On 8/2/06, Garion96 <garion96(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I just see pictures as extra, they are nice and really
help the
encyclopedia. But the text for me is what makes a high quality encyclopedia,
not the images.
Well, each to his own, I'm a big fan of good images, and kind of see
the text as the necessary amount of padding to avoid people removing
the images on the basis of there being too many :) Seriously, though,
it depends on the subject. I would much rather see images of
mountains, castles, rivers or musical instruments than read about
them. On the other hand, images of people, trains, computers, wars etc
aren't that interesting.
I do like it that we can make use of fair use though.
But I think it should
be used more like Jimbo recently mentioned here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3APublicity_photos…
The man speaks much sense there. I hadn't thought of using our
bargaining power to obtain new free images.
Though I would disagree that album art is the "only sensible
illustration" of an album - other possible images include the artist
during recording or writing, places or events that inspired it, photos
of the recording studio (think Abbey Road), the producer, or even
concerts that made use of the album material...
Steve