On 5/1/06, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
Please pay me the compliment of believing what I say,
I am not disputing your comments, I am simply pointing out the contradiction to the way Wikisource defines itself. It is clear that ND and NC materials have slipped through the cracks in a few projects and languages.
however it stretches your credulity or however you would like to interpret the Main Page. Here is a link to most recent dissucion which took place on the most active and prominent page on enWS. Not single person spoke out against accepting the ND license.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium#Non_commercial_texts
What I see is a single comment from you on this matter, and a single response to that. This is not the broad discussion about these issues which we need.
When you have managed to limit fair use materials, I will examine the limits and re-evaluate my opiion. Currently enWP has pretty much any fair use material they can get away with.
The situation has much improved in recent years (though the overall quantity of materials uploaded has grown, of course). Fair use images are quickly deleted when orphaned, and the policy that they can be replaced even with inferior free versions seems to be accepted now (this was not always the case). We have a well-defined list of acceptable circumstances of fair use.
Most importantly, fair use material is subject to very different conditions than other content, and governed by its own policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use
It is this distinction between two classes of content which is essential. You, on the other hand, want to put ND content on equal footing with other materials. This erodes the distinction, reduces the incentive to contribute free content, and contradicts the definition and mission of Wikisource.
Erik