Chitrapa
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/LongShadows2.jpg/302px-LongShadows2.jpg)
Lackland AFB, San Antonio, Texas (November 2006).
At some point, the gate keepers of Wikipedia will recognized that ALL images should contain some sort of photo credit. Like any other form of art, a photographer should be given credit for his or her efforts. Additionally, for places such as a war zone, an individual who risk his or her life to capture an image should be noted for their work. There's a big difference between a picture of some mundane location in middle America and a photograph that captures a moment in time on the streets of Baghdad, Iraq.
Photographers and/or photojournalists, recognizing the value of Wikipedia as a place to publish their work, may start becoming major contributors to this growing corner of cyberspace.
Indeed, in regards to written articles, Wikipedia could/would gain greater credibility if significant contributors (i.e. writers/authors) would be required to use their real names. While Wikipedia is not an actual newspaper or book, the idea of attribution remains ones of the major pillars of publishing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalistic_ethics
What if it was discovered that Ann Coulter wrote an article on Wikipedia using a fictitious name (i.e. such as Chitrapa), how would that impact the future editorial content of Wikipedia?
Additionally, in order to save itself from possible...future...Copyright legal headaches, Wikipedia should require that ALL uploaded images contain the author's name. The business folks at Google are finding out that the recent purchase of You Tube came with a host of unresolved internet legal issues.
As Wikipedia moves forward in its development as a new medium of information, a serious discussion needs to take place regarding the attribution of material (i.e. both print and visual) contained within these pages. Only when that happens will Wikipedia move forward to its next level of development.
Anyhow, in the interest of Wiki-Peace, I've removed ALL the photo credits from each and every submitted caption. Until I reach 1,001 active photo submissions, I'll refrain from battling over the merits of this issue...
v/r
Peter Rimar
Image Tagging Image:Verona01a.jpg
edit
Thanks for uploading Image:Verona01a.jpg. This image is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org).
Unless the permission information is given, the image may be speedy deleted after seven days. Thank you. Cecil 09:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is more of a headache that it's worth.
v/r
Peter Rimar
Tip: Categorizing images
edit
Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.
Here's how:
1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:
2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.
[[Category:Category name]]
For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:
[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]
This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".
When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").
Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.CategorizationBot (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Image:Clouds011.jpg was uncategorized on 13 June 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Image:CummingsND.JPG was uncategorized on 5 June 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Image:StarsandStripes.jpg was uncategorized on 28 December 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
File:TheGreatRootBear.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Kelly (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Kelly ~ Get a life. How many photos have you uploaded to Wikipedia? That would be zero. Please see my remarks w/ the deletion request Chitrapa
- Please see here. Kelly (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I've sent a query to the company itself. Once again, Wikipedia is more of a headache that it's worth. v/r Peter Rimar.
Please sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
File:2012 London Olympics Countdown Clock.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |