On 8/1/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Heh, my productivity machine is botanical gardens. Photo of label, whole plant, closeups of leaves/flowers, three steps to the left, repeat. :-) UC Berkeley botanical garden sez they have 12,000 taxa for instance, I've only racked up about 300 of them so far...
Bastard! I do European castles. I don't have a car. You have any idea how long it takes to take those "three steps to the left"?
Actually the real problem is getting to the article after visiting the place, and discovering that someone has already taken a (better) photo of it.
Amusing case in point: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Rock_of_Cashel_inside_cathedral.jpg (my image) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rock_of_Cashel-castle_interior.jpg (existing image)
Steve
On 8/1/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Bastard! I do European castles. I don't have a car. You have any idea how long it takes to take those "three steps to the left"?
Actually the real problem is getting to the article after visiting the place, and discovering that someone has already taken a (better) photo of it.
Certianly know what images exist and what images are needed. While to a degree this can be delt with through very high levels of specialisation (I know which british canals don't have photos) this narrows the number of people we might have looking for any given photo.
On 8/1/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Certianly know what images exist and what images are needed. While to a degree this can be delt with through very high levels of specialisation (I know which british canals don't have photos) this narrows the number of people we might have looking for any given photo.
Yeah, it can be hard to judge what "images are needed" before visiting a place though. And sometimes you only turn up the complete collection of photos once you start going through Commons.
Anyway, it's not like I'm not going to take a photo at all just because it exists in Commons - but maybe I'll put my girlfriend in it or something instead ;)
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 8/1/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Heh, my productivity machine is botanical gardens. Photo of label, whole plant, closeups of leaves/flowers, three steps to the left, repeat. :-) UC Berkeley botanical garden sez they have 12,000 taxa for instance, I've only racked up about 300 of them so far...
Bastard! I do European castles. I don't have a car. You have any idea how long it takes to take those "three steps to the left"?
Actually the real problem is getting to the article after visiting the place, and discovering that someone has already taken a (better) photo of it.
Amusing case in point: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Rock_of_Cashel_inside_cathedral.jpg (my image) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rock_of_Cashel-castle_interior.jpg (existing image)
Yours is bigger, which makes it better :)
G'day Steve,
Actually the real problem is getting to the article after visiting the place, and discovering that someone has already taken a (better) photo of it.
Amusing case in point: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Rock_of_Cashel_inside_cathedral.jpg (my image) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rock_of_Cashel-castle_interior.jpg (existing image)
Ahh, yours is quite good. Sadly, they're too similar to both use in an article.
I took a photograph of Jon Stanhope the other day, and came home really rather proud of myself. But somebody got in first; that it's a better photograph than mine hardly needs saying.
Mark Gallagher wrote:
Amusing case in point: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Rock_of_Cashel_inside_cathedral.jpg (my image) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rock_of_Cashel-castle_interior.jpg (existing image)
Ahh, yours is quite good. Sadly, they're too similar to both use in an article.
Funny you should say that. I took a photo of [[Trinity Great Court]] some time ago (although at the time I added it to [[Trinity College, Cambridge]] because the former article didn't exist). Then someone added a much better photo of the same thing from the same angle. So I went ahead and removed mine, but someone reverted me. For a long time, the article had two similar-looking photographs right underneath each other...
Timwi
On 8/2/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Funny you should say that. I took a photo of [[Trinity Great Court]] some time ago (although at the time I added it to [[Trinity College, Cambridge]] because the former article didn't exist). Then someone added a much better photo of the same thing from the same angle. So I went ahead and removed mine, but someone reverted me. For a long time, the article had two similar-looking photographs right underneath each other...
It's hard to know how similar is too similar. I tend to think that the more images, the better, and if there are even a few more details in one than the other, it may be worth it. Particularly in the case of an article with very little text, you can get a surprising amount of information just by including several photos. I don't know about "a thousand words", but often several hundred or so.
An example fresh in my mind: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrage_de_Grangent
Can you imagine this without the images? Nowhere in the text does it describe the surrounding scenery, or help you picture the shape of it at all. By contrast:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac_de_Grangent is about the artificial lake - no image (yet), no way of understanding anything about this lake except in purely abstract terms.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
It's hard to know how similar is too similar. I tend to think that the more images, the better, and if there are even a few more details in one than the other, it may be worth it. Particularly in the case of an article with very little text, you can get a surprising amount of information just by including several photos. I don't know about "a thousand words", but often several hundred or so.
I quite agree with this. Accordingly, I would endorse a movement whereby short articles are allowed to accrue a gallery of images at the bottom (optionally with the "show/hide" links to keep frenetic clickers happy). Nevertheless, those images should eventually be incorporated into the article as it grows. Remember that people primarily come to Wikipedia for encyclopedic articles. If someone were to specifically look for pictures, well, that's what the links to Commons are there for.
Timwi
On 8/2/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
I quite agree with this. Accordingly, I would endorse a movement whereby short articles are allowed to accrue a gallery of images at the bottom (optionally with the "show/hide" links to keep frenetic clickers happy). Nevertheless, those images should eventually be incorporated into the article as it grows. Remember that people primarily come to Wikipedia for encyclopedic articles. If someone were to specifically look for pictures, well, that's what the links to Commons are there for.
Yep. There seems to be disagreement about what happens when a long article has too many images though (too many meaning, if they were all laid top to bottom without overlapping, they would be longer than the text). Some responses I've seen: * Try and cram them in anyway :) * Stick the "surplus" in a "gallery" section down the bottom * Move the surplus to a separate article called "Images of X" (not a fan of this) * Just leave out the excess and possibly point to a category or Commons.
Steve
On 01/08/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Heh, my productivity machine is botanical gardens. Photo of label, whole plant, closeups of leaves/flowers, three steps to the left, repeat. :-) UC Berkeley botanical garden sez they have 12,000 taxa for instance, I've only racked up about 300 of them so far...
Bastard! I do European castles. I don't have a car. You have any idea how long it takes to take those "three steps to the left"?
Actually the real problem is getting to the article after visiting the place, and discovering that someone has already taken a (better) photo of it.
Amusing case in point: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Rock_of_Cashel_inside_cathedral.jpg (my image) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rock_of_Cashel-castle_interior.jpg (existing image)
They're actually quite interesting in comparison. Most of the foliage in your version is more grown - look at the top of the main arch - but there are some patches where yours is denuded and the earlier one has growth. What, if anything, that indicates I don't know, but it's something.
There's rarely anything to be *lost* by the duplicate, though I agree it's annoying to find you've been pre-empted. (I should go round the Ashmolean one of these days, do all the obscure portraits of minor nobility, little chance of duplicating effort there...)
On 8/2/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
They're actually quite interesting in comparison. Most of the foliage in your version is more grown - look at the top of the main arch - but there are some patches where yours is denuded and the earlier one has growth. What, if anything, that indicates I don't know, but it's something.
Yeah I was looking at that, trying to decide "what it all means". Was the foliage in the previous version artificially pruned? Are we seeing the same foliage, or is this an annual growth? etc.
So, there's some benefit in multiple photos of the same thing over differet years :)
Haven't yet made up my mind if I like captioning photos "July 2006" or whatever in the article itself.
Steve