Wikipedia tends to primarily contain written content on practically every topic conceivable. Although it allows for pictures not every entry has (or needs) visual images. There are rules about what the content considered appropriate, including that it must be of merit (e.g. an article cannot be posted about a person unless they are a “notable“). Wikipedia has also specifically stated that it is not a repository of images. Finding written content on Wikipedia somewhat depends upon whether a page has been already created. Flickr, on the other hand, is all about images. They also have terms of service pertaining to copyright and objectionable content. However, anyone can pretty much post a picture of anything. Many of the pictures included at Flickr are created by amateur photographers, are of things or events that may only be of interest to a limited number of people or only themselves. There is little information about these images at Flickr, in some cases only a photo appears.
I searched for “rubber balls” on Wikipedia, guessing that it would not have its own page. The results indicated as such but provided links to other entries in which rubber balls were mentioned. I also ran a search at Flickr using the words “rubber balls”. The result contained reference to 8,781 images that were tagged with “rubber balls”.
My intention in this exercise is not to compare the two sites (after all, this would be like comparing apples and oranges) but to draw attention to Wikipedia’s need to improve the indexing or labelling of their content , preferrably using a community-based tagging sytem or folksonomy. Flickr would benefit from some descriptive information about the pictures that are posted, especially if they have historical or public information. For example, Wikipedia has an informative entry on anatomy but would likely benefit from the many images tagged as anatomy on Flickr
Once we move more towards the semantic (providing meaning) web which site will be in the better position in terms of preparing its content with metadata (data about data or tags that describe content)? Although Wikipedia has plans for a semantic version I think they have “dropped the rubber ball” by not building in a tagging feature now. Crowdsourcing is only going to take your site so far, especially when it is content that has already been created that needs to be tagged. We need to start building in tagging functions now, including other collaborative environments as well (e.g. message forums). What we really need is a message forum at both Wikipedia and Flickr. Well, one social scientist with an interest in the power and value of collaboration can only dream…