On 03/08/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
The value is project-wide, not necessarily on an article-by-article basis. And I think Jimbo would say that a high quality encyclopedia is never at odds with producing a free one. Wikipedia could still be high quality even if it lacked fair use images. Most encyclopedias do *not* have an image for every article and do not feel the need to, much less images of lesser known celebrities and video games.
I would consider these two, and other similar types of articles (such as on films and television programs), to be the only articles which truly warrant Fair Use images. I think there is use in providing an image with close to every article - it displays information in a different form and can be highly enlightening to a user. Anything which is accessible to the public should have free images (objects, places and people).
The [[David Bowie]] article gets around the lack of free use photographs by using a free use drawing. It looks like it could be a drawing of a photograph and is certainly recognisable as David Bowie. When does a drawing start violating copyright? Drawings are quite subjective, is there much value in them?