On 13 April 2012 22:52, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.comwrote:
snip
I don't anticipate that this suggestion to offer a manual commons upload
for the Geograph users and the high def images they now load would be as
contentious as it would be to resume the bot based import.
The
I am aware of the commons botload problem ... I did my share as well.
However we know that Wikipedia has made some very big mistakes. Its still
the best encyclopedia in the world and a marvellous example of man's good
will triumphing over apathy and cynicism. Lets not make the mistake of
blaming
Yes, many of us are aware of the issues with Geograph, above all WSC.
I agree the categorization side of it has been the real Achilles heel,
and in my experience the problem is often worse than WSC suggests. When
I filled up the Commons category for Wimbledon Common,
We had a criticism last year at one of our events that by making text
freely available we are undermining the employability of the
journalists and authors who would otherwise have written those
paragraphs about composers, musicians or species. We should (and
generally do) confront this head-on and
A simple solution would be to create new categories, such as
Geograph:West Sussex and Geograph:Barnes.
Bots could then upload images to those, which could be subcategories
of the respective parent categories, without clogging the latter, and
images could be switched manually, as they're checked
On 14 April 2012 14:31, Martin Poulter infob...@gmail.com wrote:
We had a criticism last year at one of our events that by making text
freely available we are undermining the employability of the
journalists and authors who would otherwise have written those
paragraphs about composers,
On 14 April 2012 20:45, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
I would suggest that the critique rests on a highly questionable
assumption, namely that if Wikipedia were not there people would pay
journalists to write the stuff that Wikipedia provides. Given that
when I'm creating new articles
