On 15 December 2013 19:36, Andy Mabbett <a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
> The images contain metadata, which could be used for categorisation,at > the book level. > Not that useful. If you look at the images a lot are simply decorations and there are a fair number of duplications. > The whole point of the wiki model is that we make incremental steps > towards completion. > > An analogy could be drawn with Wikipedia's "stub" articles. > Commons already has 19 million images to make incremental steps on. En.Wikipedia has 4.4 million articles total, even the stubs are a lot more searchable and it has more people. > It's not good for us to lobby institutions to release media, and then > decline to accept it. > So we need to decide in advance what we are looking at. With 19 million already we've reach the stage where we should probably be more selective. > I would have liked the release to have been direct to Commons; at > least, I would have liked the opportunity to debate whether to accept > it. I hope that the next tome such an release is being considered, we > will be in a better position to facilitate the former. > > Having the images on flickr isn't too bad. They are still searchable and fairly easy to import although my search results have been turning up less than 1% that area really of interest an even then the quality isn't always usable. -- geni _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>