On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Lennart Guldbrandsson <wikihanni...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > After a long and tiring discussion on the Swedish Wikipedia Village Pump ( > http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bybrunnen#Wikimedialoggor_i_artiklar), > the logos of the Wikimedia Foundation projects have been deemed "unfree" > (since they are copyrighted) and have since been removed from the article > namespace, for example in links to the sister project, such as the template > linking to Commons: http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mall:Commons, but also the > article about Wikipedia itself has no logo ( > http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia). > > I have been in contact with Mike Godwin, and got the response that the > "unfree" logos can be used, as I had suspected. But a growing number of > Swedish Wikipedians felt that the Wikimedia Foundation shouldn't follow any > other rules than other organisations whose logos are copyrighted. The > argument was that we shouldn't use images that any third-party user cannot > use in the same fashion. > > The changes were implemented, although there was not a clear consensus to do > so. I myself was opposed to this, citing from several emails from Mike > Godwin. My viewpoint is that if we cannot even use our own logos in our own > articles, something is very wrong. I also argued that we will not gain > anything by removing these logos - as this is a non-issue for most ordinary > users of Wikipedia. > > Anyways, I just wanted to hear if anybody else have had encountered this > topic and how the matter was resolved. Is Swedish Wikipedia the first > language version to not include the Wikimedia Foundation's logos? Do any of > you find this discussion strange? Or are Swedish Wikipedia just ahead of the > curve? > > Best wishes, > > Lennart
This seems to me to be an extremely strange and unusual interpretation of the Foundation's policy on copyrighted images. I am not aware of anyone else having brought this up on other Wikis. That policy can be read by extremists to justify any practical policy between "please write down a good reason to use this" and "remove them all using the policy as a pretext". It has been intentionally misinterpreted at both extremes. It was not intended to be used to justify unreasonable behavior. This seems like unreasonable behavior, though I have no ability to read Swedish so I can't comment on the particulars there. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l