I don't quite know what it means to say that the more Commons is used by other projects the more it becomes a service project (*), but it certainly make its responsibility heavier for stating that a document is under a Free licence. Hence the more Commons is used, the more rigourous it should be. -- Rama
(*) Wikipedia is more and more used as a quick reference in society; should it make it more subordinate to the interests of governments and corporations? On 27 June 2014 08:14, Yann Forget <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > 2014-06-25 0:54 GMT+05:30 Rama Neko <[email protected]>: > > The question of deleted images on Commons is exactly isomorphic to the >> various Wikipedias refusing to host copy-pasted material taken from Cthulhu >> knows where. And I have never heard anybody suggest that Wikipedia would be >> more "reliable" is it accepted such material. I fail to see why it should >> be otherwise when Commons is concerned. >> >> Oh and David Gerard, would you please stop your two-pence Darth Vader >> act? "Ksshhh Ksshhh, doesn't want to be regarded as a problem, Kssshhh, it >> needs to behave less like one, Kssshhh ksshhh". Seriously, it's embarassing. >> -- Rama >> > > Rama, yes, it is embarrassing, when an admin like you behave like this. > > On 24 June 2014 18:36, Gnangarra <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Commons isnt damaged that needs to be routed around, the laws are an ass >>> and problems will follow where ever, except to maybe a handful of countries >>> who don't give a fluffy duck about copyright. >>> >>> the problem is communication between projects, thats fixable. >>> >> > Mainly, yes. > > Yann > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
