"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)"

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(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Yes. We need one. I think the job just found you ;-D

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 12/25/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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 25/12/06, peter green <plugwash(a)p10link.net> wrote: Because he increases his power by not using it ;-) - d.

He just vitoed it now, despite it heading toward seeming non-concensus.