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@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

2014-06-25 0:54 GMT+05:30 Rama Neko <ramaneko@gmail.com>:

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@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@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l