On 03/03/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
D, I did provide a particular case where the use of the Non-free policy created a quite silly result.
What was that example? Image or article name please? Do you mean the book cover case you mention below (using a book cover just because you want it as a handy illustration), or do you mean another specific case?
You have still failed to address what you were originally claiming: that there was an actual problem with BetacommandBot beyond upsetting people who failed to understand WP:NONFREE or didn't want to.
Do you claim there is a problem beyond this? [ ] yes [ ] no
If "yes", please detail the problem, with links, per my original question:
Could you please reply with:
(a) a list of cases of improperly-tagged images? (b) images in (a) that have been deleted? (c) images in (b) that were somehow not easily recoverable, and why?
And I mean an actual list, posted by you here, rather than a vague reference to some other page written by someone else where you go "it's all there, trust me."
If you can't actually answer this, then I suggest you withdraw your claim there's actually a substantive issue with BetacommandBot's tagging, because you will have completely failed to provide any observable evidence.
And by reasonable, I don't tendentious and extreme interpretation's of Nonfree.
How about "not fitting the definition of 'free content'", which is what we mean by 'non-free' in this project. That's not "tendentious and extreme", that's the actual working meaning.
We *want to encourage* authors and artists to add their content to the project. That enhances the project. Creating bureaucratic nightmares for them isn't really helping us to help them. And we end up with people, otherwise believing in us, leaving because we make it so difficult.
If they add content we can't use per policy, then they fail to understand our policy.
Again, you originally brought this up as a matter of GREAT CONCERN over BetacommandBot. Please try to stick to one topic per thread.
Could you address, specifically and directly the case of Ben Patrick Johnson that I recently mentioned. Trying to make everyone only add free content, ignores the fact that we are allowed to add fair use content. So what I'd like to see is an example where this book cover could be added, under fair use content. Arguing that it should be added only as a free image isn't going to address my concerns that new fair-use images are being unfairly targeted for deletion.
It couldn't. You're dead wrong: you can't just take a book cover to illustrate an article because you can't find another picture, even under fair use, unless there really is no other picture in existence. We can't just take a book cover because we want the picture. There's no "but I wanna!" clause in fair use.
- d.