[Foundation-l] Making Wikimedia Commons less frightening

[Dennis During]

Is there not a record of what projects actually link to commons material? If
not, why not

On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:16 PM, David Moran <fordmadoxfraud at gmail.com>wrote:

> I think of the problem as more of a systemic one, and I don't see a ready
> way around it.  I consider myself a moderately active user on commons, and
> the thing is that Commons has no payoff.  At Wikipedia, there can be the
> satisfaction of an article well written, an obscure fact well sourced, &c.
> The content is (usually) interesting and engaging and begging for your
> participation.  Commons, by contrast, is a forum for content that is
> ALREADY
> COMPLETE.  It needs no participation, only handling.  Commons editors are
> more or less just shepherds and custodians, tagging, categorizing,
> sourcing.  I don't say this disparagingly.  I myself hope to become a
> Commons admin one day.  But the difference in incentive, in intellectual
> remuneration, is vast.
>
> FMF
>



-- 
Dennis C. During

But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, which has, as I fully
believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest
animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions ? -- Charles Darwin