On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Carl Beckhorn <cbeckhorn(a)fastmail.fm> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 12:25:05PM -0400, Gregory
Maxwell wrote:
If the text says "Many Clapton songs begin
with a rhythmic kazoo
solo", then by all means give us an example.
I would think that is a classic example of a rationale we do not accept.
WP:NFCC#1 includes this test: "Could the subject be adequately conveyed
by text without using the non-free content at all?" If the only point
of the kazoo solo sound clip is to reinforce the point that the songs
include kazoo solos, that usage can be replaced by text.
Sorry, in an effort to produce an amusing example I failed to produce
a good one. I should leave the humor to the comedians. Though with a
little modification my example stands: you could make some point about
kazoo harmonization or kazoo acoustic texture which text would fail to
adequately convey...
The point I was really trying to make is that the media needs to be a
part of the discussion, not merely something bolted onto the side of
the discussion. It's important point because most people have
experience with things like fan-sites and catalogs (i.e. IMDB) that
often use media in a rather bolt-on fashion. Your reply pointed out
an additional requirement: That being part of the discussion is
necessary but not sufficient, it has to be an *important*, or even an
almost essential part of the discussion.
Thank you pointing out the misleading part of my message.