On 8/2/06, Timwi <timwi(a)gmx.net> wrote:
Funny you should say that. I took a photo of [[Trinity
Great Court]]
some time ago (although at the time I added it to [[Trinity College,
Cambridge]] because the former article didn't exist). Then someone added
a much better photo of the same thing from the same angle. So I went
ahead and removed mine, but someone reverted me. For a long time, the
article had two similar-looking photographs right underneath each other...
It's hard to know how similar is too similar. I tend to think that the
more images, the better, and if there are even a few more details in
one than the other, it may be worth it. Particularly in the case of an
article with very little text, you can get a surprising amount of
information just by including several photos. I don't know about "a
thousand words", but often several hundred or so.
An example fresh in my mind:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrage_de_Grangent
Can you imagine this without the images? Nowhere in the text does it
describe the surrounding scenery, or help you picture the shape of it
at all. By contrast:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac_de_Grangent is about the artificial
lake - no image (yet), no way of understanding anything about this
lake except in purely abstract terms.
Steve