On 8/1/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/1/06, Garion96 <garion96(a)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…
Garion96