Template talk:Replace?: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Joe Quick No edit summary |
imported>Joe Quick mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I don't like this template, at least in it's current form. There are a few reasons: | I don't like this template, at least in it's current form. There are a few reasons: | ||
# The way that it is phrased: "If you can replace this image with one that is substantially equivalent, please help Citizendium fulfill its mission." This makes it sound like images that are used by permission on the Citizendium are somehow threatening the mission of the project. I think, in many cases, just the opposite is true | # The way that it is phrased: "If you can replace this image with one that is substantially equivalent, please help Citizendium fulfill its mission." This makes it sound like images that are used by permission on the Citizendium are somehow threatening the mission of the project. I think, in many cases, just the opposite is true | ||
# The way it is applied: For images that come from archives ([[:Image:Augustus_Augur_CapiteVelato.jpg]]), for recent images of individuals ([[:Image:Gilad_Atzmon_-_for_Citizendium.jpg]]), for images that require special equipment to produce ([[:Image:Bacteriophage5.jpg]]), and for specialized graphs ([[:Image:Wessel_1954_fig1.png]]) there is very likely not an equivalent available. | # The way it is applied: For images that come from archives ([[:Image:Augustus_Augur_CapiteVelato.jpg]]), for recent images of individuals ([[:Image:Gilad_Atzmon_-_for_Citizendium.jpg]]), for images that require special equipment to produce ([[:Image:Bacteriophage5.jpg]]), and for specialized graphs ([[:Image:Wessel_1954_fig1.png]]) there is very likely not an equivalent available. | ||
# What it means for the relationships that we will cultivate in the future: The mere existence of a template like this and especially its appearance on image pages for media that comes from archives will drive down the quality of our work. I think we should work to establish relationships with large archives and set precedents so that archives such as that held by the American Philosophical Society will share their content with us. If we apply this template, users will shy away from such archives and choose lesser quality images when we could be using something better for free from an archive. | # What it means for the relationships that we will cultivate in the future: The mere existence of a template like this and especially its appearance on image pages for media that comes from archives will drive down the quality of our work. I think we should work to establish relationships with large archives and set precedents so that archives such as that held by the American Philosophical Society will share their content with us. If we apply this template, users will shy away from such archives and choose lesser quality images when we could be using something better for free from an archive. | ||
As far as I know (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the only reason to prefer open content over use by permission is to open it up for reuse by others. This is a very important consideration, but I believe that the quality of our own content is more important than assuring that others will be able to reuse it. And for the above reasons (particularly number three), I believe that this type of template will discourage use of images by permission and have the effect of driving down the quality of our content. [[User:Joe Quick|--Joe Quick]] ([[User talk:Joe Quick|Talk]]) 03:08, 20 May 2007 (CDT) | As far as I know (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the only reason to prefer open content over use by permission is to open it up for reuse by others. This is a very important consideration, but I believe that the quality of our own content is more important than assuring that others will be able to reuse it. And for the above reasons (particularly number three), I believe that this type of template will discourage use of images by permission and have the effect of driving down the quality of our content. [[User:Joe Quick|--Joe Quick]] ([[User talk:Joe Quick|Talk]]) 03:08, 20 May 2007 (CDT) | ||
Revision as of 03:08, 20 May 2007
I don't like this template, at least in it's current form. There are a few reasons:
- The way that it is phrased: "If you can replace this image with one that is substantially equivalent, please help Citizendium fulfill its mission." This makes it sound like images that are used by permission on the Citizendium are somehow threatening the mission of the project. I think, in many cases, just the opposite is true
- The way it is applied: For images that come from archives (Image:Augustus_Augur_CapiteVelato.jpg), for recent images of individuals (Image:Gilad_Atzmon_-_for_Citizendium.jpg), for images that require special equipment to produce (Image:Bacteriophage5.jpg), and for specialized graphs (Image:Wessel_1954_fig1.png) there is very likely not an equivalent available.
- What it means for the relationships that we will cultivate in the future: The mere existence of a template like this and especially its appearance on image pages for media that comes from archives will drive down the quality of our work. I think we should work to establish relationships with large archives and set precedents so that archives such as that held by the American Philosophical Society will share their content with us. If we apply this template, users will shy away from such archives and choose lesser quality images when we could be using something better for free from an archive.
As far as I know (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the only reason to prefer open content over use by permission is to open it up for reuse by others. This is a very important consideration, but I believe that the quality of our own content is more important than assuring that others will be able to reuse it. And for the above reasons (particularly number three), I believe that this type of template will discourage use of images by permission and have the effect of driving down the quality of our content. --Joe Quick (Talk) 03:08, 20 May 2007 (CDT)