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