Post by Psamathe on Jul 29, 2021 17:25:05 GMT
I'm seeing some really impressive photos of identified wildlife here and wonder if people upload them to WikiMedia, releasing them under Creative Commons Licenses.
Most of my photos are travel photos but a lot of unusual places without much coverage on WikiMedia/Wikipedia so I'm working through processing and uploading them. Reason I do this is after taking so many photos I got to wondering what they were for beyond an occasional bit of nostalgia and sitting on my computer disk until in less than 50 years my computers are thrown away when somebody gets landed with sorting out my "estate". As I'm not looking to use them to generate money I figured a good idea if I made them available for others to use but with attribution to me (which is what the appropriate Creative Commons License seems to do). So upload them to WikiMedia commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page (I'm no expert on licensing) and release them under a Creative Commons license where you retain copyright but licence them for free use with attribution (i.e. NOT public domain but allowing commercial use, allowing modification under the same license).
WikiMedia is part of the Wikipedia organisation and ages ago when I 1st started I uploaded a boring image of a strange aqueduct in the Netherlands (a "record" picture, nothing "wow") and a few months later somebody else had incorporated it into a Wikipedia page on aqueducts (although anybody can make use of the images anywhere, not just within Wiki<whatever> projects). I've even had a film production company from the Far East making a TV documentary on bats ask to use some of my bat videos I took in the region (they didn't need to ask but they did anyway).
Often I'll upload images and check the Wikipedia page on the subject covered and find it has no or rubbish images and it's a few seconds to improve the Wikipedia page. Often I'll then start editing the Wikipedia article/page where I find errors of missing information.
One of the really valuable aspects to images I've seen here is that they are properly identified so form a fabulous resource, particularly as the project is actually quite short of natural history images - definitely an area they need more content for.
If you do register and upload images the not so obvious categorisation system is crucial - very very flexible but a crucial tool in cataloguing images (and thus enabling people to find and use them).
So if you have time, consider it a useful educational resource, etc. do consider it and whilst I'm no expert on it, I'll happily answer and questions (to the best of my limited knowledge).
I am a great believer in Wikipedia/WikiMedia. I appreciate it has limitations and people are critical on it's reliability/accuracy but in practice I've found it pretty good and there is a fairly robust system in place to avoid vandalism and exaggeration (as some politicians seem to do ...). In part I see it as meaning we don't end-up with "truth" and information being as defined by big corporates (e.g. Google & Microsoft) but there is an independent voice without (so much) bias available.
Ian
Most of my photos are travel photos but a lot of unusual places without much coverage on WikiMedia/Wikipedia so I'm working through processing and uploading them. Reason I do this is after taking so many photos I got to wondering what they were for beyond an occasional bit of nostalgia and sitting on my computer disk until in less than 50 years my computers are thrown away when somebody gets landed with sorting out my "estate". As I'm not looking to use them to generate money I figured a good idea if I made them available for others to use but with attribution to me (which is what the appropriate Creative Commons License seems to do). So upload them to WikiMedia commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page (I'm no expert on licensing) and release them under a Creative Commons license where you retain copyright but licence them for free use with attribution (i.e. NOT public domain but allowing commercial use, allowing modification under the same license).
WikiMedia is part of the Wikipedia organisation and ages ago when I 1st started I uploaded a boring image of a strange aqueduct in the Netherlands (a "record" picture, nothing "wow") and a few months later somebody else had incorporated it into a Wikipedia page on aqueducts (although anybody can make use of the images anywhere, not just within Wiki<whatever> projects). I've even had a film production company from the Far East making a TV documentary on bats ask to use some of my bat videos I took in the region (they didn't need to ask but they did anyway).
Often I'll upload images and check the Wikipedia page on the subject covered and find it has no or rubbish images and it's a few seconds to improve the Wikipedia page. Often I'll then start editing the Wikipedia article/page where I find errors of missing information.
One of the really valuable aspects to images I've seen here is that they are properly identified so form a fabulous resource, particularly as the project is actually quite short of natural history images - definitely an area they need more content for.
If you do register and upload images the not so obvious categorisation system is crucial - very very flexible but a crucial tool in cataloguing images (and thus enabling people to find and use them).
So if you have time, consider it a useful educational resource, etc. do consider it and whilst I'm no expert on it, I'll happily answer and questions (to the best of my limited knowledge).
I am a great believer in Wikipedia/WikiMedia. I appreciate it has limitations and people are critical on it's reliability/accuracy but in practice I've found it pretty good and there is a fairly robust system in place to avoid vandalism and exaggeration (as some politicians seem to do ...). In part I see it as meaning we don't end-up with "truth" and information being as defined by big corporates (e.g. Google & Microsoft) but there is an independent voice without (so much) bias available.
Ian
