On 03/03/2008, WJhonson(a)aol.com <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
D, I did provide a particular case where the use of
the Non-free policy
created a quite silly result.
What was that example? Image or article name please? Do you mean the
book cover case you mention below (using a book cover just because you
want it as a handy illustration), or do you mean another specific
case?
You have still failed to address what you were originally claiming:
that there was an actual problem with BetacommandBot beyond upsetting
people who failed to understand WP:NONFREE or didn't want to.
Do you claim there is a problem beyond this?
[ ] yes
[ ] no
If "yes", please detail the problem, with links, per my original question:
Could you please reply with:
(a) a list of cases of improperly-tagged images?
(b) images in (a) that have been deleted?
(c) images in (b) that were somehow not easily recoverable, and why?
And I mean an actual list, posted by you here, rather than a vague
reference to some other page written by someone else where you go
"it's all there, trust me."
If you can't actually answer this, then I suggest you withdraw your
claim there's actually a substantive issue with BetacommandBot's
tagging, because you will have completely failed to provide any
observable evidence.
And by reasonable, I don't tendentious and
extreme interpretation's of
Nonfree.
How about "not fitting the definition of 'free content'", which is
what we mean by 'non-free' in this project. That's not "tendentious
and extreme", that's the actual working meaning.
We *want to encourage* authors and artists to add
their content to the
project. That enhances the project. Creating bureaucratic nightmares for them
isn't really helping us to help them. And we end up with people, otherwise
believing in us, leaving because we make it so difficult.
If they add content we can't use per policy, then they fail to
understand our policy.
Again, you originally brought this up as a matter of GREAT CONCERN
over BetacommandBot. Please try to stick to one topic per thread.
Could you address, specifically and directly the case
of Ben Patrick Johnson
that I recently mentioned. Trying to make everyone only add free content,
ignores the fact that we are allowed to add fair use content. So what I'd
like to see is an example where this book cover could be added, under fair use
content. Arguing that it should be added only as a free image isn't going to
address my concerns that new fair-use images are being unfairly targeted for
deletion.
It couldn't. You're dead wrong: you can't just take a book cover to
illustrate an article because you can't find another picture, even
under fair use, unless there really is no other picture in existence.
We can't just take a book cover because we want the picture. There's
no "but I wanna!" clause in fair use.
- d.