On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The problem is the behavior of a certain core set of
Commons admins; time
and time and time again we have it reported here, we see it on Commons.
While not lawyers, they attempt to be extraordinarily demanding when it
comes to "legal" accuracy. Far more than the actual WMF lawyers have
required, incidentally.
Yes, agreed. Deletion is frequently applied in an overzealous manner
based on arbitrary interpretations and lack of nuance. It would be
appropriate to more frequently apply tags like {{Disputed}} and to
rely more on social contact to resolve incomplete metadata, rather
than aggressively purging content in the fear that a single byte of
potentially non-free content may infect the repository.
It is correct that I proposed Commons as a repository of freely
re-usable media -- indeed, that is a key characteristic which
distinguishes it from other sites and services, as others have pointed
out. I think it's absolutely crucial to maintain that aspect of its
identity. I worry that the creation of any kind of non-free repository
would dramatically alter the incentive structure for contributing to
our projects. Especially when negotiating releases of large
collections, it will be much harder to argue for free licensing if it
becomes trivial to upload and re-use non-free files.
But maintaining that commitment requires that we also maintain a
capacity for nuance in how we enforce it, or we turn into a club of
zealots nobody wants to be part of rather than being effective
advocates for our cause. That includes understanding that some
situations in international copyright law are ambiguous and
unresolved, that some files may present a minimal level of risk and
can reasonably be kept unless someone complains, and that copyright on
all bits that make up a work can be difficult to trace, identify and
document comprehensively and consistently. Moreover, it should include
(in policy and application) an emphasis on communication and
education, rather than deletion and confrontation.
In that way, the problems in the application of Commons policy are not
that different from the problems in the application of policy on
Wikipedia. It's just that Wikipedians who are used to operating under
the regime of Wikipedia's policies frequently get upset when they are
subjected to an entirely different regime. Their experience is not
that different from that of a new user whose article gets speedied
because the source cited to establish its notability doesn't quite
cross the threshold applied by an admin.
In my view, it would be appropriate for WMF to take a more active role
not in the decision-making itself, but in the training of and support
for administrators and other functionaries to ensure that we apply
policy rationally, in a manner that's civil and welcoming. That goes
for these types of deletion decisions just as much as for civility and
other standards of conduct. WMF is now organizationally in a position
where it could resource the consensus-driven development of training
modules for admins across projects to create a more welcoming,
rational environment - on Commons and elsewhere.
Erik