But. there's no reason why the two should be technically separated. It's already been practically divided by categories. It's not considered unnecessary faff just by techs; any pragmatic person would agree.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:03 PM, David Gerard <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dgerard@gmail.com">dgerard@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On 1 February 2011 23:41, Gnangarra <<a href="mailto:gnangarra@gmail.com">gnangarra@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Why would these images even need a wiki, these images are the property of<br>
> the foundation if they are such a big concern to Commons Community, (I've<br>
> been on common for a few years and was not aware of real concerns about<br>
> those images) then the Foundation should address the issue.<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>There have been slight concerns over the years, with a small number of<br>
people greatly concerned that Commons carries non-free WMF utility<br>
images as well as the free media.<br>
<br>
This is a reasonable viewpoint to hold. But no, I agree with you -<br>
mostly people aren't that worried.<br>
<br>
I note only that technically it would be feasible, the idea would just<br>
be considered unnecessary faff by most of the people who'd be involved<br>
in actually doing the work.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
- d.<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Commons-l mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org">Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l" target="_blank">https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>