On 8/2/06, Timwi timwi@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