No subject

how I can get away with it.)  For one thing, the exceptions (the
fair-use images that Wikipedia does allow) seem pretty narrow.
For another thing, the bureaucracy one has to go through to
justify a fair-use image is far too tedious for me to go through
at all.  And finally -- but this one deserves another paragraph.

In any system large enough to be interesting, the rules are never
perfect.  There's always a discrepancy between _de jure_ policy
and _de facto_ practice.  Oftentimes, the rules are slightly
stricter than reality, and the enforcers tend to give you a
break.  (For example, on most highways in the U.S., it's
generally understood that the speed limits are only enforced if
you're going at least 5, and more likely 10, mph over the limit.)

However, in the case of images on Wikipedia, there are evidently
lots and lots of people who really, really wish the policy *were*
"no fair-use images at all".  And they're the very same ones who
are enforcing the bureaucracy surrounding the exceptions which do
(nominally) permit fair use.  So the red tape is only going to
get worse, the bar is only going to get higher, until there are
so many ever-shifting requirements that fair use be properly
justified, and so many hair-trigger bots vigilantly watching
for the slightest transgression, that it's just not worth it.
If the _de facto_ policy isn't "no fair-use images" today,
it will be soon enough.

I know what you're thinking.  If I claim to believe that fair-use
images would be acceptable in Wikipedia, if I claim not to like
their eradication, then I'm clearly a spineless moral coward to
be rolling over and accepting it like this.  And you'd be right,
I would be a coward, except: although I think it's overzealous and
unnecessary, the goal of having only free images *is* a noble
one.  And since the only problem I'm personally aware of that
results from the overzealous de-facto policy is that [[Ruth
Gordon]] doesn't have a picture any more -- that's not the end of
the world, I *can* sleep easy, I still remember what she looked
like.  (All the rest of the images I care about, all the rest
I've uploaded, are with one exception my own work and in the
public domain, so they're fine.)

So, Will, if you're still with me after all this blather,
my advice to you is: listen to Reinhold Niebuhr.  Accept with
serenity the reality that for all intents and purposes, Wikipedia
doesn't allow free images.  If you hear someone criticizing
Wikipedia for having articles with fuzzy or missing images, say,
"Yeah, there are some overzealous nuts on the project."  If one
of your articles is poorer for having a missing image, say...
no, wait a minute, none of us have any articles of our own.
The first strategy is sufficient.