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: > >> > >> On 20 June 2014 22:28, Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> > Blocking because people do not agree with you is very much > antagonising. > >> > The > >> > intention is that Commons serves other projects so why is someone > >> > blocked > >> > when they make sure people take notice of what is happening at > Commons? > >> > I fins it is rather offensive all these !@#$%%. It gives the > impression > >> > that > >> > there is no conversation possible and that it has degenerated into a > >> > power > >> > play. > >> > >> > >> > >> 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
