Omegatron wrote: I don't think it can be broken up, and no, when you broke it up you missed the word "effort", which contextualises the whole statement. And those readings are your readings, not mine. I read your opinion on how it conflicts with itself. Since I don't see on what basis the statement can be pulled apart, I'm not sure how it can be described as self-contradictory. Did you happen to read the rest of my post? Steve block -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.10/651 - Release Date: 24/01/07 18:48

On 1/27/07, Omegatron <omegatron+wikienl(a)gmail.com> wrote: Most money is protected by copyright. -- geni

On 1/27/07, Omegatron <omegatron+wikienl(a)gmail.com> wrote: Yes, it is. Is there any reason you keep talking about this while involved in discussion with people who do not wish to remove all fair use content (i.e. everyone currently active at [[WT:FU]])? -- Robth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robth)

On 1/28/07, geni &lt;geniice(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: You seriously think this way? We should remove all quotations from Wikipedia unless they have been released under free licenses? Seriously? It most certainly does. You aren't part of it? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Walter#Say_no_to_fair_use<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Say_NO_to_Fair_Use.svg<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_no_fair_use< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_Janu… The fair use claim for rather a lot of those images is highly questionable You seriously think this way? > The whole concept behind fair use is the protection of free speech in the > > face of information-imprisoning copyright laws. > Not exactly and in any case there are other ways of doing it. Such as? Look at your examples. Half have "fair use" cases so weak it's You seriously think these images have no value in an encyclopedia? Seriously? You do realize that this is an encyclopedia, right? Are you actually interested in contributing to an encylopedia or are you just here to delete images?

On 1/28/07, geni &lt;geniice(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I asked "Should we remove all quotations from Wikipedia? Should we delete Wikiquote?" and you simply responded "There are many free quotations." Does this mean that you are in favor of removing all quotations from Wikipedia and Wikiquote unless they are free content? if not, what do you mean by that statement? 5 people is harldy a movement. So you are not part of this movement? You are in favor of the use of non-free images on Wikipedia? I know that the fair use claims are highly questionable. I suspect I You've certainly deleted a lot more of it... How does stealing Image:032806 francelaborprotests2.jpg produce a It doesn't. I said I was looking at file names only. That image should be replaced with a free one.

geni wrote: You could do that, but that would mean leaving out many of the juiciest ones used to describe modern society. :-) Ec

On 1/28/07, Ray Saintonge &lt;saintonge(a)telus.net&gt; wrote: Text quotations are legaly fairly safe under most legal systems. There are people around who want to go for the de option. At the present time their numbers are too small to be considered a movement. 1915 to 1917 however since the events took place in europe there is the posibilty for pics to still be under copyright. Talk to danny. Photos involveing that subject area are something he is rather good at. There are a couple of extra requirments on en (material must have been previously published for example. -- geni

On 1/28/07, Ray Saintonge &lt;saintonge(a)telus.net&gt; wrote: Then we are in agreement. This is the wording used on [[Wikipedia:Fair_use_criteria]], which I object to. But as long as the fair use content cannot be replaced with free content, the transitivity is a non-issue. We can't do anything about it. When legal, we *can* still use it to further our encyclopedia, though. I don't know much about Wikisource. They have their own comparison at <http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Wikisource_and_Project_Gutenberg> Rather, it is "not an infringement of copyright", or an "exception to copyright".

On 1/28/07, geni &lt;geniice(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Are you in favor of removing all non-free quotations from Wikipedia? Are you in favor of removing all non-free content from Wikipedia except the Wikimedia logos? I'm pretty sure it's because a lot of people are indifferent about replacing legal non-free images with free ones. Do you think that deleting huge amounts of such non-free content solves this problem? Does it cause the majority of deleted content to be replaced with free content? Does it improve the coverage, reliability, neutrality, or relevance of the encyclopedia? Does it improve the net usefulness of the encyclopedia to downstream users? On 1/29/07, Ray Saintonge &lt;saintonge(a)telus.net&gt; wrote: "Juiciness" is irrelevant. Modern society is not released under a free license and therefore must be immediately removed from our free <s>encyclopedia</s>! On 1/29/07, Matt R &lt;matt_crypto(a)yahoo.co.uk&gt; wrote: Yep. Why do you think it says that? Classic. I'm basing this concept of "primary and secondary goals" on the wording of the fair use policy page itself. The way the page is currently worded, writing a high-quality encyclopedia is a means to the end of creating free content. This is quite a silly notion, to me at least. These arguments that free content is our primary goal is like an argument that our primary goal is to be a wiki, because hey, it's right there in the title of the project, right? This is, of course, demonstrably false. The wiki/"anyone can edit" aspect of the project, while highly important, is regularly ignored when it doesn't serve the primary purpose of writing a high-quality encyclopedia and making it available to as many people as possible. The "wiki" in "Wikipedia" is a means to the end of writing a high-quality encyclopedia. The rationale is that breadth and quality will arise through the contributions of a great number of users. Unfortunately, allowing anyone to edit *anything* sometimes prevents high-quality articles from forming, so we block certain people from editing or (semi-)protect certain pages. The "free" in "free encyclopedia" is a means to the end of making that high-quality encyclopedia useful and accessible to as many people as possible. The rationale is that free content can be redistributed free of charge, and continually shared and improved by downstream users. Unfortunately, there is a lot of encyclopedic content that will never be released under a free license, and limiting ourselves to *only* free content would also limit the breadth, usefulness, and neutrality of our encyclopedia. So we allow non-free content whenever it is encyclopedic, legal and doesn't displace equivalent free content. I think you mean "It's fruitless to try to reach a consensus about the details of any particular policy when a small group of users have modified it to suit their ideals and are unwilling to compromise".

On 01/02/07, geni &lt;geniice(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Assume the context is the text being discussed in the article. - d.

On 2/1/07, geni &lt;geniice(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Yes, and the mechanism for it is called "fair use" under United States law. -Matt

On 2/1/07, geni &lt;geniice(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Overlooking it in this case, but I doubt you could claim all the textual quotations in Wikipedia fall under that rule (i.e. not enough to copyright or insufficient infringement to be tortuous). Given that some copyright lawsuits have been over very small amounts of copying, I wouldn't want to rely solely on de minimis for legality - fortunately, we don't have to. Furthermore, explicitly or implicitly, part of the 'de minimis' calculation is that the copying is so small as to have little difficulty in using the defense of fair use successfully. -Matt

On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 10:00:05PM -0500, Omegatron wrote: Every contributor has his own motives for contribution. I imagine the general function of wikipedia to most contributors--its place in their lives--is an outlet for creativity or constructive impulses. Users may also be motivated by the desire to have some record of particular viewpoints or topics, or may have a purely destructive purpose (though, of course, effort is made to keep those users away). The passing on of knowledge--teaching--seems to be valuable to those who have been devoted to their own education. Reciprocity no doubt inspires some contribution--readers aware of the free nature of the content will feel some indebtedness and be encouraged by the ease of adding whatever corrections or additions might present themselves. Others value community and the sense of *autonomous* collaboration which is so often lacking in centrally-managed creative endeavors (such as work). Many other motives could be ascribed to various groups or individuals. No "primary purpose" is going to give any *accurate* description of everyone or, probably, anyone--even those who would identify with some particular purpose. However, it is fairly certain--to me, anyway--that on the whole, the purpose of wikipedia is not in the product, but the process. I certainly agree with this (as much as I would prefer that free content replace non-free). I say, there's plenty of fruit for everyone.

On 26/01/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm &lt;macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Stating the entire situation in terms of possible bad effects is a bit misleading. I have friends who are researchers in the area of machine translation and yes, they say its not the best, but saying that a possible confusion is worse than nothing is a personal view on it. If they realise that half of the article was not translated well, but they gain something from the other half I would assume they got something out of it despite confusion. In saying that some confusion is worse than nothing you underestimate human abilities. Peter Ansell