2009/1/19 Wilhelm Schnotz wilhelm@nixeagle.org:
On 1/19/09, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/19 Wilhelm Schnotz wilhelm@nixeagle.org:
On 1/19/09, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
There's a good solution: don't have a ridiculously strict policy.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think the current image policy is a compromise between those who believe enwp should have no non-free images, which would be a very simple policy, either the image is free or it's not, no need for WP:FFD, just delete, and those who believe that any image can be used as long as an even remotely plausible fair use rationale can be provided.
What we have is a wikilawyer's delight. (no sorry, that picture Gary Coleman as a kid is unacceptable because he still looks like a kid so it's replaceable. Oh what's that, you are Gary Coleman and you took the picture yesterday? Just who was holding the camera?")
The problem is *this* particular example is on commons. If james meant to point out our complex image policy.. He should have linked to a closed discussion on en wiki.
Common's rules are simpler then en wiki... Most of the complexity is really copyright law.
It's an image which appears on enwiki.
Right, but it is on wikimedia commons.
True, but IMX images hosted on enwiki get moved to commons PDQ.