I don't quite know what it means to say that the more Commons is used by
other projects the more it becomes a service project (*), but it certainly
make its responsibility heavier for stating that a document is under a Free
licence. Hence the more Commons is used, the more rigourous it should be.
-- Rama
(*) Wikipedia is more and more used as a quick reference in society; should
it make it more subordinate to the interests of governments and
corporations?
On 27 June 2014 08:14, Yann Forget <yannfo(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
2014-06-25 0:54 GMT+05:30 Rama Neko <ramaneko(a)gmail.com>om>:
The question of deleted images on Commons is exactly isomorphic to the
various Wikipedias refusing to host copy-pasted
material taken from Cthulhu
knows where. And I have never heard anybody suggest that Wikipedia would be
more "reliable" is it accepted such material. I fail to see why it should
be otherwise when Commons is concerned.
Oh and David Gerard, would you please stop your two-pence Darth Vader
act? "Ksshhh Ksshhh, doesn't want to be regarded as a problem, Kssshhh, it
needs to behave less like one, Kssshhh ksshhh". Seriously, it's embarassing.
-- Rama
Rama, yes, it is embarrassing, when an admin like you behave like this.
On 24 June 2014 18:36, Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Commons isnt damaged that needs to be routed
around, the laws are an ass
and problems will follow where ever, except to maybe a handful of countries
who don't give a fluffy duck about copyright.
the problem is communication between projects, thats fixable.
Mainly, yes.
Yann
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l