This post is fair use under the "I wanna" clause of US copyright law.

[reddragdiva]

• A skinny chick with a house on the front. No, no kid yet.

• Wikipedia game: Catfishing!

I'm a staunch defender of fair use on the English Wikipedia: talking about things requires being able to quote them, and that applies as much to images as to text.

To this end, I've been removing a lot of the ridiculous abuses. Orphaning and later deleting a lot of fair abuse — one screenshot is fair use, ten is taking the piss and "fair use" galleries violate copyright, not just policy — not to mention resizing. No, you don't need a 1500×1000 PNG for a 200×300 thumbnail. I need a bot to resize high-resolution fair abuse.

Today's grand missing the point was {{User no GFDL}}, whose text was: "This user would prefer not to use free images if there are better fair use ones available." And never mind little details like the Wikimedia Foundation licensing policy and mission statement. Here's the deletion discussion, before I came to my senses and zapped the horrible thing, the comment on my talk from its aggrieved creator and the ensuing deletion review.

Perhaps I should be sweeter and fluffier to people, but I find myself unable to rightly apprehend the confusion of ideas involved. How to get someone from there to here in less than geological time?

The above was to the other blog. We're so against fair use or with-permission images because what's fair use for Wikipedia is quite likely not to be for reusers down the line. And it propagandises free content, and we like that.