On 8/1/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/06, Garion96 garion96@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