-- [[en:User:Dschwen]] [[de:Benutzer:Dschwen]] [[commons:User:Dschwen]] ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 16:47:50 +0000 (GMT) From: Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Foundation-l] Racism in Commons To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.64.0712051633340.22126@silver.sucs.org Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Daniel Schwen wrote: > We sould apply the same standards to the holocaust-denial cartoons as we do to > the mohammed cartoons. That means showing them as a fair use version, and > thus due to licensing issues not on commons but on wikipedia, where they are > used in an appropriate context accompanied by a critical discussion. I'm a little out of date with the fair use policy on en.wp (and don't know the policy on other wps), but as I understand it, if there is a Free version available (which if the image was on commons I presume their must be) then the view is that (Wikipedia/the Foundation) cannot claim fair use. If I am correct in this, then if the images have encyclopaedic merit and projects want to inlcudem them, they need to be hosted on Commons. In my opinion, we should not be censoring the Commons or applying double standards to any content by removing material that is offensive to one group of people and not removing content that is offensive to another group of people. Almost every image of a person stands a good chance of offending somebody somewhere, so we should either delete all the images depicting humans or drawings of humans and anything else that offends people or we should allow the inclusion of everything that meets the Commons' inclusion policy (basically, anything useful for a Wikimedia project that can be legally hosted by Commons). Either directly or via the "disclaimers" or "About Wikimedia Commons" links at the bottom of every page, we should make it clear though that Commons is not censored and contains content that may offend. It should also make clear that we do not encourage or support racism, sexism, religious or any other form of discrimination, but that as such discriminations exist, Commons may contain images that depicts them. Chris -- Chris McKenna cmckenna@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 ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:29:33 +0000 From: "Oldak Quill" oldakquill@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Foundation-l] Racism in Commons To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 54f6f2050712050929o317be9f2l20f859e9cd7e66bf@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 05/12/2007, Rama Rama ramaneko@gmail.com wrote: > 3) Not all Jews are Israelis, and not all Israelis are Jewish. Neither all > Israelis nor all Jews agree with the policies of Ariel Sharon. Criticism of > a policy, however disgraceful it is, does not amount to racism. That there > are groups determined to identify any criticism of the Israeli government > with antisemitism does not imply that such attacks should be tolerated on a > mailing list unrelated to Middle East politics. People who equate Israelis to Jews, Jews to Israelis, and claim that the leader of Israel is the leader of the Jewish people are Zionists. Zionists are themselves racist (the very notion of a racial state (i.e. Israel) is racist) and there are many Jews who oppose Zionism. Zionists often accuse any opponent of Israel as being anti-Semites (a very powerful, emotive term). We shouldn't let the emotion of this term interfere with rational discussion about political cartoons. -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com) ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:32:51 +0100 From: Platonides Platonides@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Commons-l] [Foundation-l] Requirements for a strong copyleft license To: commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: cc-licenses@lists.ibiblio.org Message-ID: fj75e3$72p$1@ger.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Daniel Kinzler wrote: > Brianna Laugher wrote: > [...] >> After rereading the CC-BY legal code it does appear you (and others >> who made this point) are correct, and I was quite mistaken about the >> strength of the CC-BY license. >> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode >> "You may Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work only under the terms >> of this License." >> >> Indeed it seems CC-BY is already the "weak copyleft" I was thinking >> CC-BY-SA is... CC-BY is much stronger than I realised. I thought CC-BY >> just meant "include a byline with my name". > > No it isn't, there is one important difference: derivative work, i.e. modified > versions. Again, compare to the LGPL: modified versions must be distributed > under the same license (though larger works which use/incorporate clearly > demarked LGPL components do not). This is not true for CC-BY: if i make a > derivative of a CC-BY work, I have to attribute the author, but i can license my > version under whatever conditions i like. That's not weak copyleft, that's no > copyleft at all. I like that concaption. However, as simple it is to differenciate when it's a text/image issue, what happens when the modified version is also an image, but breader. Eg. the virgin case. Is that a composition of your photo with the text and background (it would have been composed in layers) or simply a derivative work? The LGPL doesn't either define the difference. Daniel Kinzler wrote: > something like "CC-BY-SA/commons-mod". Don't call it so. People would start confusing it with Cc-by-sa. Maybe CC-BY-LSA (Less Share-Alike) following LGPL sample? ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 18:48:43 -0300 From: "Gizmo II" nahuel.gizmo@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Foundation-l] Racism in Commons To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: ce2adba40712051348j2cb9b6cep3d18f7f1f9820023@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" On Dec 5, 2007 12:41 PM, Santiago Becerra Carrillo sanbec@gmail.com wrote: > Estoy totalmente en contra de la eliminaci?n de la secci?n ?Cartoons? del > art?culo de Ariel Sharon. Calificar esas vi?etas de racistas es tergiversar. > ?Acaso no se se puede criticar a un pol?tico israel?? ?Si en vez de Sharon > fuera Sarkozy, Zapatero o Bush alguien hablar?a de racismo? > > Lo sucedido en este caso es simplemente una censura absolutamente > contraria al NPOV. > > Este cambio http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ariel_Sharon&diff=8840593... > me parece muy desafortunado > > La versi?n > http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ariel_Sharon&oldid=884058... recuperarse > > Sanbec > > No puedo dejar de estar de acuerdo con Sanbec, esta paranoia persecutoria y la man?a que tiene la fundaci?n de querer quedar bien con todo el mundo ya se va tornando irrisoria. Las historietas son lo que son, historietas. ?Desde cu?ndo se pide que ?stas sean pol?ticamente correctas? (siempre cre? que la sola idea era lo contrario). Creo que las im?genes deber?an dejarse junto a un comentario como "historietas/im?genes anti-Sharon" o "que representan a Sharon negativamente". Rama: Pedro have already said it, Commons is multilingual, "the place where all wikis collide". This is not en.wiki mailing list. -- Gizmo http://imperiogremlin.blogspot.com