Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-12-26/WikiProject report
Discuss this story
Sabine's Sunbird - I agree with Shyamal on his last point! In fact I think it would be worth awarding Wikimedia scholarships to accomplished wildlife and nature photographers, of which we have a few, to locations where we are badly underrepresented in images. We are badly lacking in images of many different species, genera, families and even orders from places like the Amazon, Madagascar, tropical wet Africa, Indonesia, the Philippines and New Guinea, and these locations are unfortunately biodiversity hot spots with far more life than the better covered regions. We have the talent to do this work, but they need to get to these places. It strikes me as a worthwhile goal to reach out to the workers that are there and to send some of our own as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabeenot (talk • contribs)
- I'm concerned that our photography suffers from a subtle bias in much the same way as our text: Many people tend to work on specific topics that they're interested in. This means that - just as our coverage of computer games is better than our coverage of watsan in africa - our photos are inevitably skewed towards particular topics and particular styles of photography. Geographically I would agree with the areas you suggest, but in general terms I think we already do relatively well on wildlife photos. Admittedly, some taxa are more popular with photographers than others... bobrayner (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think we do very well on bird photos in comparison to sports or celebrity photos (and it is not THAT hard to get those other snaps...I mean compared to going into the wild and finding an animal). And then those shots of bird species are sometimes incredibly obscure (a stub being started, just for the FP try for the photo). Whereas some sports or celebrity articles have 100,000+ views per month.TCO (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Concerning the issue of covering "all species", I'd like to ask about progress towards a far more achievable goal. Would it be safe to say that every species which can be traced to an entry in Linneaus' Systema Naturae has an article about it in Wikipedia? (The taxa has changed over the centuries, so one can't say "every species Linneaus decribed.") Then again, has anyone attempted to determine if this has been achieved? And if not, which species are missing? -- llywrch (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)