On 7/12/07, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I should think it would be obvious to anyone who
has been in a few of
debates about our non-free content policies that
if a consensus evolves
all, it will be definitely one that favours very
liberal inclusion of
non-free content, simply because legally we can. There are also some who
don't see any conflict between our free nature and the inclusion of
content that identifies certain things without
It would help if the people spearheading non-free image use cleanup
campaigns weren't deletionists on the issue.
By that, I mean that they took a look at things, and for example where
something was properly labeled an album cover when it was uploaded but
didn't have a current Betacommandbot-compliant Fair Use in [[article]]
section, the cleanup people added the required rationale rather than
deleting the image. If there are licensing questions or issues,
uploaders be actually told about it and invited to fix things first.
Just today, I've had these two issues bite me.
I have no problem with truly infringing stuff going away. Making
stuff go away because you can, when it is legal under policy but isn't
labeled properly yet, doesn't earn you brownie points with me.
Yeah, that annoys the hell out of me as well. If you ask me, a lot of our
efforts in areas like logos and albums are generally useless because those
are the kinds of things where a boilerplate rationale will fly - they are
often usable under even stringent non-free content policies anyway.
The problem is that we don't have enough efforts in the areas Durin is
probably thinking of. I recall that insane argument I had with editors of a
Lost article that was virtually a gallery of images from the show - most of
them not illustrating anything specifically discussed by the article. These
are cases where deletion is secondary to getting those images out of the
article in question.