On 7/20/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
To start with, if I see it as decorative, I'll say "decorative". And I can see little to no value of any type but decoration in the vast majority and cover-shots.
Here's the problem.
You are representative of a large fraction of editors/admin who are taking your ideological axe to the project. Your opinion above is legitimate and sincere, but bad for Wikipedia.
As I stated, these "decorative" images are important visual parts of the site experience and learning experience for the normal visitor. This is due to fundamental aspects of how human minds work and learn.
When you call them "decorative" you're betraying an inherent value judgement which is at odds with human nature, learning, and the value of the encyclopedia. It's an irrational attempt to demean some of the visual content to justify its removal, and it's just not sensible or justifyable. The language choice you're insisting on is proving my point.
I haven't heard anyone speak up against the use of identical content if the source has open-licensed it. If there is truly opposition to album covers or logos for logos and album covers sakes, it's being very quiet. In the rare instances where it's been open licensed, everyone seems happy, not upset.
It's reasonable to say "I wish to balance open content and encyclopedia content" and discuss where the balance point should be. It's not reasonable to demean the reader value of specific instances because their licensing is one way or the other.