On 12/23/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/12/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
This should IMHO be the standard. Most books that publish photos "by permission" give the credit directly beneath the photo. We should be no different. And, it would help that goal of encouraging people to free up their photos for us.
Most books don't have a descriptive page dedicated to each image, we do. I don't see why duplicating this information is necessary, it ends up cluttering the article proper.
By the same article it's not necessary to include the image in the article, as there's a separate page dedicated to it.
Duplication isn't always a bad thing, especially when the duplication is a one line summary of the original. It usually isn't necessary (exception would be when the license requires it), but it also usually isn't harmful. I'd say in most cases it's better - I find myself clicking on image links a lot just out of curiosity to see how it was obtained. Saving these extra clicks would be nice, and the tiny bit of space it takes to do so would be worth it. But that's just me, other reader preferences obviously will vary.
By the way, if we're going to appeal to what others do, online Britannica has inline credits even though they have a separate image page. Online Encarta presents their credit information a click away. So there's precedent for either.
Anthony