New York Times
Wikipedia May Be a Font of Facts, but It's a Desert for Photos
New York Times
Some may wonder: Could there be a bad picture of Halle Berry or George Clooney? Even Halle Berry looks ordinary is this fuzzy picture...
and more »
View the article
Of all the things to criticise wikipeida for I dont think the quality of the photos of Halle Berry and George Clooney is a high priority!
Can someone please fix "Newsfeed". It looks like a parsing junk yard. Jeeze moderators, have a little pride in your work.
PS. I'd be happy to try to fix this if you give me a server login.
PS. I'd be happy to try to fix this if you give me a server login.
QUOTE(sbrown @ Sun 19th July 2009, 9:19pm) 
Of all the things to criticise wikipeida for I dont think the quality of the photos of Halle Berry and George Clooney is a high priority!
The problem is David Shankbone hasn't gotten around to sticking his flattering photos of Halle Berry and George Clooney into their articles yet, like he has for Woody Allen.
QUOTE(sbrown @ Sun 19th July 2009, 5:19pm)
Of all the things to criticise wikipeida for I dont think the quality of the photos of Halle Berry and George Clooney is a high priority!
No, there have been (and continue to be) cases where our pictures of living people have been simply awful. It's unacceptable to use a shitty picture simply because it's free, contrary to what some Wikipedia editors seem to think.
Wow, a whole article about celebrity photos on Wikipedia, and Shankbone's not mentioned once. I wonder if he's pissed about that?
Anyway, the main point of this article, which you all should capture in your heads:
Anyway, the main point of this article, which you all should capture in your heads:
QUOTE
Also, it can be difficult to persuade a talent photographer to go along with that approach because one free photograph can drive out all the others, said Jerry Avenaim, a celebrity photographer. He is unusual in that he has contributed about a dozen low-resolution photographs to Wikipedia, including a shot of the actor Mark Harmon, originally created for TV Guide.
In an interview Mr. Avenaim still sounded torn about the idea of contributing his work. He said he was trying to accomplish two goals: “One, I really wanted to help the celebrities that I care about to show them in the proper light they want to be shown,†he said. “Second, it is an interesting marketing strategy for myself.â€
He said that having his work on Wikipedia has increased his online visibility as reflected in search-engine results and traffic to his Web site,, but that the costs are potentially high. “This is the lifeblood of my career,†he said, noting that photographers may get paid very little for a celebrity shot for a magazine. They make their money from resales of the image. And even a low-resolution photograph that is available free — say, his shot of Dr. Phil — becomes the default photograph online and means there is no need to pay for another one of his shots.
That, ultimately, is the issue for photographers who might want to donate their work to Wikipedia, but not the entire Internet.
“To me the problem is the Wikipedia rule of public use,†Mr. Avenaim said. “If they truly wanted to elevate the image on the site, they should allow photographers to maintain the copyright.â€
In an interview Mr. Avenaim still sounded torn about the idea of contributing his work. He said he was trying to accomplish two goals: “One, I really wanted to help the celebrities that I care about to show them in the proper light they want to be shown,†he said. “Second, it is an interesting marketing strategy for myself.â€
He said that having his work on Wikipedia has increased his online visibility as reflected in search-engine results and traffic to his Web site,, but that the costs are potentially high. “This is the lifeblood of my career,†he said, noting that photographers may get paid very little for a celebrity shot for a magazine. They make their money from resales of the image. And even a low-resolution photograph that is available free — say, his shot of Dr. Phil — becomes the default photograph online and means there is no need to pay for another one of his shots.
That, ultimately, is the issue for photographers who might want to donate their work to Wikipedia, but not the entire Internet.
“To me the problem is the Wikipedia rule of public use,†Mr. Avenaim said. “If they truly wanted to elevate the image on the site, they should allow photographers to maintain the copyright.â€
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 19th July 2009, 8:10pm)
“To me the problem is the Wikipedia rule of public use,†Mr. Avenaim said. “If they truly wanted to elevate the image on the site, they should allow photographers to maintain the copyright.â€
If he went on WP and said that, he'd be pilloried.
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 20th July 2009, 10:28am)
If he went on WP and said that, he'd be pilloried.
Indeed and of course they have the technology there.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...ory_9105377.jpg
Interesting article, well worth the read.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.