Cactus photos for Wikipedia

[cactus7]

I’ve been writing about cacti and other succulents on Wikipedia for some time now, and I’m trying to ensure that every article includes a photo of the plant being discussed.

That’s why I need your help. The goal is to collect as many images of different cactus species as possible, in order to enrich Wikipedia and ensure that each species has its corresponding image. To achieve this, we ask that the photographs be in the “Public Domain CC0”, “Attribution CC-BY”, or “Attribution-ShareAlike BY-SA” so that Wikipedia can access them.

In this way, we seek to promote the dissemination of knowledge about cacti and facilitate their identification through high-quality visual resources accessible to all.

Of course, all photos will appear with your authorship and a link to your profile.
To change the license, the path to follow would be:

• Settings.
• Default license.
• Change licenses for existing observations, photos, and sounds. And there, select one of these three options, which are associated with Wikimedia:

“Public Domain CC0”, “Attribution CC-BY”, or “Attribution-ShareAlike BY-SA"

ALSO IMPORTANT! You must apply this option to the photos you’ve already uploaded. To do this, on the same settings page, select:

“Change licenses for all existing photos”.

And there, select one of these three options again, which are associated with Wikimedia:“Public Domain CC0”, “Attribution CC-BY”, or “Attribution-ShareAlike BY-SA

If you have any questions, please write to me. Thank you very much.

By the way, I’m Spanish, sorry if my English isn’t very good.

[suntooth]

You may be interested in Wiki Loves iNat :]

[ruth-palsson]

I have just checked Wikipedia for the 6 feral cactus species I have observed in Australia. All have at least reasonable photos. My photos are already accessible by Wikipedia.

[diegoalmendras]

feel free to use my photographs of chilean cactus

[Sorsor_7]

I have 17 research-grade species of cacti on my account, mostly from the southwestern US and Oaxaca, Mexico. You are more than welcome to use the images for Wikipedia. Some that may interest you are Opuntia cymochila, Echinocereus bakeri, and Echinocereus canyonensis as these either don’t have Wikipedia pages or lack images.

[cactus7]

@suntooth

You may be interested in Wiki Loves iNat :

Hello. Yes, I use it along with iNat2Wiki. But most of the photos have licenses that are incompatible with Wikipedia. Therefore, I would ask that people who want to support and collaborate change the license of their photos to: “Public Domain CC0”, “Attribution CC-BY”, or “Attribution-ShareAlike BY-SA” so that Wikipedia can access them.

[cactus7]

Hello, thank you so much. It’s also a great help if you release your photos, as the photos available are often inaccurate or of poor quality. Together we can make Wikipedia a better site. :)

[cactus7]

Millones de gracias. Te he mandado mensaje privado. Así da gusto ^^

[cactus7]

@Sorsor_7

I have 17 research-grade species of cacti on my account, mostly from the southwestern US and Oaxaca, Mexico. You are more than welcome to use the images for Wikipedia. Some that may interest you are Opuntia cymochila, Echinocereus bakeri, and Echinocereus canyonensis as these either don’t have Wikipedia pages or lack images.

Hi, thanks a million. Yes, yes, there are a lot missing. I would appreciate it if you could change the license so Wikipedia can access your images. I would appreciate it if you could change your iNaturalist license so that your photos can be used on the wiki (which, as I said, always appear with your authorship). To do this, follow the path below if you’re on a mobile device:

• Settings.
• Default license.
• • Change licenses for existing observations, photos, and sounds. And there, select one of these three options, which are associated with Wikimedia: “Public Domain CC0”, “Attribution CC-BY”, or “Attribution-ShareAlike BY-SA

ALSO IMPORTANT! You must apply this option to the photos you’ve already uploaded. To do this, on the same settings page, select:

“Change licenses for all existing photos”.

And there, select one of these three options again, which are associated with Wikimedia:“Public Domain CC0”, “Attribution CC-BY”, or “Attribution-ShareAlike BY-SA

With this, you’re done. I would be. Thank you so much for your support.

[cactus7]

I would appreciate it if you could change your iNaturalist license so that your photos can be used on the wiki (which, as I said, always appear with your authorship). To do this, follow the path below if you’re on a mobile device:

• Settings.
• Default license.
• Change licenses for existing observations, photos, and sounds. And there, select one of these three options, which are associated with Wikimedia: “Public Domain CC0”, “Attribution CC-BY”, or “Attribution-ShareAlike BY-SA

ALSO IMPORTANT! You must apply this option to the photos you’ve already uploaded. To do this, on the same settings page, select:

“Change licenses for all existing photos”.

And there, select one of these three options again, which are associated with Wikimedia:“Public Domain CC0”, “Attribution CC-BY”, or “Attribution-ShareAlike BY-SA

With this, you’re done. I would be. Thank you so much for your support.

[jasonhernandez74]

@cactus7

And there, select one of these three options again, which are associated with Wikimedia:“Public Domain CC0”, “Attribution CC-BY”, or “Attribution-ShareAlike BY-SA

I have five cactus observations (4 species), and I already use CC-0. I would have preferred CC-BY, but I didn’t like that cropping can be considered an alteration.

These observations represent Central America, the Caribbean, and the eastern United States.

[arboretum_amy]

Here’s what I have, if it is of any use.

I have these photos but there is no Wikipedia article at all:
Opuntia semispinosa (observation is Needs ID)
Opuntia × occidentalis (observation is Needs ID)
Cylindropuntia munzii (observation is Casual)

This one that has a Wikipedia article with no photo:
Stenocereus humilis (observation is Casual and photo quality seems low)

And these species have Wikipedia articles with photos but something about my photo might be desired:
Trichocereus hahnianus (observation is Casual but I have a face-forward shot of the flower) On Wikipedia genus name is Soehrensia
Pereskia grandifolia (observation is Casual but I have a photo of the fruit, which I find especially interesting) On Wikipedia the genus name is Rhodocactus
Cylindropuntia ganderi (Research Grade although perhaps not the best-composed photos; Wikipedia doesn’t have a photo of the flower)
Cochemiea dioica (Several Research Grade observations to choose from; Wikipedia has a nice close-up of the flower but not an image of the entire plant)
Cylindropuntia prolifera (Research Grade; Wikipedia does not have a photo of the flower)

Note: I’m changing the license but I think it might take a while to update since I have too many observations.

[spiphany]

@jasonhernandez74

I already use CC-0. I would have preferred CC-BY, but I didn’t like that cropping can be considered an alteration.

CC-BY would not prevent alteration (i.e. derivative works).

CC0 means that the material can be used without any restriction, not even crediting you by name; it is essentially ceding all authorship claims.
CC-BY requires that you be attributed by name, but allows the work to be altered, remixed, used for commercial purposes, etc.
CC-BY-ND requires that you be attributed by name and restricts derivative works. The interpretation of what is considered a derivative work varies.
CC-BY-NC requires that you be attributed by name and restricts commercial use. The interpretation of what is considered commercial use varies.
CC-BY-SA requires that you be attributed by name and requires the user to redistribute the material under the same terms.
Additional combinations are possible, e.g. CC-BY-NC-SA or CC-BY-NC-ND

GBIF accepts CC-BY-NC and all less restrictive licenses (but not licenses with ND or SA)
Wikimedia accepts CC-BY-SA and all less restrictive licenses (but not licenses with NC or ND)
So if you want images to be available for both GBIF and Wikipedia, the most restrictive license you can choose is CC-BY
Note that you can select different licenses for the media and the observation itself.

[cactus7]

@spiphany

@jasonhernandez74

I already use CC-0. I would have preferred CC-BY, but I didn’t like that cropping can be considered an alteration.

CC-BY would not prevent alteration (i.e. derivative works).

CC0 means that the material can be used without any restriction, not even crediting you by name; it is essentially ceding all authorship claims.
CC-BY requires that you be attributed by name, but allows the work to be altered, remixed, used for commercial purposes, etc.
CC-BY-ND requires that you be attributed by name and restricts derivative works. The interpretation of what is considered a derivative work varies.
CC-BY-NC requires that you be attributed by name and restricts commercial use. The interpretation of what is considered commercial use varies.
CC-BY-SA requires that you be attributed by name and requires the user to redistribute the material under the same terms.
Additional combinations are possible, e.g. CC-BY-NC-SA or CC-BY-NC-ND

GBIF accepts CC-BY-NC and all less restrictive licenses (but not licenses with ND or SA)
Wikimedia accepts CC-BY-SA and all less restrictive licenses (but not licenses with NC or ND)
So if you want images to be available for both GBIF and Wikipedia, the most restrictive license you can choose is CC-BY
Note that you can select different licenses for the media and the observation itself.

Exactly, as you say, for Wikipedia to be able to use the images they must have one of the following licenses:

“Public Domain CC0”, “Attribution CC-BY”, or “Attribution-ShareAlike BY-SA"

[cactus7]

@jasonhernandez74

@cactus7

And there, select one of these three options again, which are associated with Wikimedia:“Public Domain CC0”, “Attribution CC-BY”, or “Attribution-ShareAlike BY-SA

I have five cactus observations (4 species), and I already use CC-0. I would have preferred CC-BY, but I didn’t like that cropping can be considered an alteration.

These observations represent Central America, the Caribbean, and the eastern United States.

A million thanks. Together, we can make a tremendous contribution to open and open knowledge.

[cactus7]

@arboretum_amy

Cylindropuntia munzii

@arboretum_amy

Here’s what I have, if it is of any use.

I have these photos but there is no Wikipedia article at all:
Opuntia semispinosa (observation is Needs ID)
Opuntia × occidentalis (observation is Needs ID)
Cylindropuntia munzii (observation is Casual)

This one that has a Wikipedia article with no photo:
Stenocereus humilis (observation is Casual and photo quality seems low)

And these species have Wikipedia articles with photos but something about my photo might be desired:
Trichocereus hahnianus (observation is Casual but I have a face-forward shot of the flower) On Wikipedia genus name is Soehrensia
Pereskia grandifolia (observation is Casual but I have a photo of the fruit, which I find especially interesting) On Wikipedia the genus name is Rhodocactus
Cylindropuntia ganderi (Research Grade although perhaps not the best-composed photos; Wikipedia doesn’t have a photo of the flower)
Cochemiea dioica (Several Research Grade observations to choose from; Wikipedia has a nice close-up of the flower but not an image of the entire plant)
Cylindropuntia prolifera (Research Grade; Wikipedia does not have a photo of the flower)

Note: I’m changing the license but I think it might take a while to update since I have too many observations.

Hello, thank you so much. I write for the Spanish Wikipedia, but the images will still be available for all Wikipedias. So, thank you so much for the contribution. I’ve already seen that Wikipedia can access them. Thanks so much for the collaboration ^^

[arboretum_amy]

I didn’t check Spanish Wikipedia, so in that case I may have more than the ones listed–I have 34 cactus species total. The casual ones are from botanical gardens so their IDs should be pretty good (although they do make mistakes sometimes)

[cactus7]

@arboretum_amy

I didn’t check Spanish Wikipedia, so in that case I may have more than the ones listed–I have 34 cactus species total. The casual ones are from botanical gardens so their IDs should be pretty good (although they do make mistakes sometimes)

Yes, every contribution is a great help. The key is to have as many photos as possible available. Thanks a million for the contribution :)

[ruth-palsson]

My phots etc on iNat are already “Attribution share alike”

[cactus7]

@ruth-palsson

etc on iNat are already “Attribution share alike”

Thank you so much. With your photo contributions, many Wikipedia writers will be able to add them to their posts :)