On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 10:08 AM, James Heald <[email protected]> wrote: > As well as exact duplicates, there may often also be different versions of > the same painting with different lighting, or scans of slightly different > reproductions of the same work. I don't know whether the algorithm is > permissive enough to pick all of these up, but as many as can be picked up > would be good to tag as "other versions" of the same underlying image. > > In general, we probably wouldn't *remove* duplicate images, but we would > want to identify them as versions of each other. We probably need a good definition of all these terms, because people tend to have different interpretations of a 'duplicate'. E.g., for me a lower quality reproduction of a painting is a duplicate, but other people on Commons define it more strictly: only 'downsized' versions of a reproduction (that could also be made using the thumbnail service) are considered to be duplicates. We also need to have definitions for things like details, alternate angles, etcetera.
-- Hay _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
