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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l