Back to topic: The purpose of commons is to be an *Exhibition *for public domain digital media, & the purpose of Wikipedia is to be an *Encyclopedia*. The problem arises when commons can't keep the donated digital media, because US laws prohibit it. This problem is enlarged because every Wikipedia regional site uses commons as a digital media library, and moves all the PD works to commons, which then deletes half of them due to copyright incompatibility.
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Rama Neko <[email protected]> wrote: > It makes as much sense to say that Commons is a repository for other > Wikimedia projects, than to say that Wikipedia is here to provide > encyclopedic context to the media of Wikimedia Commons. > > Where the real asymetry lies is in the feeling of superiority of certain > users of others projects who see Commons as a "service project", and from > there construct the notion that jackbooting in and ordering people around > is remotely legitimate (and, to be practical, has a chance to work). > There is a small number of users, always the same, who regularly attempt > to push an agenda of lax copyright standards for Commons; when this fails > they try to impose their proposed policies by drumming up support from > people with vested interests from other projects, and notorious > authoritarians. Has anybody ever seen an influx of Commonists flocking to > wp.he to "treat it as a problem"? > > That is where the real problem is. The issue is not hosting these media, > they can be hosted locally on the projects that use them as > "Free-but-not-on-Commons", or as "Fair use". The issue is beating Commons > into submission, as an aim in itself. Well, pardon us if we object. > > -- Rama > > > > > On 21 June 2014 19:19, Yann Forget <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Rama, >> >> Sorry, but you have it all wrong. >> >> 1. Wikimedia is a repository for other Wikimedia projects. It is its >> primary mission. >> >> 2. But this does not make Commons contributors second-class. On the >> opposite, importing and managing files for other projects make them >> first-class IMHO. ;oD >> >> Yann >> >> >> 2014-06-21 10:04 GMT+05:30 Rama Neko <[email protected]>: >> > Commons is not there to serve other projects. Commons is a project of >> its >> > own standing, and the other projects are there to serve it just as much >> as >> > it is there to serve other projects. >> > >> > It is really dispiriting to see how certain people see Commonists as >> some >> > sort of second-class contributors. That is wrong in every sense of the >> word >> > -- it is an error and an injustice. >> > -- Rama >> > >> > >> > >> > On 20 June 2014 23:45, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> I've noted before: If Commons doesn't want to be regarded as a problem >> >> by other projects, it really needs to start behaving less like one. >> >> >> >> >> >> - d. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Commons-l mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Commons-l mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Commons-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Commons-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l > >
_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
