For certain things, thumbnails make sense: online, articles about photography, etc. But for regular articles, instead of figuring out how to extract thumbnails, we should realize that in most cases, the article would be highly improved by a lack of thumbnail.
There's a trend lately to illustrate low-quality content with low-quality stock pictures (most likely acquired from a Google Image search without a proper license.) For an example, just look at TechCrunch or Pando. We should strive to rid the internet of this plague.
Good articles and real journalism have standards when it comes to illustration. Open up nytimes.com and look at what's illustrated with photos versus illustrations versus nothing.
Sure, but that can be done with good layout and typography, or tasteful illustrations (à-la New Yorker). Simply using bad filler stock images is a really bad way to go about this.
There's a trend lately to illustrate low-quality content with low-quality stock pictures (most likely acquired from a Google Image search without a proper license.) For an example, just look at TechCrunch or Pando. We should strive to rid the internet of this plague.
Good articles and real journalism have standards when it comes to illustration. Open up nytimes.com and look at what's illustrated with photos versus illustrations versus nothing.