This discussion is making my head spin... Let me see if I can get the
basics in order for myself (please, let me know if I don't have it
right):
* Everyone basically agrees that the text (not including quotes, which
I don't intend to discuss here) of Wikipedia is okay, even if the
text refers to an image that is fair use.
* Everyone agrees that The en Wikipedia has some images that we are
legally allowed to use (on the website) under fair use assuming that
we don't claim they are GFDL.
* Most everyone agrees that there is little chance that we can get the
copyright holders of every image to switch to a GFDL license. This
said, some people say that we can't distribute the images with the
GFDL products, as it would violate the license.
* Most everyone has decided what they think, and will argue his/her
opinion until the cows come home (and then some).
If I understand correctly, the problem is most evident when we
consider printed formats (like grandma's encyclopedia). I don't think
that anyone has argued that we can distribute fair use images if we go
to a printed (combined) work. So, fair use images should not be in a
printed version.
This said, it seems reasonable to say that articles that *NEED* an
image should have GFDL images only. Articles that benefit from images
should use GFDL images or shouldn't talk about the images (don't say
"image below" or the like) as fair use images will not appear in a
printed version.
As I understand it, there are people who would argue that this is
unacceptable, and that some articles *NEED* an image where no GFDL
images is available. I'd love to hear of 1 or 2 possibilities where
an article is unacceptable without an image, and where a GFDL picture
or drawing would not suffice.
--
"Jason C. Richey" <jasonr(a)bomis.com>