Geoff,
On a related issue, there may well be publicists who will be prepared to
give us images of the actors, musicians etc given that Wikipedia has become
so popular.
It might simply be a case of writing or e-mailing them and asking nicely.
Regards
Keith
Keith
User:Capitalistroadster
On 10/22/05, Geoff Burling <llywrch(a)agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Stan Shebs wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
We have this strange social culture built up
around images which I
believe is caused mostly by the fact that image deletion is instantly
permanent, rather than being something that can be reverted. If we
could revert image deletions as easily (or nearly as easily) as we
revert deletions of random bits of unacceptable text, we would be much
better able to pick and choose images wisely.
Fewer people seem to have cameras than I would have imagined. It took
me all of two minutes to roll my [[lawn mower]] out and make original
images for the article, but we still have all these people uploading
the first poor thumbnail of a commonplace object that Google finds
for them.
This indicates to me a suprrising lack of imagination on Wikipedia. We
currently have countless content disputes, where people are attempting
to find a way to frame the topic so to present their own POV as the
"normal" one & all others as variants (& thus less credible), yet none
of them has considered that were they to submit their own free images
of their favorite subjects that they would succeed promoting their POVs
that way.
In other words, because it is a free image, available for anyone to use
for whatever reason, Stan's lawn mower has now become the de facto
standard
image of what a normal lawn mower looks like. And if your lawn mower
doesn't
look identical to his, then it could be assumed that yours is somehow
wrong.
I assume that there are many people with sufficient self confidence in
themselves (if not in their lawn mowers) to find this line of thought
silly -- which it is in one way. But in another way, this becomes a
powerful
selling tool in getting more free images, one that I have been attempting
to impliment, but haen't quite gotten to.
One's public image is important to many groups, for example incorporated
communities like towns or cities; & if trends on Wikipedia continue,
eventually every town or community will have a free image of it available
for reuse. Now these towns can either allow someone else to create this
image& hope that it presents them in a positive manner, or they can
take from their own publicity campaigns one or more images & make them
available to all free. I would assume that if these images were offered
under either a freeCC or a GFD license, Wikimedia would be more than
happy to host them at no cost. Everybody wins: there are more free images
available for reuse, & these communities are able to advocate a more
positive appearance than they might otherwise have. (As a counterexample ,
does anyone really think that Slough wants to be associated with "The
Office" for the rest of recorded history?)
As for worries that this might encourage a slanted view of some cities,
in the longer picture I doubt this would be a serious problem since
volunteers will always be contributing material, perhaps encouraged by
the lack of an alternative to the "official appearance". (As another
example, if someone was able to produce pictures of East St. Louis that
made the city look nice enough to make you want to live there, how long
do you expect it would take for someone to provide alternative images?)
Just an idea or two for someone to run with.
Geoff
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l