On Sun, 2 Mar 2014, Mark wrote:
On 3/2/14, 5:31 PM, Chris McKenna wrote:
There seems to be a disconnect between what
Commons sees as it's
mission: To be a repository of Free media; and what other projects see
as Commons' mission: To be a repository of media for use on Wikimedia
projects.
But since the other Wikimedia projects should be producing free-content
encyclopedias, this is no disconnect: Commons should host Free media,
and the other projects should include Free media. Otherwise the other
projects' content cannot be reused externally, and they are not
free-content encyclopedias.
You've missed the point. Commons is not at present a reliable source of
media, Free or otherwise, because media gets deleted because once someone
alleges that it is not free it gets deleted if the original uploader
cannot prove it is free, regardless of the merits of the allegation.
The Foundation has said "do not delete images that *might* be unfree
under URAA unless there is a takedown notice" yet the images continue to
be deleted.
There is a further disconnect in that Commons is
taking an
increasingly ultra-conservative approach to the definition of "Free",
whereas most other projects are working to a definition of "Free for
all practical purposes". It is the latter interpretation that the
board, in consultation with the legal team, are recommending as the
way forward but is being resisted strongly by many on Commons.
This is more the
crux of the issue, I think. I'm mostly familiar with
en.wiki, but on there the definition swings pretty far to the opposite
extreme, with a lot of content that is *not* Free for most practical
purposes. For example, a large number of our articles on 20th-century
artists cannot be legally republished in their home countries, or even
other English-speaking countries, without stripping the images, due to
the author having died less than 70 years ago. As a result, the
illustrated version of en.wiki is effectively Free only for *American*
reusers specifically; someone in the UK or Spain cannot legally
republish [[en:Pablo Picasso]].
This is entirely irrelevant to the attitude at Commons. English Wikipedia
is Free according to the definition it uses, which is essentally "Free for
practical purposes as an Encyclopaedia" and that is applied reliably. In
contrast, Commons is arbitrarily and inconsistently Free and appears to be
prioritising point making over being a practical media repository. You are
free to disagree about en.wp's choices, but this does not excuse the
attitude of Commons to the Wikimedia community.
----
Chris McKenna
cmckenna(a)sucs.org
www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes,
but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery