I want the
images. Those who took the images WANT us to use them
(provided we reference them). Readers want the images. Mirrors of
Wikipedia want the images. The copyright laws are stupid. GFDL is
stupid. And the right way to get stupid laws changed is not to obey
them.
Not obeying stupid laws doesn't get them changed; it bankrupts the
violator from court costs and penalties.
Be reasonable.
It's easy to be "reasonable" when it's someone else you are driving
into bankruptcy on your whim.
And not realizing that flagrant violations of the law will not result
in widespread freedom, but rather the complete disappearance of
Wikipedia is not reasonable, it is ... well, to use your word: stupid.
Your argument fails on that noone has yet figured out whether
including Fair Use content in Wikipedia is illegal or not.
The whole argument seems to be based on the assertion that someone
someday will copy Wikipedia content that includes copyrighted Fair Use
material (i.e. a photo of Stalin). Put that content in a context in
which it is no longer Fair Use. Then whoever owns the copyright, who of
some reason has not already sued all other companies who has
distributed content in which that photo of Stalin appears, will sue
the downstream user. Who in turn will claim that they relied on WP's
promise that all content is GFDL. Then the court will decide that WP
not only has to remove all fair use images but also that they have to
pay lots of money to the suer. IANAL...
BL