I think that one of our sister projects, the English Wikipedia, is feeling a little ill and needs some help.
There is a vote going on about for a proposal which would dramatically increase the amount of Fair Use Image permitted by policy in the English Wikipedia. I'm not asking anyone here to go stack the poll, especially since the poll count won't matter anyways.
I'm asking you to step in and help some of our newer contributors understand [[Free content]].
Jimbo has already commented on the proposal:
"This is horrifyingly bad proposal which would reverse one of the healthiest trends in the history of Wikipedia at the very moment when major successes are being had every single day. We should NOT rely on promotional images under unclear license conditions for a number of reasons. First, we are powerful enough now to demand, and get, freely licensed promotional images. This proposal undermines our credibility in making such demands. Second, we undercut all the flickr-types who are very very happily trying to create freely licensed alternatives. Many photographers report that it is a lot of fun to see an article improve from no picture, to *their* picture (freely licensed), and disheartening when people whine about not being able to use the professional photo, licensing be damned.
I very very strongly oppose this proposal.--Jimbo Wales 21:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)"
To an extent this proposal is a reaction to some of the more recent attempts to reduce the amount of excessive non-free material in enwiki... but I fear the greater cause of this is the massive influx enwiki has had over the last year.
These new users are familiar with sites like YouTube and MySpace and the rampant copyright violations all over them, many started their involvement with computers with things like Napster. They have a very expansive idea of what Fair Use is which is inconsistent with the law. This gives me great hope for the future of fair use law, but great fear for the future of English Wikipedia.
They have learned wiki-ways much faster than they have learned of the importance of Free content and I fear that if we do not educate them now we will suffer an [[Eternal September]].
A failure of our most largest and prominent community to maintain a commitment to truly free content, I fear, will not be contained to just one project.
And example of this problem can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Elimination_of_Fair_Use_Rational...
In the post below we see a newish (July 2006) user claim that the discouragement to use fair use is a totally new event and, well, also an evil plan by Jwales to line his pockets with money!
I'm asking here because: * Of all the foundation projects, I think commons has the densest concentration of active english speakers who truly understand and care about Free Content. * The character of the enwiki community does have a big influence on us at commons.. They provide us with users, they are our customers, and more than any other single group, they pick the board of the Wikimedia Foundation.
So please, take a look at the threads.. Find some people who are confused. Engage them in discussion, on the talk page I've linked above.. or on their user talks.
Thank you in advance for your time and help, [[commons:User:Gmaxwell]]
On 25/12/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
I think that one of our sister projects, the English Wikipedia, is feeling a little ill and needs some help.
There is a vote going on about for a proposal which would dramatically increase the amount of Fair Use Image permitted by policy in the English Wikipedia. I'm not asking anyone here to go stack the poll, especially since the poll count won't matter anyways.
I'm asking you to step in and help some of our newer contributors understand [[Free content]].
Jimbo has already commented on the proposal:
"This is horrifyingly bad proposal which would reverse one of the healthiest trends in the history of Wikipedia at the very moment when major successes are being had every single day. We should NOT rely on promotional images under unclear license conditions for a number of reasons. First, we are powerful enough now to demand, and get, freely licensed promotional images. This proposal undermines our credibility in making such demands. Second, we undercut all the flickr-types who are very very happily trying to create freely licensed alternatives. Many photographers report that it is a lot of fun to see an article improve from no picture, to *their* picture (freely licensed), and disheartening when people whine about not being able to use the professional photo, licensing be damned.
I very very strongly oppose this proposal.--Jimbo Wales 21:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)"
To an extent this proposal is a reaction to some of the more recent attempts to reduce the amount of excessive non-free material in enwiki... but I fear the greater cause of this is the massive influx enwiki has had over the last year.
These new users are familiar with sites like YouTube and MySpace and the rampant copyright violations all over them, many started their involvement with computers with things like Napster. They have a very expansive idea of what Fair Use is which is inconsistent with the law. This gives me great hope for the future of fair use law, but great fear for the future of English Wikipedia.
They have learned wiki-ways much faster than they have learned of the importance of Free content and I fear that if we do not educate them now we will suffer an [[Eternal September]].
A failure of our most largest and prominent community to maintain a commitment to truly free content, I fear, will not be contained to just one project.
And example of this problem can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Elimination_of_Fair_Use_Rational...
In the post below we see a newish (July 2006) user claim that the discouragement to use fair use is a totally new event and, well, also an evil plan by Jwales to line his pockets with money!
I'm asking here because:
- Of all the foundation projects, I think commons has the densest
concentration of active english speakers who truly understand and care about Free Content.
- The character of the enwiki community does have a big influence on
us at commons.. They provide us with users, they are our customers, and more than any other single group, they pick the board of the Wikimedia Foundation.
So please, take a look at the threads.. Find some people who are confused. Engage them in discussion, on the talk page I've linked above.. or on their user talks.
Thank you in advance for your time and help, [[commons:User:Gmaxwell]]
Thanks for dropping the note - I have only been content-editing on Wikipedia recently and had missed it.
"This is horrifyingly bad proposal which would reverse one of the healthiest trends in the history of Wikipedia at the very moment when major successes are being had every single day. We should NOT rely on promotional images under unclear license conditions for a number of reasons. First, we are powerful enough now to demand, and get, freely licensed promotional images. This proposal undermines our credibility in making such demands. Second, we undercut all the flickr-types who are very very happily trying to create freely licensed alternatives. Many photographers report that it is a lot of fun to see an article improve from no picture, to *their* picture (freely licensed), and disheartening when people whine about not being able to use the professional photo, licensing be damned.
I very very strongly oppose this proposal.--Jimbo Wales 21:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)"
what i don't understand is why he hasn't just veto'd it already, its quite within his power to do so.
On 25/12/06, peter green plugwash@p10link.net wrote:
what i don't understand is why he hasn't just veto'd it already, its quite within his power to do so.
Although I oppose the proposal, I'm glad he hasn't. Although the issue is important, it isn't crucial so should be entirely up the community to decide.
Jimbo has been taking steps away from his "God King" image to the benefit of the project and the community. I admire him for this and it shows the robustness of Wikimedia as a model.
On 25/12/06, peter green plugwash@p10link.net wrote:
"This is horrifyingly bad proposal which would reverse one of the I very very strongly oppose this proposal.--Jimbo Wales 21:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)"
what i don't understand is why he hasn't just veto'd it already, its quite within his power to do so.
Because he increases his power by not using it ;-)
- d.
On 25/12/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/12/06, peter green plugwash@p10link.net wrote:
"This is horrifyingly bad proposal which would reverse one of the I very very strongly oppose this proposal.--Jimbo Wales 21:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)"
what i don't understand is why he hasn't just veto'd it already, its quite within his power to do so.
Because he increases his power by not using it ;-)
- d.
He just vitoed it now, despite it heading toward seeming non-concensus.
-----Original Message----- From: commons-l-bounces@wikimedia.org [mailto:commons-l-bounces@wikimedia.org]On Behalf Of Oldak Quill Sent: 26 December 2006 02:58 To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List Subject: Re: [Commons-l] English Wikipedia needs some help.
On 25/12/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/12/06, peter green plugwash@p10link.net wrote:
"This is horrifyingly bad proposal which would reverse one of the I very very strongly oppose this proposal.--Jimbo Wales 21:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)"
what i don't understand is why he hasn't just veto'd it
already, its quite within his power to do so.
Because he increases his power by not using it ;-)
- d.
He just vitoed it now, despite it heading toward seeming non-concensus.
that makes sense, he wanted to see if the community would make the right descision on thier own but when they couldn't reach a descision he used his god king authority to stand up for the values of the project.
On 12/26/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
He just vitoed it now, despite it heading toward seeming non-concensus.
And suggesting more stuff at Wikipedia talk:fair use (now 566 kilobytes long). Pitty we were getting some people who are not normaly invovled in the debate.
Thanks Greg, I missed it as well.
In fact, the Tool photo listed is the perfect example of this "I want the pretty studio photo" mentality gone awry. There's a plethora of images in he article already (almost all entirely fair use as well) yet they have to have this one for whatever reason despite it being prohibited by the owner of the image from their website (which I now added to it). Either that or it's pretty and it has the one band member wearing an apron with painted mail genetalia, can't forget the importance of that either.
--Guy
On Dec 25, 2006, at 6:27 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I think that one of our sister projects, the English Wikipedia, is feeling a little ill and needs some help.
There is a vote going on about for a proposal which would dramatically increase the amount of Fair Use Image permitted by policy in the English Wikipedia. I'm not asking anyone here to go stack the poll, especially since the poll count won't matter anyways.
I'm asking you to step in and help some of our newer contributors understand [[Free content]].
Jimbo has already commented on the proposal:
"This is horrifyingly bad proposal which would reverse one of the healthiest trends in the history of Wikipedia at the very moment when major successes are being had every single day. We should NOT rely on promotional images under unclear license conditions for a number of reasons. First, we are powerful enough now to demand, and get, freely licensed promotional images. This proposal undermines our credibility in making such demands. Second, we undercut all the flickr-types who are very very happily trying to create freely licensed alternatives. Many photographers report that it is a lot of fun to see an article improve from no picture, to *their* picture (freely licensed), and disheartening when people whine about not being able to use the professional photo, licensing be damned.
I very very strongly oppose this proposal.--Jimbo Wales 21:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)"
To an extent this proposal is a reaction to some of the more recent attempts to reduce the amount of excessive non-free material in enwiki... but I fear the greater cause of this is the massive influx enwiki has had over the last year.
These new users are familiar with sites like YouTube and MySpace and the rampant copyright violations all over them, many started their involvement with computers with things like Napster. They have a very expansive idea of what Fair Use is which is inconsistent with the law. This gives me great hope for the future of fair use law, but great fear for the future of English Wikipedia.
They have learned wiki-ways much faster than they have learned of the importance of Free content and I fear that if we do not educate them now we will suffer an [[Eternal September]].
A failure of our most largest and prominent community to maintain a commitment to truly free content, I fear, will not be contained to just one project.
And example of this problem can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia_talk:Elimination_of_Fair_Use_Rationale_in_Promotional_Photos /Vote#The_heart_of_the_matter
In the post below we see a newish (July 2006) user claim that the discouragement to use fair use is a totally new event and, well, also an evil plan by Jwales to line his pockets with money!
I'm asking here because:
- Of all the foundation projects, I think commons has the densest
concentration of active english speakers who truly understand and care about Free Content.
- The character of the enwiki community does have a big influence on
us at commons.. They provide us with users, they are our customers, and more than any other single group, they pick the board of the Wikimedia Foundation.
So please, take a look at the threads.. Find some people who are confused. Engage them in discussion, on the talk page I've linked above.. or on their user talks.
Thank you in advance for your time and help, [[commons:User:Gmaxwell]] _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
I added my "vote"
What we could really use is some kind of prominently linked page with an introduction to the whole idea of free content, and _why_ Wikimedia projects are free content. Bear in mind that for a vast number of users, Wikipedia will be the first free content project they have met. The en.wp article [[free content]] is often used for this purpose, but it isn't exactly ideal and a page out the main namespace would certainly be better. [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] gives a reasonable explanation of the rules, but does little to explain why they exist, and why they are a part of our mission.
the wub
On 25/12/06, the wub thewub.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
What we could really use is some kind of prominently linked page with an introduction to the whole idea of free content, and _why_ Wikimedia projects are free content. Bear in mind that for a vast number of users, Wikipedia will be the first free content project they have met. The en.wp article [[free content]] is often used for this purpose, but it isn't exactly ideal
In fact, it's really terrible ...
and a page out the main namespace would certainly be better. [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] gives a reasonable explanation of the rules, but does little to explain why they exist, and why they are a part of our mission.
Yes. We need one. I think the job just found you ;-D
- d.
On 26/12/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. We need one. I think the job just found you ;-D
Well, I guess this means I've failed in my attempt at a wikibreak _again_ Though via the mailing list is a novelty for me :-) I'll try and work something up over the next few days, but don't let that stop anyone else. I was thinking [[Wikipedia:Freedom]] as a catchy and suitable title.
the wub
On 12/25/06, the wub thewub.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
I added my "vote"
What we could really use is some kind of prominently linked page with an introduction to the whole idea of free content, and _why_ Wikimedia projects are free content. Bear in mind that for a vast number of users, Wikipedia will be the first free content project they have met. The en.wp article [[free content]] is often used for this purpose, but it isn't exactly ideal and a page out the main namespace would certainly be better. [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] gives a reasonable explanation of the rules, but does little to explain why they exist, and why they are a part of our mission.
the wub
It goes further than that. Until very recently it was: Welcome to wikipedia the one "web 2.0" project that gives a damn about copyright.
On 26/12/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
It goes further than that. Until very recently it was: Welcome to wikipedia the one "web 2.0" project that gives a damn about copyright.
That's the perfect intro.
- d.
On 12/25/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/12/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
It goes further than that. Until very recently it was: Welcome to wikipedia the one "web 2.0" project that gives a damn about copyright.
That's the perfect intro.
Concur.
-Kat
On 12/26/06, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/25/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/12/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
It goes further than that. Until very recently it was: Welcome to wikipedia the one "web 2.0" project that gives a damn about copyright.
That's the perfect intro.
Concur.
Not true any more though since youtube has clamped down a bit and I've run across suggestions of a myspace cleanup although I don't know a vast amount about myspace. It remains to be seen what effect these actions have on the web community though.
On 26/12/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/26/06, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/25/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/12/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Welcome to wikipedia the one "web 2.0" project that gives a damn about copyright.
That's the perfect intro.
Concur.
Not true any more though since youtube has clamped down a bit and I've run across suggestions of a myspace cleanup although I don't know a vast amount about myspace. It remains to be seen what effect these actions have on the web community though.
Take out the "one."
(and see how long before someone takes out the "damn")
- d.
On 12/25/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Not true any more though since youtube has clamped down a bit and I've run across suggestions of a myspace cleanup although I don't know a vast amount about myspace. It remains to be seen what effect these actions have on the web community though.
Youtube's efforts seem pretty superficial, although there are rumors that they are making back-room deals with big media companies which allow them to avoid getting sued into the dirt yet fail to compensate any of the actual content creators (since they aren't actually licensing the works, they are just buying temporary promises not to sue).
Even if Youtube and all the other Web2.0 darlings did manage to clean up their acts, we'd still be the only major site committed to Free (like freedom) content rather than free (as in no cost to look at but touch at your own peril) content.
(Youtube doesn't ask or allow uploaders to release their work under a free license. Their upload page doesn't even include a strongly worded instruction not to upload infringing content, rather they just tell you that if you upload an infringement and they receive a takedown notice that they will follow the procedure)
On 12/26/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Youtube doesn't ask or allow uploaders to release their work under a free license.
Would be problematical since current upload conditions prevent you uploading free content that you do not hold the copyright on (OK depends on the licence but GFDL and CC-BY-SA are no go).