Template talk:Replace?

I don't like this template, at least in it's current form. There are a few reasons:

1. The way that it is phrased: "If you can replace this image with one that is substantially equivalent, please help Citizendium fulfill its mission." This makes it sound like images that are used by permission on the Citizendium are somehow threatening the mission of the project. I think, in many cases, just the opposite is true.
2. The way it is applied: For images that come from archives (Image:Augustus_Augur_CapiteVelato.jpg), for recent images of individuals (Image:Gilad_Atzmon_-_for_Citizendium.jpg), for images that require special equipment to produce (Image:Bacteriophage5.jpg), and for specialized graphs (Image:Wessel_1954_fig1.png) there is very likely not an equivalent available.
3. What it means for the relationships that we will cultivate in the future: The mere existence of a template like this and especially its appearance on image pages for media that comes from archives will drive down the quality of our work. I think we should work to establish relationships with large archives and set precedents so that archives such as that held by the American Philosophical Society will share their content with us. If we apply this template, users will shy away from such archives and choose lesser quality images when we could be using something better for free from an archive.

As far as I know (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the only reason to prefer open content over use by permission is to open it up for reuse by others. This is a very important consideration, but I believe that the quality of our own content is more important than assuring that others will be able to reuse it. And for the above reasons (particularly number three), I believe that this type of template will discourage use of images by permission and have the effect of driving down the quality of our content. --Joe Quick (Talk) 03:08, 20 May 2007 (CDT)

Since the above post, Steve Ewen has fixed up the language, so I have struck out argument one. The other two are still relevant, though. I think that they can be addressed by ideas that I've had about the creation of a CZ Permissions Department (an idea I've stolen from Steve), which would oversee such issues. Stay tuned for a proposal about the implementation of such a body. --Joe Quick (Talk) 15:18, 20 May 2007 (CDT)

I think it all goes to how "substantially equivalent" is defined. I'd like to create a page defining that with examples of what WOULD and WOULD NOT be considered "substantially equivalent". For example, would this "free" image of Gilad be considered "substantially equivalent" to Image:Gilad_Atzmon_-_for_Citizendium.jpg? Two more things: 1) since this is a content matter, make replacement an editorial decision, i.e., editors only decide about actual replacement; and, 2) there might be better terminology than "substantially equivalent". Believe me, I certainly have no desire to see quality fly out the window in the cause of "free"! But if the trade-off is essentially negligible, why not prefer free? Stephen Ewen 12:18, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Ah, yes, I hadn't thought about the editorial decision bit. That makes this an even better thing for a Permissions Department to oversee, since they would be working in conjunction with editors. On the other points, I agree (and actually, I think I prefer the free image of Gilad Atzmon, I was just using it as an example :). Give me a few days and I'll come back with a clarified plan on how I think we should handle this? --Joe Quick (Talk) 12:32, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Ugh! this "free" image of Gilad may not be free. The flickr source page says "All rights reserved." I have written the author to clear up the matter. I think the image would be a nice addition the article. Stephen Ewen 17:34, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

My fingers are crossed. :) Unless the uploader on WP is the same as the flickr account owner, then the info on the WP image was falsified, it seems. It states that the photo is under "CCv2.5" but flickr uses the 2.0 licenses. --Joe Quick (Talk) 10:28, 22 May 2007 (CDT)