Talk:Getty taps into Flickr snappers
Original reporting notes edit
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)
Emails, Phone call transcripts, other written evidence edit
Interview details edit
On-the-spot notes edit
Details from broadcast report edit
edit
Confirmation of email receipt by accredited reporter edit
Review of revision 1046338 [Failed] edit
 |
Revision 1046338 of this article has been reviewed by Tempodivalse (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 15:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: -Tempodivalse [talk] 15:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews. |
Revision 1046338 of this article has been reviewed by Tempodivalse (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 15:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: -Tempodivalse [talk] 15:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews. |
Review of revision 1046656 [Failed] edit
| |
Revision 1046656 of this article has been reviewed by Diego Grez (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: None added. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews. |
Revision 1046656 of this article has been reviewed by Diego Grez (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: None added. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews. |
Review of revision 1047172 [Passed] edit
 |
Revision 1047172 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 04:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 1047172 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 04:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Style edit
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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.34.234.135 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Requested edits edit
{{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 {{flag}} 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?
My proposed wording is as follows:
|
|
The amount of images Hal Bergman has for sale on gettyimages currently stands significantly higher than first reported. As of this writing, the amount is 459. We regret any inconvenience. |
{{correction | label=Notice | date=01:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC) | explanation=The amount of images Hal Bergman has for sale on gettyimages currently stands significantly higher than first reported. As of this writing, the amount is 459. We regret any inconvenience. }}
— Jeff G. ツ 01:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. |
{{ambox|text=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.}}
- 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.