User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-5442547-20130319195443/@comment-188432-20130331214706

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-5442547-20130319195443/@comment-188432-20130331214706 Thanks for the apology, OS.

I disagree with you that there is some relationship between the number of pictures on a page, and the degree to which a page is cared for. Given the graphical elements already on the page, there's not enough content to actually require additional images. Not given the fact that that there's already the graphical element of the infobox, and that the article is fairly brief. The page looks fine without images, especially given the work that would be required to allow images.

I know you don't really understand the licensing situation. And that's fine. You don't have to, because you're not an admin and you have no duty of care over the wiki. That's not to say that you don't care about the wiki—obviously you do—but you don't have to worry about how various details work.

I don't feel like I have that luxury though. It's very important to me that pictures be licensed honestly, and I don't feel like it is even possible to license these images correctly. And, given the difficulties with, I'm not particularly convinced that any sort of would go unabused.

I know you feel differently. I know you really want to put these pictures up. I know you see an unillustrated page and you feel like you're a bull being flashed a red cape. But, really, honestly, no. On balance, administratively, it is just easier to say no to DIT pics. And that is what I'm doing now.