Rich Holton wrote:
I accept that
you're here for that. I just don't think most people are,
and from the limited amount I've seen so far, it seems like people with
that agenda are trying to force other people to comply with their
desires by making the encyclopedia worse.
Your definition of worse. Not mine. Not the Foundation's.
Clearly, you believe that removing the photos in question makes the
encyclopedia worse by a common definition. Otherwise you wouldn't use
deletion as a prod to get people to add different photos.
I disagree that your definition of good and the Foundation are
identical. Sorry.
*copied from the original context*
If you can't name the group of people
currently unable to benefit from
Wikipedia content because it contains non-GFDL images, could you please
just say so?
Ok, I will answer your question. *I* cannot name a group of people who
are currently unable to benefit from Wikipedia because it contains
non-GFDL images. But then, I also cannot name a group of people who are
currently unable to benefit from Wikipedia if it contained NO images, so
I'm not certain that proves much.
What it proves to me is that this is then a religious question, not a
practical one. If nobody is being hurt by leaving the images in, and
readers are hurt by taking them out, then I'm seeing no practical point
in deleting them rather than, leaving them alone or marking them
visibly. We will get there eventually.
If Wikipedia contained no images, then the people who would benefit less
are the current millions of readers. Maybe you don't use 'em, but I can
guarantee that the vast majority of people will find them useful on at
least some articles.
You question presumes that the most important factor
is delivering
encyclopedic content to people who want it. I disagree with that
presumption. I, and others, believe that there are more important things
than delivering encyclopedic content--namely the *development* and
delivery of *free* encyclopedic content.
I'm saying that if adherence to some pretty technical definition of
"free" means we make the encyclopedia less useful to readers, then
something is wrong.
I'm not just presuming that delivering educational content is the
primary goal. I'm saying so. I believe that the GFDL license is the
means by which we achieve our goal. Promoting that license is at best a
secondary goal.
Let me ask you a question: How does including non-free
images in
Wikipedia help to accomplish the stated mission of the Wikimedia
Foundation? Or are you effectively saying "screw the foundation"?
Yes, and now that you mention it, that Wales guy is going to get a punch
in the nose next time I see him, too.
No, Rich, I'm not saying that anybody should be screwed, and I ask you
to ease up on the debate shenanigans.
To answer your question, look at the vision, which as you said is every
human being sharing freely in the sum of all human knowledge. What
somebody looks like is part of that human knowledge. If you delete
usable pictures from Wikipedia, you are reducing the knowledge that we
are sharing.
William
--
William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri