I agree with JarekT here: A low quality photo is better than no photo.
To me, Commons is in the first place an image resource, both for other
projects and for third parties. What we should ask is therefore: Does
the picture add to our resource, that is, can we reasonably expect
this image to be used by one of these users?
As such, we should not set a general minimum standard, but instead
compare with what is already available for the subject depicted. Each
picture should add something to what we already have - we don't want a
picture that's basically a lower quality version of an image we
already have, and for a subject of which we already have many
pictures, we only want a new one if it actually adds something - which
could be high quality but also a special point of view or whatever.
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Romaine Wiki <romaine.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
A professional photo agency offers us (Wikimedia Belgium) a donation of
images of art works. They now offer as a start these images with 595 x 842
pixels at 72 dpi. This size is almost double of that from a thumbnail size
on Wikipedia. My own (not the most modern) smartphone makes images at 5.312
× 2.988 pixels at 72 dpi. Seeing the size of these images I think they are
My question is: what is the minimum of quality we should ask?
Commons-l mailing list
André Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com