Stan Shebs wrote:
We're already in competition with other online sources, and how well we're competing governs both readership and the number of editors we can attract. For instance, when I add stuff to WP, I'm always looking for opportunities to add material that is available nowhere else online (only in print previously, say), because that's something that makes WP a must-visit for information-seekers. Images are part of that competition too, and we should be reluctant to handicap ourselves in the race, particularly when no actual threats have materialized (has there been even one outside demand to remove an image?)
Well, I don't really see it as so much of a race. Sure, we'd like people to turn to us for information, but as I see it we're just going to so completely dominate everyone with our information that there really is no competition. Already most people I know IRL turn to Wikipedia first when they want to find out "what is [x]" in summary form, while they used to resort to googling for [x], which tends to produce less-reliable results than the Wikipedia article (where one exists). Granted, these are people I know who have been influenced by my Wikipedia-advocacy, but they wouldn't keep using it if it wasn't for the information. I think this will only get more pronounced as we get more and more information and make it better- and better-presented.
So I suppose I agree in some sense with your goals, but I see it as such a foregone conclusion that we're going to "win" that competition---and not by a small margin either---that it shouldn't really be our main concern.
-Mark