On 02/03/2008, WJhonson(a)aol.com <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote: Well, yes, we do ... Despite me repeatedly requesting you do so, you've yet to name even one case of such, let alone many. Let alone one (or many) that were somehow irrecoverable due to admins going through with meat cleavers and weed-whackers. I'm still utterly unconvinced it's more than a public relations problem with BetacommandBot's presentation, problems that Betacommand has in fact been addressing. Because, you know, the bot really isn't doing anything that's actually contrary to the wording *or* the spirit of the non-free images policy. - d.

Will Johnson wrote: See, there's your problem. This used to be my problem, too. Here's how I fixed it (by which I mean, here's how I arranged that it isn't a problem that bugs me any more). As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia's image policy is: We don't allow fair-use images. We don't allow them. We allow only free images. Now there are two teensy problems with this position: (a) I don't like it, and (2) it's not, strictly, absolutely, 100.000% correct. a. Well, that's too bad. There are a number of things in this world of ours that I don't like. But it's now abundantly clear, on this issue, either that I'm in the minority, or that while I might be in some silent majority, the vocal minority (which is vociferously in favor of removing everything but free images) has so vastly much more time and energy on its hands that I'm never, ever going to win. So I concede, and sleep easy. I am not, in fact, so devoted to Wikipedia's perfection that I consider it my problem that [[Ruth Gordon]] now has a "No free image" box where the fair-use one I'd once uploaded for her used to be. 2. I claimed, "Wikipedia doesn't allow fair-use images". Now, how different is this paraphrase from the actual image policy? how I can get away with it.) For one thing, the exceptions (the fair-use images that Wikipedia does allow) seem pretty narrow. For another thing, the bureaucracy one has to go through to justify a fair-use image is far too tedious for me to go through at all. And finally -- but this one deserves another paragraph. In any system large enough to be interesting, the rules are never perfect. There's always a discrepancy between _de jure_ policy and _de facto_ practice. Oftentimes, the rules are slightly stricter than reality, and the enforcers tend to give you a break. (For example, on most highways in the U.S., it's generally understood that the speed limits are only enforced if you're going at least 5, and more likely 10, mph over the limit.) However, in the case of images on Wikipedia, there are evidently lots and lots of people who really, really wish the policy *were* "no fair-use images at all". And they're the very same ones who are enforcing the bureaucracy surrounding the exceptions which do (nominally) permit fair use. So the red tape is only going to get worse, the bar is only going to get higher, until there are so many ever-shifting requirements that fair use be properly justified, and so many hair-trigger bots vigilantly watching for the slightest transgression, that it's just not worth it. If the _de facto_ policy isn't "no fair-use images" today, it will be soon enough. I know what you're thinking. If I claim to believe that fair-use images would be acceptable in Wikipedia, if I claim not to like their eradication, then I'm clearly a spineless moral coward to be rolling over and accepting it like this. And you'd be right, I would be a coward, except: although I think it's overzealous and unnecessary, the goal of having only free images *is* a noble one. And since the only problem I'm personally aware of that results from the overzealous de-facto policy is that [[Ruth Gordon]] doesn't have a picture any more -- that's not the end of the world, I *can* sleep easy, I still remember what she looked like. (All the rest of the images I care about, all the rest I've uploaded, are with one exception my own work and in the public domain, so they're fine.) So, Will, if you're still with me after all this blather, my advice to you is: listen to Reinhold Niebuhr. Accept with serenity the reality that for all intents and purposes, Wikipedia doesn't allow free images. If you hear someone criticizing Wikipedia for having articles with fuzzy or missing images, say, "Yeah, there are some overzealous nuts on the project." If one of your articles is poorer for having a missing image, say... no, wait a minute, none of us have any articles of our own. The first strategy is sufficient.