No subject

not being significantly enhanced by the usage of much of our non-free
content. If we're just sticking things in to look nice and illustrate
articles without actually using them to enhance the reader's understanding
and appreciation of the article's subject, we're not exactly doing much on
the encyclopedic front.

The same rationales that we use for fair use images can be used by
> others who wish to use Wikipedia's material in the same context (as an
> educational encyclopedia), so it's not like the fair use images are
> completely useless for people wishing to reuse our content. They just
> have to make the judgement for themselves which licences are compatible
> with their use and strip out the bits that aren't.


The point of WP is kinda' that downstream reusers shouldn't have to do this,
or at least not to the degree that they currently have to. Living outside
the US, I would be very hesitant at republishing Wikipedia here because I
have no way of differentiating what I am legally licensed to use, or am
permitted to use despite lacking a licence, and what I am not.

Johnleemk