[WikiEN-l] There are no pictures in Wikipedia any more

[William Pietri]

Rich Holton wrote:
>> I accept that you're here for that. I just don't think most people are, 
>> and from the limited amount I've seen so far, it seems like people with 
>> that agenda are trying to force other people to comply with their 
>> desires by making the encyclopedia worse.
>>     
> Your definition of worse. Not mine. Not the Foundation's.
>   

Clearly, you believe that removing the photos in question makes the 
encyclopedia worse by a common definition. Otherwise you wouldn't use 
deletion as a prod to get people to add different photos.

I disagree that your definition of good and the Foundation are 
identical. Sorry.


> *copied from the original context*
>  > If you can't name the group of people currently unable to benefit from
>  > Wikipedia content because it contains non-GFDL images, could you please
>  > just say so?
>
> Ok, I will answer your question. *I* cannot name a group of people who 
> are currently unable to benefit from Wikipedia because it contains 
> non-GFDL images. But then, I also cannot name a group of people who are 
> currently unable to benefit from Wikipedia if it contained NO images, so 
> I'm not certain that proves much.
>   

What it proves to me is that this is then a religious question, not a 
practical one. If nobody is being hurt by leaving the images in, and 
readers are hurt by taking them out, then I'm seeing no practical point 
in deleting them rather than, leaving them alone or marking them 
visibly. We will get there eventually.

If Wikipedia contained no images, then the people who would benefit less 
are the current millions of readers. Maybe you don't use 'em, but I can 
guarantee that the vast majority of people will find them useful on at 
least some articles.

> You question presumes that the most important factor is delivering 
> encyclopedic content to people who want it. I disagree with that 
> presumption. I, and others, believe that there are more important things 
> than delivering encyclopedic content--namely the *development* and 
> delivery of *free* encyclopedic content.
>   

I'm saying that if adherence to some pretty technical definition of 
"free" means we make the encyclopedia less useful to readers, then 
something is wrong.

I'm not just presuming that delivering educational content is the 
primary goal. I'm saying so. I believe that the GFDL license is the 
means by which we achieve our goal. Promoting that license is at best a 
secondary goal.

> Let me ask you a question: How does including non-free images in 
> Wikipedia help to accomplish the stated mission of the Wikimedia 
> Foundation? Or are you effectively saying "screw the foundation"?
>   

Yes, and now that you mention it, that Wales guy is going to get a punch 
in the nose next time I see him, too.

No, Rich, I'm not saying that anybody should be screwed, and I ask you 
to ease up on the debate shenanigans.

To answer your question, look at the vision, which as you said is every 
human being sharing freely in the sum of all human knowledge. What 
somebody looks like is part of that human knowledge. If you delete 
usable pictures from Wikipedia, you are reducing the knowledge that we 
are sharing.

William


-- 
William Pietri <william at scissor.com>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri