On 8/1/06, Garion96 <garion96(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Copied from the policy [[Wikipedia:Fair use criteria]]
Criteria 1.
Thanks - apologies for not finding it myself.
Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can
often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and
know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the
Wikipedia can become as free as possible. Eventually we may have a way to
identify images as more restricted than GFDL on the article pages, to make
the desire for a more free image more obvious.
So, what is an "equivalent"? How much worse can the free image be
before we don't have to consider it "equivalent"? Considering that
"worse" can mean lower resolution, lower technical quality, less
focused on the concept of hand (eg, a picture of a building when we're
discussing its front door), less aesthetically pleasing, diagram vs
photo, hand drawn image vs photo, etc etc.
How much value does a photo being "free" really add to any given
encyclopaedic article? Is this policy about promoting "free" images
not at odds with other policies which are all about producing a high
quality encyclopaedia? What happens when the goal to produce a "high
quality" encyclopaedia is at odds with the goal to produce a "free"
encyclopaedia?
Steve