Clear all

Wikipedia using Taxidermy and Art for Page Images  

Eminent Member

This is just a rant, really, but I'd love to hear other people's opinions.

I frequently find myself reading the Wikipedia articles for different animal species. What's annoying to me is when the page image is either taxidermy or an artists impression. This is understandable if the animal is extinct or very rare, but I usually see it on animals listed "Least Concern." When I click on the Wikipedia article for an animal, I expect to see them in life, not some crappy taxidermy-job or artists impression. Here's some examples:

Topic starter Posted : September 8, 2018 10:09 pm
Admin Admin

They can't use a photo unless they have the copyright owners permission or it is in public domain, like really old photos. Most really old photos are of museum mounts because there weren't tons of cameras around and few if any in zoos. Public domain sketch examples of the animals are a fall back if there are no old images found. If you really care, go take photos of these animals and give WIKI the right to use them.

That's apparently what Robrrb did with the yawning kinajou but it's not a good example of the species that's why it's last. If you'd never seen a kink before that photo wouldn't help you identify one in the future.

My fennec fox site:
My anteater site:


Posted : September 9, 2018 12:14 pm
Eminent Member

That's all perfectly reasonable, and my rant was probably pretty naive and stupid.

That four-eyed opossum really is some bad taxidermy, though. A musuem of all places, shouldn't be mounting animals in a "vicious" pose. Plus, it created more problems of having to simulate, or include soft tissue and teeth. Of course, it appears to be old, possibly 19th century old, and I guess that reflects how people in the past viewed animals. If only there weren't so many people that still see animals in that manner.

Topic starter Posted : September 10, 2018 2:50 am