Jimmy Wales wrote:
uninvited@nerstrand.net wrote:
[[:Image:Pgsafjak3.JPG]]
I offer this up as an example of some process problems we have in dealing with invalid fair use claims.
And in my opinion, we should move to a policy situation where you would not have to go through the rigamarole you had to go through with this image. You should have been able to delete it on sight as being tantamount to vandalism, which it essentially is.
This is the kind of situation where you might want to throw around some of your personal authority; there are a lot of editors not getting the message (or not wishing to accept it), and some in-WP pronouncements on a especially egregious offenders can be usefully quoted by your minions^Wenforcers.
We have this strange social culture built up around images which I believe is caused mostly by the fact that image deletion is instantly permanent, rather than being something that can be reverted. If we could revert image deletions as easily (or nearly as easily) as we revert deletions of random bits of unacceptable text, we would be much better able to pick and choose images wisely.
Fewer people seem to have cameras than I would have imagined. It took me all of two minutes to roll my [[lawn mower]] out and make original images for the article, but we still have all these people uploading the first poor thumbnail of a commonplace object that Google finds for them.
Stan