On 12/7/06, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
But "better" doesn't necessarily mean "less harmful," which is the point. The question is "does having fair use images harm the project," and there's not a lot of evidence that it does, since we thankfully allow fair use.
It is an explicit goal of the project to produce an encyclopedia of free content. Fair use images are not free. Thus it is harmful because the explicit goals of the project define unfree content as a non-solution. The fact that other factors may make the harm preferable to other harms does not change the fact that unfree content is a harm.
This is not rocket science. Did you even read my post? Did you read Kat's post? Must I assault you verbally to get your attention? :(
The "conclusion" is the continuing problem. Can the building be photographed? Yes. Is an existing unfree image of the building "harmful" while we wait for the free image to come about? The logical answer is that it is not,
[snip]
If it's logical please explain your thought process.. because I'm not getting it.
I clearly outlined two related perspectives which show the image to be harmful:
0) Free images are not free content, so adding non-free images breaks one of the primary goals of the project. 1) Non-free images do discourage people from contributing free images. This has happened to me personally so you can't deny it without calling me a liar, it has happened to friends of Jwales so you can't deny it without calling him a liar, we've seen people say it in emails. Even for folks like me who love replacing unfree images can't tell if an image is unfree unless they click on it. That this happens is not really open for debate.
You can discount these factors if you assert that free images are not a goal of the project but if thats your position you should state it outright so we can emphasize how incorrect you are. :)