Back to topic:

The purpose of commons is to be an Exhibition for public domain digital media, & the purpose of Wikipedia is to be an Encyclopedia.

The problem arises when commons can't keep the donated digital media, because US laws prohibit it. This problem is enlarged because every Wikipedia regional site uses commons as a digital media library, and moves all the PD works to commons, which then deletes half of them due to copyright incompatibility.

On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Rama Neko <ramaneko@gmail.com> wrote:

It makes as much sense to say that Commons is a repository for other Wikimedia projects, than to say that Wikipedia is here to provide encyclopedic context to the media of Wikimedia Commons.

Where the real asymetry lies is in the feeling of superiority of certain users of others projects who see Commons as a "service project", and from there construct the notion that jackbooting in and ordering people around is remotely legitimate (and, to be practical, has a chance to work).
There is a small number of users, always the same, who regularly attempt to push an agenda of lax copyright standards for Commons; when this fails they try to impose their proposed policies by drumming up support from people with vested interests from other projects, and notorious authoritarians. Has anybody ever seen an influx of Commonists flocking to wp.he to "treat it as a problem"?

That is where the real problem is. The issue is not hosting these media, they can be hosted locally on the projects that use them as "Free-but-not-on-Commons", or as "Fair use". The issue is beating Commons into submission, as an aim in itself. Well, pardon us if we object.

  -- Rama

On 21 June 2014 19:19, Yann Forget <yannfo@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Rama,

Sorry, but you have it all wrong.

1. Wikimedia is a repository for other Wikimedia projects. It is its
primary mission.

2. But this does not make Commons contributors second-class. On the
opposite, importing and managing files for other projects make them
first-class IMHO. ;oD

Yann


2014-06-21 10:04 GMT+05:30 Rama Neko <ramaneko@gmail.com>:

> Commons is not there to serve other projects. Commons is a project of its
> own standing, and the other projects are there to serve it just as much as
> it is there to serve other projects.
>
> It is really dispiriting to see how certain people see Commonists as some
> sort of second-class contributors. That is wrong in every sense of the word
> -- it is an error and an injustice.
>   -- Rama
>
>
>
> On 20 June 2014 23:45, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

>> I've noted before: If Commons doesn't want to be regarded as a problem
>> by other projects, it really needs to start behaving less like one.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Commons-l mailing list
>> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l