Talk:Getty taps into Flickr snappers

Original reporting notes
Taken from BBC News, the events of Flickr and Getty Images, please add extra events if they are found NickyJ101 (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Style
Was that written in English? Because I'm sorry, I didn't understand a word of it. We're not all so up on Flickr/Getty as the author obviously thinks we are.

Requested edits
editprotected Hi. Please add " 2010" to the last source, so the last line reads "|date=18 June 2010}}". Thanks! — Jeff G. ツ 05:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Done --InfantGorilla (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

flag Also, per Exclusive Artist : halbergman | iStockphoto.com, Bergman's "2733 files have Extended License options available". — Jeff G. ツ 05:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

In addition, per Getty Images - Search: Photographer: Hal Bergman, Hal Bergman has 451 images for sale on gettyimages. — Jeff G. ツ 05:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We need to get consensus in a discussion here before we make changes of that kind to an archived article. I have added  undefined to attract attention from the community.


 * For the first proposal, I don't think a mention of istockphoto substantially improves the accuracy of the article.


 * For the second one, the community might consider posting a correction notice at the top of the page (to reflect that he has about 200 more images for sale than is written.) Can you propose a wording for it?


 * --InfantGorilla (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

My proposed wording is as follows: — Jeff G. ツ 01:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Do you think the number was incorrect when Wikinews first read it in the BBC report back in June? It seems equally likely that Getty has imported many more of Bergman's images since the report, but I know nothing about how this aspect of the photography business works.
 * 2) If there seems reasonable likelihood of harm to Bergman, (or readers, or other parties mentioned in the story), then I suggest a more subtle correction, with a blue 'i' instead of a red stop sign:

Notice: It came to our attention that, as of July 14 2010, the Getty Images website lists 459 images by photographer Hal Bergman. This is significantly more than reported here. We regret any inconvenience.

 
 * --InfantGorilla (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding correction, I agree that it shouldn't be used here unless we believe the article was wrong when it was published.


 * As for the gentler notice, I think this is unlikely to be appropriate. Because Wikinews is not an encyclopedia, it doesn't provide updates to old articles.  The article is from the past, therefore it's to be expected things that were true then aren't necessarily true now.  Certainly, unusual likelihood of harm should be taken into account.  A useful test might be to ask first whether any possible harm would be defused by a generic notice saying "This is an archived news article.  Some facts that were true at the time of publication may have changed since then.", and then, if the answer to that is "yes", ask why this article should be singled out for such a notice.  --Pi zero (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is highly likely that Mr. Bergman himself provided that 200 number to Maggie Shiels of the BBC in the week before 17 June as a round number, as she has quoted him. I don't know what the true number was that day, and have struck out trying to find the answer via archive.org and google. As regards the "over 2,500 on another site, which he did not specify", I believe the other site to be iStockphoto.com, where he currently has 2,780 files in his portfolio per Exclusive Artist : halbergman | iStockphoto.com. If you think that it's been too long and/or that this article shouldn't be singled out and/or that Mr. Bergman is entitled to deprecate his own work by understating it, I'll drop the issue. — Jeff G. ツ 00:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you read our archiving policy? After strenuous debates, the consensus was that after 24 hours, we only make corrections, not updates. It is pretty clear that we won't explain what the unspecified site might be.  As I said before, I don't personally understand this aspect of the photo business, so any significance in the number of photos (200 or 400) will have to be explained to me.


 * I suspect this conversation is drawing to a close. Let's remove the flag tomorrow.


 * --InfantGorilla (talk) 06:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)