The follow-up mail to the previous one. Again please cc him on replies. Bishakha
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sankar Viswanathan <[email protected]> Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 10:36 PM Subject: Re: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mahasaraswati.jpg To: Bishakha Datta <[email protected]> Thank you, Bishaka. Posting to the India list would be ideal. But I do not know how to do it. Sankar Service to Humanity is Service to God > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Sankar Viswanathan <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> Hello Bishaka, >> >> Thank you for your response to my mail. >> >> The discussion is still going on. But the dice is loaded in favor of >> deletion. >> >> There are certain points which were raised in the discussion. >> >> Wikipedia is paranoid about Copyright. Of course this is a result of the >> U.S law and any number of cases. There was a time when any image available >> on the web was accptable to Wikippedia. I think they had some problems then. >> Of course there are some people who take delight in Deletion. Kind of a >> sadism. >> >> <<So to keep such images in Commons, either Indian government or Commons >> needs to have a policy addressing all pictures for which original authorship >> is unknown, or at the least about paintings of God which is widely >> available. Until then, we can either assume good faith and keep this image >> or start a new mass DR for all the images in the category Hindu deities.>> >> >> Indian government will not do anything. But Wiki Commons can do something. >> Another thing which is surprising is there is no assumption of Good faith. I >> am a volunteer. How do I benefit by the uploading of the image? Actually >> most volunteers like me do end up by spending money, because my internet >> connection is not free. I do not use an internet connection provided by any >> organization. This atitude of "there is no assumption of Good faith" will >> put off many people. >> >> I can not imagine anybody from India suing Wikipedia over an obscure >> painting in a temple. >> >> Now they are quoting the U.K law on which the Indian law is modelled to >> say that Wall paintings are not covered. This would effectively stop upload >> of many of the paintings in temples. >> >> But in India in a public temple, the installed idol itself is held to be >> the temple’s legal owner, and the beneficiaries—those to whom the endowment >> is dedicated --—are the general public. Does this change the position? I >> wonder. I have posted this. >> >> I am having another problem with this image. There is one person called >> Pebble101 who is bent on deleting this image from the article.He deleteds it >> time and again for no reason. He could be the author of the last unsigned >> remark on the deletion page. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saraswati&action=history >> >> The problem is there is nothing I can do. When I had such problems earlier >> I was asked to go for Arbitration. >> >> I thought I had to share my concerns with some one. >> >> Thank you. >> >> Sankar >> >> Service to Humanity is Service to God >> > >
_______________________________________________ Wikimediaindia-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
