In a message dated 3/2/2008 4:49:36 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, scs@eskimo.com writes:
Certainly. And my reading is that the community consensus is very firmly against fair-use content, and indeed all nonfree content.>>
-------------------- That's unfortunate because our Non-free policy does not actually state this. So I'd say this reading is flawed.
As Geni pointed out we have 200K of fair use images in Commons. So it would seem that community consensus is not "very firmly against fair-use content". Wouldn't you.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living. (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duf... 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
On 03/03/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
As Geni pointed out we have 200K of fair use images in Commons.
I thought that was 200K fair-use images on en:wp - there should be *zero* fair-use images on Commons, as Commons is absolutely for free content material only.
(Ideally, the only images on en:wp should be the non-free ones, as all the free ones should be on Commons. So the ratios to compare would be total non-free images used on en:wp versus total images used on en:wp, locally hosted or hosted on Commons.)
- d.
Will Johnson wrote:
In a message dated 3/2/2008 4:49:36 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, scs@eskimo.com writes: Certainly. And my reading is that the community consensus is very firmly against fair-use content, and indeed all nonfree content.
That's unfortunate because our Non-free policy does not actually state this. So I'd say this reading is flawed.
My statement was based on my reading of community consensus, not on any reading of that policy.
As Geni pointed out we have 200K of fair use images in Commons.
And I wish they could stay, but they probably won't.
So it would seem that community consensus is not "very firmly against fair-use content". Wouldn't you.
I re-affirm my impression that it is.