WikipediaEditor Durin wrote:
This morning, I did a survey of 100 image uploads. The sample size with relation to the overall quantity of image uploads per month is not statistically significant, but it is terrifying nonetheless. With that grain of salt in mind;
I found that 44% of images uploaded were tagged as being under a non-free license.
For a long time now we've been pushing the notion that images under free licence should be uploaded to Commons rather than en.wikipedia. I think it's a good approach myself. So it hardly seems surprising (and certainly not "terrifying") that a high percentage of the material that remains is material that isn't under a free licence.
If freely licenced images should go to Commons and non-free images shouldn't be uploaded at all, then why even have image uploads enabled on en.wikipedia? That would seem to cover all the bases.