On Jan 28, 2008 2:52 AM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Carl Beckhorn wrote:
Personally, I find it strange to think that any nonfree content not under the control of the foundation should appear on meta.
And I find it completely bizarre that there is apparently no place anywhere within any of the foundation's projects that we can host an image that's explicitly licensed for our use.
Meta would probably make a lot of sense for things like this: Not to become a general unfree media dump, but for for cases where such things are useful for doing our own work. The counter argument is that people will start linking to meta to evade project policies, but that already happens with random external sites.
I think it would be worthwhile to explore what reasonable exceptions could be made on meta for this kind of thing.
Extending strong requirements for free media beyond the bounds of the 'product' is essential for fostering free media as part of our community identity, but for intrinsically sausage making things like letters and awards there probably isn't much benefit.
Whatever we do we need be careful to keep material which is not freely licensed treated as second-class (and as far away from the product as reasonably possible), but second class doesn't always necessitate "deleted".
I'm all for free content and all, but this has the unsettling feel of fundamentalism.
That is *exactly* what you were intended to feel: .... This nomination of was an example of [[WP:POINT]]. The nominator did so with the intention of using it to argue to change the policy. He didn't get what he expected and now regrets doing that. :) Lets keep this in mind.
Selective enforcement has an amazing power to dull the sharp corners of any rule. Had someone not been interested in trying to make an example out of this it could have happily sat forever with its less than totally accurate license tag. Less than ideal, perhaps, but it would be far far from the worst inaccuracy in tagging. (Not that I think the outcome should be changed now... it stops being selective enforcement if instead people start voting to ignore the rule)