If it is decided not to host these materials on a wiki, whether for copyright or any other reasons, then someone (either in the Office or a volunteer) should be designated to retain a copy privately. That way, he or she will be able to upload it later if the copyright status or policy changes in the future, or to make it available offline for research use or consultation by historians or other researchers who could make good use of it. Newyorkbrad/IBM On 1/11/17, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you for bringing this up, Yann. Some relevant context is that Meta > Wiki users considered permitting such files on Meta Wiki a year and a half > ago, and decided not to. The electorate was not very big (14 votes, total), > but it was carefully considered, with compelling arguments made on both > sides.[1] > > In my opinion, the best outcome would be that Meta Wiki should have an > Exemption Doctrine Policy (the board's name for a project's local policy > that would permit copyrighted files under specific circumstances)[2] I > think the Meta Wiki decision should be revisited and considered in more > depth, with more participation, and probably reversed (with some careful > work on defining the proper circumstances for an exemption). > > But of course, that's not an easy task. I have no ready answer, but am > interested to see what ideas others have. > -Pete > [[User:Peteforsyth]] > > [1] > https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Babel&diff=prev&o… > [2] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Yann Forget <yannfo(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I would like to get more opinions about what to do with files such as >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Education_and_WGIG.pdf >> >> This is a draft from a United Nations conference which mentions Wikipedia >> (the first and only AFAIK), and as such, an important historical document. >> >> It doesn't have a formal license, but there is no real copyright issue. >> >> Where and how should we keep such files? >> >> Regards, >> >> Yann Forget

Fæ, Surely no grant-giving body would even talk to the Foundation if it could not show them a plan for the medium to long term. For some reason, the Foundation is consistently unwilling to share this plan with the Community (its biggest donor in terms both of money and surplus value). I wonder why that would be? "Rogol" On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Fæ &lt;faewik(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Meta both policy more careful allowing_or_rejecting_fair_ wrote: issue. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Gerard, (big snip) "Rogol" On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 6:38 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Hoi, You are not answering the question. You are only producing arguments that may be meaningful to you but they do not explain why you are interested and what you do to affect what you aim to achieve. IMHO it is important for the WMF to concentrate on what it is that we do. Make it more relevant in every possible way. When you ask for overarching vision, I want the WMF to explain why Wikisource does not get its audience? I want us to engage more in bringing quality to Wikipedia and it is not theoretical what I propose I have challenged anyone to refute my arguments about associating red links and wiki links with Wikidata items and how it will improve quality. My point is; I want substance. I want us to concentrate on the things that help us to "share in the sum of all knowledge". For me your demands take time and more importantly energy away from the real questions. We should start with "share in the sum of our available knowledge" because this is achievable and we do not really consider it. I refer to your user page when I say that you are not involved. So you make no difference but demand attention. We have better things to do things that do not get done either. Please let us concentrate on what we can do to make a meaningful effort and let us consider the issues as we know them. Seriously better quality to Wikipedia requires a small change that nobody needs to see, that people can opt in to and the people that do will improve the quality in all Wikipedias. Again, I challenge anyone to show where my arguments fail reality. Thanks, GerardM On 13 January 2017 at 23:34, Rogol Domedonfors &lt;domedonfors(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: only In such of went any going with problem vision it value). for Office That who on local in historical copyright https://meta.wikimedia.org/ unsubscribe> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Fæ, Surely no grant-giving body would even talk to the Foundation if it could not show them a plan for the medium to long term.

That completely defeats the point. Anyone can keep a copy locally, but 1. the file isn't available publicly, 2. nobody really knows where it is available (Google won't say X has a copy), 3. if the local storage is damaged, the file is lost. So I am asking the WMF to have a place to keep such files publicly.