@Eugene you make valid points, and i guess we both are right in a way, which is why Citizendium exists. But i don't believe that Citizendium will fly, they want only people with a degree, and so you'll never get an article about, say, the Teletubbies. Anyway, i've learnt a lot from these emails. I still think the image policy could be different, and i think there's ways to convince corporations that worldwide fair use isn't bad for them, especially if the images have visual watermarks which make them unsuitable for illegal use (cd-covers and such). I think there's nothing wrong with that, the images would still illustrate the story and not be infringing on the rights of the owners.
On the issue of sources: I've read a lot of abstract thinking and "what if" scenarios on this issue, but the bottom line for me remains that an article about someone like Einstein should at least have some references to stuff he did or stuff about him. A couple of sources for claims that would otherwise be questionable would be nice too. I'm absolutely not a fan of 100 sources per article, as it is too much for any article, we don't want it to read like a Law Review. Everything should be done in moderation. 0 sources on a very large article seems not right, 250 sources on a lengthy article is overkill. I do feel however that external links and references give the reader the opportunity to delve deeper beyond what wikipedia writes about something, call it a community service.
Also i still believe there should be a way of tagging articles as factually incorrect or written like an advertisement. Perhaps with a poll beforehand so not just everyone can plaster every article at random with boxes and templates. Something like "minimum 10 votes, >5 in favor" means the article gets tagged. I believe seeing a box or tag describing an article as "poor" or "unfounded" encourages people to fix it more than one lonely comment on the talk page.
Please try not to see my comments too black/white!