Wikipedia talk:No blurry images

A counterargument is that a blurry image gives more information than no image at all. Which do we prefer: to be polished, or to be informative? — Matt Crypto 21:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear -- are you arguing in favor of blurry photos, only when compared to no photo? I think bad information is worse than no information in an encyclopedia.

Just as there are certain standards for text/information, there should be certain standards for photographs. A blurry photo is the image-equavalent of a sentence that reads "Erian sorken is a femous wrytere." That can be easily corrected by someone with moderate English language skills. But a blurry photos, sadly, will likely remain blurry, no matter what is done to improve it. No Blurry Photos! Jenolen ^{speak it!} 00:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that there's little that can be done to improve a blurry photograph, but it's still gives more information than no photograph at all, and it's unlikely to be outright confusing (as opposed to a badly phrased sentence). I would say that I prefer to have some information than none, even if it looks aesthetically poor. — Matt Crypto 07:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Your preference for poor information over no information should not be tolerated in an ENCYCLOPEDIA. You want poor information? Use Google. You want encyclopedic information? Use Wikipedia. This kind of thinking, to me, is the photographic equavalent of, when dealing with facts, prefering a lie to nothing, or a falsehood to nothing. Because, you know, at least it's SOMETHING. Say no to this kind of thinking! No lies in Wikipedia content... no falsehoods ... and no blurry images! Jenolen ^{speak it!} 06:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What? You're equating lies to blurry images? How are the two analogous, at all? -Amarkov moo! 06:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A blurry image can distort the "truth" of an image, to the point where it's a "negative value" proposition. For example, if you're looking at a blurry picture of a monkey, and because it's so out of focus, the colors aren't reading right, or, I don't know, it looks like the monkey has a third arm, but you can't really tell what that is, because, you know, it's so darn blurry... then THAT'S worse than "no photo." No, this isn't the best analogy... but still, I remain adamant and steadfast -- No Blurry Images in Wikipedia! Jenolen ^{speak it!} 08:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the image on this page unacceptable to you?

David Cross (musician), which has Image:DavidCrossKC1973.jpg as an example. I'd say that the picture in question, although blurry, adds to the article. I don't really agree with this essay at all. Also, it's easier to find low-resolution, blurry images that correspond to fair use criteria than it is for better, non-blurry images.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The picture in question adds to the amateurish-ness looking of the article, certainly. Let me put it to you this way: Which would you rather have to illustrate the article? The current image or this one? I submit that "being in focus" is NOT too much to ask for, when it comes to minimum quality requirements for an encyclopedia. No blurry images! Jenolen ^{speak it!} 16:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather have the latter image, definitely, to illustrate it, but can we legally use that as part of a free content encyclopedia? Blurry is better than nothing, surely, in most cases? --h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that's the point. Blurry is NOT better than nothing. Blurry is amateurish and unprofessional. Blurry is okay for holiday snaps or artistic photos, but when it comes to encyclopedia subjects, blurry should not be acceptable! It's the same as accepting a misspelled word. There's a reason Britannica sets the world-wide standard for excellence, and it's not 'cuz they include blurry photos...

So what are the options? Contact David Cross (or his estate) and find out if they'll release a photo of him for future use, worldwide, in any media or form, for profit or not (which is what many people here would suggest you do), or go through our sometimes confusing and arcane fair use criteria and see if you can find an image that, through some miracle, satisfies all ten. Please note: an actual, living, breathing, non-hypothetical cabal will delete all fair use photos of living people. They believe (and some agree) that a fair use photo of a living person is somehow damaging to our mission.

Good luck! Jenolen ^{speak it!} 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)