After sending my previous post on this topic, it occurred to me that some participants in this discussion will know that a few years ago I took umbrage when statements I had made on this forum were quoted in a book without my permission. (I was not the only person whose text was so used.) My annoyance, however, was due to the fact that I had demurred when the author asked me to contribute content to the planned book, and to the fact that I was cited by name, implying that I had in some way supported the book project. Had my comments been included anonymously, I would not have been offended. For that matter, I would not have been much offended if the book had been any good. I must point out, however, that I did not take revenge by sending it for review to someone I expected would savage it, and it was treated quite gently in the journal I was editing at that time. If images lifted from our wiki are being used in fraudulent or criminal marketing schemes (for instance, for the sale of bulbs illegally dug in the wild), or in support of stupid blogs, we do have every right to be offended, but we should feel relieved if the (mis)user does not credit the photographer. Hannon's comment about the potential for online content helping "to establish and reinvigorate local clubs" is an interesting one and I've taken it as the start of a different thread. Jane McGary Portland, Oregon, USA