On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:28 PM, Victor Vasiliev <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Michael Snow <[email protected]> wrote: >> Having said that, the Wikimedia projects are intended to be educational >> in nature, and there is no place in the projects for material that has >> no educational or informational value. > > I'd like to point out that we already have a project where most > information has no educational value. It's called Wikisource and > materials there are primarily of artistic value, not educational or > information one. Since I basically support the idea that one of > Wikimedia Commons aims is to collect as much notable works of art as > possible, I view it as a Wikisource for visual arts and music.
Just in case anyone is seriously considering nixing any project which is not "educational", let me point out that Wikisource does have a lot of educational content. e.g. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/EB1911 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/DNB http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Copyright_law > Should we expect Wikisource to be cleaned up as well? Does Foundation > feel need to host such highly disputed works as [1] or [2]? [1] http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lady_Chatterley's_Lover [2] http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Fanny_Hill:_Memoirs_of_a_Woman_of_Pleasure or: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catullus_16 (this was/is our 32st most viewed page) perhaps we should also remove the translation from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catullus_16 -- John Vandenberg _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
