Request for Photos -- Wikipedia

[Morriswa]

I would like to request photos of Georgia state routes 223, 383, and 388.  I am trying to update the Wikipedia articles of the highways, and I would like to put some phots on the pages.

[Morriswa]

Here is a picture of Georgia State Route 223 that I took today.

[rickmastfan67]

Morriswa, to be honest, not many people here like Wikipedia that much to "donate" pictures to it.  So, you very unlikely to get any responses to your request.

[Morriswa]

Wikipedia is my favorite website, so that sucks!

[mcdonaat]

Same as Morriswa wants to do, but broader! I'm requesting photos of Louisiana highways for articles on Wikipedia... hoping to beef up the Louisiana highway system! I'm already making tons of highways from scratch, with the goal of every highway having a full page by the end of the year.

[rickmastfan67]

I assume you didn't read my post here about asking for pictures for Wikipedia, did ya?  It's very unlikely that anybody will "donate" pictures to Wikipedia.  Especially when in the past, some people @ Wikipedia just lifted pictures from some peoples websites (including here) without asking and gave no credit.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6553.msg145366#msg145366

[mcdonaat]

I assume you didn't read my post here about asking for pictures for Wikipedia, did ya?  It's very unlikely that anybody will "donate" pictures to Wikipedia.  Especially when in the past, some people @ Wikipedia just lifted pictures from some peoples websites (including here) without asking and gave no credit.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6553.msg145366#msg145366

Read it, but some people might want to send in a few they have on their computer. Figured since there's a good number of roadgeeks on here, some would be generous. Credit will be given!! You have that in text on the Internet (it's the Internet, you cant really delete it).

[froggie]

Have you considered searching on Flickr for photos that have the proper Creative Commons permissions?

[mcdonaat]

Have you considered searching on Flickr for photos that have the proper Creative Commons permissions?

I have, but it's like getting an CD spindle labeled with generic keywords, and sorting through them to find a certain file. How would I find the CC permissions on Flickr?

[NE2]

Right in the bloody advanced search.

Only search within Creative Commons-licensed content

     Find content to use commercially
     Find content to modify, adapt, or build upon

[mcdonaat]

Right in the bloody advanced search.

Only search within Creative Commons-licensed content

     Find content to use commercially
     Find content to modify, adapt, or build upon

Thanks! I figured it out about ten minutes ago, never saw the Advanced Search option.

I figured that this would be a good place for people to send photos that they might have, but never uploaded to Flickr (I post mine to the web, but never on Flickr)

[hbelkins]

Morriswa, to be honest, not many people here like Wikipedia that much to "donate" pictures to it.  So, you very unlikely to get any responses to your request.

However, we do have some Wiki editors who are active here.

[mcdonaat]

Morriswa, to be honest, not many people here like Wikipedia that much to "donate" pictures to it.  So, you very unlikely to get any responses to your request.

However, we do have some Wiki editors who are active here.

Like myself... I'm pretty active and have created a good share of the Louisiana highway articles, along with a few Arkansas ones here and there. That being said, highway articles are usually the ones that people click on and look fr about 5 seconds and move on, unless it has a ton of photos, or passes near their house. It's why photos are so important!

[Morriswa]

I added a photo to the Georgia State Route 223 article.

[formulanone]

I think what occasionally bugs me about Wikipedia is that some total know-nothing jumps in and codifies the page, but offers little to nothing to the actual article itself. I've created articles in the past, all of which have passed their "sniff test"; but whereas many new articles are created without any regard for the guidelines (and should be terminated), there's endless side-bickering over extremely petty differences which makes some of our respective works and exercise in futility (although, sometimes an excellent way to pass by a dull day at work).

That said, it's incredibly valuable and helpful, and I occasionally upload photos of different types. But the editing process isn't for me.

[Scott5114]

I would say that's a feature of the wiki concept, not a bug... if there is someone who wants to spend their time going around making style improvements, well, that means the expert researcher doesn't have to waste their time doing it, as long as the style person doesn't change the content to be wrong.

Things seem to have settled down in the road project enough that your average editors don't see much bickering. If you want to get involved in discussions about the direction of the project and style improvements and such, you can, but for the most part you can tuck yourself away and improve your home state's articles and generally not run into any arguments unless you're doing something terribly, horribly wrong. Occasionally someone will pop up from outside the road project and hassle everyone with something stupid but the "national editors" can generally step up and take care of that so that disinterested editors don't get disrupted.

[txstateends]

I really got frustrated during the little bit of time I tried to help edit and add articles for TX road pages there.  One faction was trying to get me to add as many articles as possible, while another was fussing because there were existing stubs and didn't want any new articles until all the stubs were cleared up.  Yet another was too busy trying to question the validity of roads having a singular page for each on the site and would put up a request for deletion.  Even another thought that all the pages for a certain kind of road should somehow be combined into one big page (but of course, no tips as to how to do that).....

I'd finally had enough.  Once in a while if I find something to add to a road or even a non-road article, I'll add a link or fix spelling or something like that.  Otherwise, I figured I'd have a lot less grief by putting together my own road site(s).  I am working on 1 of 2 now, hopefully I'll have something presentable in a few weeks to months.

[Scott5114]

I really got frustrated during the little bit of time I tried to help edit and add articles for TX road pages there.  One faction was trying to get me to add as many articles as possible, while another was fussing because there were existing stubs and didn't want any new articles until all the stubs were cleared up.

Unfortunately this is a problem with the wiki model...with no real leadership structure there is no way to decide on a strategy to improve articles and get everyone on board with it. If people want to simply not go along with the plans they can, which leads to the sort of back and forth pulling that you experienced. Sorry you got caught in the middle of that.

Yet another was too busy trying to question the validity of roads having a singular page for each on the site and would put up a request for deletion.

This is probably a non-road editor with a fringe view that roads should not have articles at all. This is the sort of thing that you could notify the national editors of and they would go to bat for you so you don't have to get involved.

Even another thought that all the pages for a certain kind of road should somehow be combined into one big page (but of course, no tips as to how to do that).....

As a project we are still not quite sure what to do with Farm-to-Market roads (I'm guessing based on the context this is the "certain kind of road"). On the one hand, most of them are short and don't really have a lot to say about them, so they would work well combined into one larger page...on the other hand, there are thousands of them. There were two ways you might have handled this: you could have ignored it and let everyone else hash out something (and then went along with that), or you could have used your TX knowledge to contribute to that discussion.

I'd finally had enough.  Once in a while if I find something to add to a road or even a non-road article, I'll add a link or fix spelling or something like that.  Otherwise, I figured I'd have a lot less grief by putting together my own road site(s).  I am working on 1 of 2 now, hopefully I'll have something presentable in a few weeks to months.

I'm sorry that you got soured on Wikipedia due to the sort of problems you encountered. If you ever decide you'd like to come back, I'd always be willing to lend a helping hand (username there the same as here). We do have a road project IRC channel (#wikipedia-en-roads on Freenode) that you can use to get help from fellow roadgeeks when you're not really sure how to handle a situation.

[txstateends]

It's tough for some of the roads when there's really no collection of linkable articles for every road (other than the TxDOT page for each regarding road history, or a Google Maps type of link); some are fortunate to have local press coverage like the TX 289 extension.  Otherwise you get buzzed because you have no list of refs but you do know some general knowledge that you are sure is true.  Another problem I have is that I'm in-between cars so I can't run out during the day and get pix to illustrate certain articles; hopefully after my tax refund comes, I can rectify that.

And thanks Scott for your explanations.  I appreciate your support.  I may return, but I'd like to see what I can do on my own for now.

[Scott5114]

It is possible to improve articles without pictures. They are one of those "would be nice to have" items that you need to get the article rated as Good or Featured but you don't necessarily have to have. Many a time I have expanded an article on some far-flung route that I've never personally visited just by using the map and satellite imagery with no photos available.

It is important to remember that you can also use historic maps as sources. Many states have a historic map archive with every edition of the state map in PDF form. Unfortunately it appears TxDOT is not one of these states, but there is this: https://www.tsl.state.tx.us/apps/arc/maps/ The idea is you can cite history from the designation file and have the map back it up. So you end up with a history section that looks a little like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_State_Highway_32 The route description can similarly be sourced to an online mapping service like Google Maps or recent TxDOT maps that you have on hand. If you can't find a source, it's best to leave it out; sourcing is what keeps Wikipedia from falling into the popular idea of people just writing whatever bullshit they want, which is why it's taken so seriously. Even if you do decide to start your own website, I would recommend you cite sources, since it makes your site more accurate in general.

I too have at times considered doing my own Oklahoma-focused road website, but it's hard to beat what Wikipedia offers... free hosting, free infrastructure, people looking at your articles, other editors to collaborate and mess with the non-content stuff you don't care about, and an available image database (Commons) that's second to none.

If you do return, you'd be quite welcome. We can always use more people; there are quite a few states where we have not developed the kind of coverage we want because there is simply nobody there to improve the articles. Texas alone is probably a four or five man job.