> That is where the service project and the independent project clash. Were > it merely service, the commons would abide the wish of the wikipedians > (wikisourcians etc), were it independent, the Wikipedians would have bad > luck and live with it.
Nah, the world is not always just black or white. Commons provides "a" service. We have a clear mission statement which maybe needs to be communicated to the other projects more clearly. The service we are providing is hosting and administration of freely licensed media. We are not a second imageshack/flickr whatever. Furthermore we would have a hard time operating commons if commonists were treated as a bunch of slaves who merely had to do what the other projects told them to do. Please do not forget that commonists do not only administer content, they also "create" content. With this respect commons is an independent project on its own. In my view there are two sides to the commons medal. And we should not try to cast commons into either role exclusively. -- [[en:User:Dschwen]] [[de:Benutzer:Dschwen]] [[commons:User:Dschwen]] _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
