User:Josve05a/Scope and Copyright

A Deletionist for Copyright, an Inclusionist for Scope

On Wikimedia Commons, contributors often find themselves navigating two major kinds of boundaries: legal ones (such as copyright) and community-defined ones (like project scope). These are not the same, and treating them as if they were can hinder what Commons is meant to be: a rich, freely usable repository of educational media.

I describe myself as a deletionist when it comes to copyright issues, but an inclusionist when it comes to scope. That might sound contradictory, but for me, it’s a necessary and practical distinction.

Copyright: A hard line

When it comes to copyright, I believe in strict adherence to both the letter and the spirit of the law. Commons can only function if it remains a genuinely free content repository. Files that do not meet our licensing standards should not be hosted here. This includes:

• Files with unclear or unverifiable provenance
• Works that rely on fair use or local educational exceptions (which Commons does not permit)
• Images of modern art or architecture where freedom of panorama does not apply

No amount of usefulness or aesthetic value can compensate for missing or invalid licensing. If the legal foundation is uncertain, the project itself is put at risk. In these cases, I support deletion.

Scope: A wide tent

Scope is a different matter entirely.

I am an inclusionist when it comes to determining whether a file fits within Commons' educational mission. I believe we should allow contributions that may seem obscure, hyperlocal, or rarely used. The educational value of a file is not always obvious at first. A little-viewed photo today may become an essential historical document in the future.

I have seen deletion nominations for files such as:

• A 1990s town council signboard from a small Polish village
• Screenshots of outdated software interfaces
• Low-resolution scans of rare, out-of-print pamphlets

These might be questioned for not serving a realistic educational purpose. But I often vote to keep them, not because they are clearly valuable now, but because potential value is not always predictable.

Why treat them differently?

Because copyright and scope are fundamentally different kinds of issues. One concerns legal compliance and long-term sustainability. The other is based on editorial judgment and future potential.

When we treat them the same, when deletionist logic is applied equally to both, we risk cutting off the richness and depth that make Commons special. But if we ignore copyright requirements, we threaten the legal integrity of the entire project and do a disservice to our re-users.

In closing

So yes, I will delete a stunning image for deletion if its copyright status is questionable. And yes, I will decide to keep a grainy photograph of a street sign if someone claims it may have an obscure educational purpose.

Commons should be both legally sound and educationally open. That combination is not a contradiction. It is a principle worth standing by.