[WikiEN-l] Technical solution to bad fair use (was:Uploading images should be a privilige...)

[Garion96]

On 8/1/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 8/1/06, Garion96 <garion96 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Copied from the policy [[Wikipedia:Fair use criteria]] Criteria 1.
>
> Thanks - apologies for not finding it myself.


 NP, considering the amount of guidelines and policies, it's easy to miss
something. :)



> >
> > Always use a more free alternative if one is available.
>
> So, what is an "equivalent"? How much worse can the free image be
> before we don't have to consider it "equivalent"? Considering that
> "worse" can mean lower resolution, lower technical quality, less
> focused on the concept of hand (eg, a picture of a building when we're
> discussing its front door), less aesthetically pleasing, diagram vs
> photo, hand drawn image vs photo, etc etc.


I don't think there are any criteria on that. I know for instance that
sometimes a fair use image of a living person is replaced by a 'free'
mugshot (although I believe there are doubts if those are really 'free') but
I don't really like that. I prefer no image in those cases. See the Mel
Gibson article in that regard.



> How much value does a photo being "free" really add to any given
> encyclopaedic article? Is this policy about promoting "free" images
> not at odds with other policies which are all about producing a high
> quality encyclopaedia? What happens when the goal to produce a "high
> quality" encyclopaedia is at odds with the goal to produce a "free"
> encyclopaedia?


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.

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&diff=66922063&oldid=58823881

Garion96