Stephen Bain wrote: >It is not too broad; Commons has always distinguished itself in this >way from general purpose photo/media hosting services like Flickr or >YouTube.
Andre Engels wrote: > I disagree. Pictures should be judged on their value for Commons, not > on something else. And that value is decided by what the picture _is_ > (as Kat says, informational and/or educational) not by what it _is > not_. If the best (from an informational perspective) picture we have > of a subject is prurient or exhibitionist, then I want to keep it. If > on the other hand a picture has been done very tasty, but nobody can > find a reason to call it informational, then I won't shed a tear about > it being deleted. I had thought Sam said it nicely when he noted that Commons won its independence years ago. Not all 6 million and growing media items on Commons are going to be used on encyclopedia, news, and book articles. 'Twas not long after Commons went live that people started understanding the wisdom in the proposer/founder's design. Normal Commons usage was vastly exceeding objective media "requirements," and an crafting an exclusive policy for a free culture (Wikimedia) project just didn't make sense. There are whole entire art and curated art projects on Commons which have little connection to other Wikimedia projects other than that they advance free culture by being freely licensed. -SC _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
