For summary, the key reasons listed in that post were: *1. Context matters a lot.* *2. User experience and community* *3. Managing that community* *4. A sense of content control* *5. Statistics* *Now, whilst we can't do a whole lot about number 4, we can improve a lot on numbers 2 and 5, for example. * *-Liam [[witty lama]] * wittylama.com/blog Peace, love & metadata