2008/11/3 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
2008/11/3 geni geniice@gmail.com:
"facilities for anybody to edit those works"
That means providing facilities on wiki to allow actual editing. Not provideing facilities to support off wiki editing.
Any kind of editing is dependent on client side support, and the extent of server-side support required to qualify is not further specified.
No but wiki standard is accepted and our images do not come close to meeting that standard.
You need a web browser to edit a Wikipedia article; WP by itself doesn't serve you any of the code required to do so, it merely implements an interface through which that is possible. So it does for images. The fact that the level of client-side in-browser support for image editing is currently lower than the level of client-side in-browser support for text editing does not negate the terms of the license.
You've just tried to argue that photobucket say qualifies as a Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site. Indeed any site that allows anyone to upload images would meet your requirements. In fact if we extend your reasoning to text the likes of scribd (there are free software manuals on there) and knol qualify. There is reading a license broadly but you appear to have gone beyond that.
The important part is that we allow anyone to register an account
And wait several days. Uploads of commons have a waiting period.
and modify existing images through prominent facilities in the site.
There are no facilities on wikipedia for editing images. There is no reasonable way for a browser to interact with mediawiki to provide image editing facilities (apart from anything else anything you did build would be broken by the various interface changes commons tends to go through).