On 6/20/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The challenge is that if their version sits orphaned
it might as well
not exist. I don't believe that we should let prima donnas prevent us
from having high quality content... But when someone did a awesome job
with 98% of a picture (subject, composition, lighting, image quality,
etc) and there is 2% which is highly subjective/viewer dependant which
remains debatable (altered saturation, contrast, sharpening)... we
should probably trust the person who got the 98% right to make the
call on the rest, given our input. That it also keeps the photographer
happy contributing is a secondary, but critical, effect.
Where is all this coming from? Wikipedia is a collaborative project.
Take a look at WP:FPC on en, and you will see that almost every
user-submitted image gets one or more edits applied to it to boost its
quality, then we vote on our favourite. Generally, this collaborative
image-manipulation process works quite well. If there are some
photographers who prefer not to take part in that, that's fine, and
I'm sure people would respect their requests if they were made clearly
on their image pages.
This really is an abnormal scenario though.
Steve