[Foundation-l] 1.6 Billion USD to spare? How about liberationof some pictures

[White Cat]

Yes and what I am saying isn't utterly false either. I see caption credit as
a great mistake to be avoided.

A convenient way to comply with mandatory crediting is via caption, this is
true. On a news article you typically can't click on the image  as that is
extra code and hassle. Wikipedia does not have such restrictions. Also
typically 'news' is on a format you lack a mouse all together (aka printed
on paper).

On wikipedia our images undergo many edits and etc. More than one single
person owns credit. Contributing to wikipedia, wikinews or commons for the
sake of self promotion feels like a conflict of interest to me. Such a goal
is not inline with the goal of ''free encyclopedia''

As for corporate donation thing to spam, I do not believe that will not
happen. Wikipedia will no longer be free (as in freedom) if we start
allowing corporations to dictate or manipulate our content for a price. Such
a thing would actually be in conflict with NPOV among other things.

If corporations are willing to release their work with a free license thats
fine, however we should not be selling our souls for that. Wikipedia is not
an advertisement site and contribution of any kind for the sake of spamming
is unwelcome.

Also I seriously doubt corporations such as Microsoft that practically is
terrified of free-licenses to release anything with a free license.


On Jan 24, 2008 4:12 PM, Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil at wikinewsie.org> wrote:

> Wikinews has an unwritten policy of attributing images wherever reasonably
> possible. Right down to naming photographers who've done government work
> or
> through other means released material into the public domain.
>
> I don't know if a similar approach would work for Wikipedia, but for news
> it
> seems appropriate. Whenever you visit a mainstream media site you're
> likely
> to see labels like "AFP" or "AP" on photos; doing something similar on
> Wikinews encourages photographers to distribute links to articles
> featuring
> their pictures - and to contribute more photos in future. A win all round.
>
> It is up to Wikipedians to decide if such an approach for their project
> would work. Considering some of the comments on corporate sponsorship I
> could see people like Microsoft wanting to donate images just to get links
> to their stuff in articles. On that basis I'd imagine many would be
> against
> image crediting.
>
>
> Brian McNeil
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of White Cat
> Sent: 24 January 2008 13:52
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 1.6 Billion USD to spare? How about
> liberationof
> some pictures
>
> Majority of our readers do not come to wikipedia for our credit info. They
> come to wikipedia to read about encyclopedic articles. We are an
> encyclopedia we expect people to come here seeking an encyclopedia. Please
> do not misinterpret what I said, citation is required per license and it
> must be done. However it is impractical to do so in in-line text.
>
> Also consider the case of 'User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me' say he
> uploads 20 images for an article. The phrase 'Can't sleep, clown will eat
> me' would be mentioned 20 times in the article. Now consider a username
> that
> may imply an inflammatory remark when used in an article.
>
> If you are going to 'credit' every image, why are you not crediting each
> edit individually? You have the 'history' link to credit individual edits
> and the 'image link' to credit the author(s) of that particular image. All
> credit info is one click away.
>
> So inline crediting can cause problems... Inline crediting brings
> wikipedia
> absolutely no benefit whatsoever aside from being free advertisements to
> the
> authors.
>
> On Jan 24, 2008 12:41 PM, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 24, 2008 11:21 AM, White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >  Majority of our readers care not of the credit info.
> >
> > This statement lacks a citation. And even if it was true, it would not
> > serve as an argument. What would be the effect if someone "proved" by
> > a reasonable large survey that the majority of our readers do not care
> > about the License of the text at all? I don't see any, except maybe
> > the need for more education :)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>