On 8/3/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/3/06, Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
The value is project-wide, not necessarily on an
article-by-article
basis. And I think Jimbo would say that a high quality encyclopedia is
never at odds with producing a free one. Wikipedia could still be high
Eh? Britannica has done pretty well at producing a high quality
encyclopaedia, but they haven't gotten off the ground in the free
stakes.
I'll Eh? right back at you. Just because EB can produce quality and
NOT be free does not at all mean that quality and being free are
incompatible.
In any case, going back and forth over the question of whether
Wikipedia would be high quality without fair use images seems fairly
silly to me since the designation is entirely subjective. I think your
position is a little silly but you're allowed to say the same about
mine. I think you're putting short-term aesthetics ahead of legal and
long-term sensibilities.
Yes, it's a pity that we have to do all our
diagrams from scratch,
there are thousands of articles that need some.
So put in a diagram request. There are people who are happy to make
diagrams for articles. Filling diagram requests is MUCH easier than
photography because you can do it from anywhere and with free
software.
FF