On 25/09/2007, charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com>
Well, of course, we have also had complaints here that
WP is very slack on the topic of >non-free images.
Let's see, can we get a sense of whether this perceived large-scale takedown affects
>more than a couple of per cent of the total of the images; and whether this is mostly
about >well-exposed people, for their bios? Or are there cases (such as book or album
covers) >where arguably the removal of a fair-use image leaves the article looking
scantly.
I have to say _I really don't care that much_ about the bios case. Because the
biographies of living people are always causing some or other trouble, and my resolution
is to get on with the rest of the encyclopedia. It is far too easy to become sucked in.
Charles
There are no exact figures that I know of. However going by total
number of admin deletions and the likely sources of those you would be
looking at in excess of 10% of images on wikipedia deleted during the
main deletion period.
--
geni