Verwijderde inhoud Toegevoegde inhoud
→Afbeelding Betasuchus: what a strange debate: comparing three completely known animals with one of which only a femur is known |
|||
Regel 36:
:::::::::::The point her is not "images created by amateurs" but amateurs using their own fantasy to create (parts of) images, in stead of basing themselves upon statements written by experts, or upon images published by experts but not admissible to Commons because of copyright issues. {{Gebruiker:Wikiklaas/Autograph-new}} 2 feb 2018 11:39 (CET)
::::::::::::I am confused by the contradictory information then. Nobu Tamura is very much an amateur. He was first an artist here on wikipedia, and many of his old, inaccurate images can still be seen (''[[Agilisaurus]]'', ''[[Thecodontosaurus]]''). He has simply got better as an artist, while still being very much an amateur. For example, the ''[[Mosasaurus]]'' by Nobu Tamura does not have correct amounts of muscle and tissue, and the tail does not have the known mosasaur bi-lobed shape with a downturned tail end. So this image should be removed because it displays incorrect information. [[Gebruiker:IJReid|IJReid]] ([[Overleg gebruiker:IJReid|overleg]]) 3 feb 2018 01:41 (CET)
:::::::::::::Look. Of the three taxa you mention, much more was found than just half a femur. The skeletons of these animals are up to completely known, and because earth's gravity is the same now as it was in their era, it makes sense to create a reconstruction including muscels, tendons and the lot, based upon the same principles dictating the locomotive apparatus of a modern vertebrate. And of course numerous of these reconstructions have been made. By experts. There exists a whole body of specialist literature that can be used to create images for Wikipedia. And of course experts disagree on certain aspects of reconstructions, and opinions change over time. But there is a lot of '''knowledge''' on these three taxa that we like to see incorporated in Wikipedia. Including old and, with hindsight, erroneous reconstructions. And of course if this is done correctly, the sources are mentioned, and critical remarks made by expert scientists on some details of a reconstruction should also be mentioned. But all of this is a totally different story from ''Betasuchus''. Wikipedia has absolutely no task in filling in gaps in current knowledge. Wikipedia makes current knowledge freely available. There is no room for original research.
:::::::::::::''An image is absolutely a wonderful thing'' but there is one basic condition: there has to be something that can be depicted. What's the point of creating an image of a subject no one knows what it looked like. It is nothing less than deliberately deceiving our readers if we present them with an image based on nothing else but our own fantasy. In this case, such a bogus picture would, in the absence of anything sensible, erroneously become attached to the name ''Betasuchus'', and Wikipedia would have to take the blame for it. {{Gebruiker:Wikiklaas/Autograph-new}} 3 feb 2018 14:20 (CET)
| |||