> Ok, fair point. But if they refuse it would be a strong indication to
> us to maybe only "go against them" once we got 100% agreement and a
> rock solid case as regards our legal standing -- neither of which would
> apply given the dispute. So this *would* resolve it in telling us "yea,
> it may still be fair use, but it's really too hot to handle"
If we're not 100% sure that the image is fair use, we shouldn't be using it
anyway. By permission only images are not allowed on Wikipedia.
> Ack. War of words. What I mean is that some people think we CAN include
> the pic under fair use and and some people think we CAN'T.
And some of us think that we can but we shouldn't.
> I think most folks embroiled in the Image:TrangBang.jpg dispute really
> don't care that much about the underlying and wider aspects.
You're probably right, but to some extent that just means it's more
important that we resolve these wider issues in a content-neutral fashion.
> Please don't see this as a personal attack of any sort, but it is my
> impression that the general establishment of firm *free encyclopedia*
> definitions and attendant ground rules is something that /you/
> particularly care about (I would have written "pet project", but I
> don't mean to offend).
Of course I'm not offended. It *is* something that I particularly care
about. I wouldn't have brought it up when I ran for the board if it wasn't.
I just think this situation is an excellent example of why we need it.
> I think you're going to find that most parties to the TrangBang image
> dispute will claim that the existing rules are totally clear and
sufficient,
> only the *other side* is so politically skewed that they misinterpret the
> rules towards their ends, consciously or not.
Really? Do you feel this way? Because the way I see it, we don't have any
existing rules. In fact, we've resorted to listing an image on a page which
is meant for articles precisely because we don't have any existing rules for
this sort of thing.
> I don't think you're going to find huge motivation for the wider
> "defining Wikipedia" policy initiative as you seek pursuing it -- not
> among the parties to this dispute anyway, because either side thinks
> the rules are already on their side and would perceive any
> "(re-)definition initiative" as a policy change initiative that could
> work against them.
I don't know if I will find motivation to define things or not. I've
brought it to the mailing list because I think there's a chance some people
here will find the motivation, though. If not, I'll be ignored, and no harm
is done.
But the fact that both sides think the rules are already on their side is my
point. This isn't something we should be arguing about. We should all be
on the same side here. The only way to get everyone on the same side is to
come together and make a decision.
> For these reasons, if it's the wider policy initiative that you care
> about, then this dispute IMHO is among the absolute worst opportunities
> to push for it -- *even if* you're right and the rules aren't clear and
> need improvement.
I see it as one of the best opportunities. Go figure.
> (btw. the image is now up again, so we're going round in circles)
And we'll continue to go in circles until we get together and make a
decision.
> - Jens
Anthony
Sorry, you are correct, I was missing a qualifier there. I meant to say "non-free copyrighted material." Clearly you knew what I meant anyway ;).
Pointing this out has brought up an interesting point to me though. How can we morally justify using other peoples copyrighted material, against their copyright agreement, and then expect others to respect our copyright agreement? Wouldn't people also be able to make a case of fair use when using our content? I for one have for a long time opposed other websites using our content without following our copyright agreement (i.e. the GFDL). However, I don't find it morally justifiable for us to in one breath say, we have a right to break other peoples copyright agreements, and then in the next, attack people who break ours, even though they often too have a case for fair use.
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:16:30 -0700 (PDT), Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --- Michael Becker <mbecker(a)jumpingjackweb.com> wrote:
>
> > In any case, I'm also VERY concerned about
> > the effects of using copyrighted material in the wikipedia will have on it's
> > freeness.
>
> What are you talking about? Wikipedia is *protected* by copyright. We happen to
> license our text under the GNU Free Documentation License to make it freely
> usable. "Proprietary" would be a better word to use since Wikipedia is most
> definitely copyrighted.
>
> -- mav
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
--
Michael Becker
Personally, the *free*ness of wikipedia concerns me a lot too. This was my first concern when I first submitted the image to vfd. I personally had NO political or censorship concerns. That is pretty obvious if you check out the history of the Clitoris article. In any case, I'm also VERY concerned about the effects of using copyrighted material in the wikipedia will have on it's freeness. As I see it now though, as long as there is a hard line drawn between copyrighted and GPL material, it should be easy enough to remove. If we don't facilitate the easy removal of this content, the wikipedia is no longer free, and we have failed in our goals IMHO. At the moment, the lines drawn between free and non-free content in the wikipedia are very thin. This is a line drawn by the users , and we are essentially trusting people who upload these non-free images/content to make sure it is easy to distinguish their added content as non-free. I'm not very comfortable with this. IMNSHO, it would be better if we had some sort of hard line drawn on the software side of things between free and non-free content so that it can easily be removed in the future.
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:38:12 -0400, Anthony DiPierro <anthonydipierro(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, the email has been sent already, so why don't we see what they
> > reply with? I hardly see how any kind of permission (or refusal) from AP
> > could [be] bad for us: It clarifies our options, but we don't /have/ to
> > avail of them if we don't want.
>
> First of all, refusal wouldn't clarify our options. If the image is being
> used in a way which is fair use, then it's fair use regardless of whether or
> not AP has refused to allow us to use it. Secondly, clarifying our options
> doesn't resolve the dispute. Having options is exactly the reason we have
> the dispute. If we didn't have any options, we wouldn't have a dispute.
>
> > Besides, the root of the problem _as I perceive it_ is that this is a
> > proxy political dispute:
>
> > The very people pushing hardest against that picture's use and for its
> > removal on copyright grounds made edits that would seem to hint at a
> > political affiliation which might make them feel uncomfortable about
> > this picture. (That's not a judgment, just an observation.)
>
> That's certainly not the *root* of the problem. It may be why the problem
> came to light in this particular instance, but the root of the problem has
> nothing to do with these details. The root of the problem is that we
> haven't decided what it means to be a *free* encyclopedia. This needs to be
> resolved in a way which provides objective criteria for inclusion. We've
> started along on that path, but we've still got a long way to go.
>
> Incidently, this is somewhat analogous to the problem of deciding what it
> means to be a free *encyclopedia*. We're farther along with that
> definition, and have already come up with somewhat objective criteria at
> [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]]. But we still resort to
> [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]], still have ongoing inclusion disputes, and
> people still abuse the abiguities for political purposes.
>
> > My motivation was to settle the copyright situation, yay or nay, so
> > people can THEN deal with it.
>
> > If we first wanted to wait till we had agreement, we'd wait till
> > kingdom come.
>
> I don't think that's at all the case. I'm probably one of the biggest
> objectors to having non-free images on Wikipedia, and I've come a long way
> toward accepting some non-GFDL images as being "free enough". I actually
> think the majority of the problem is a lack of understanding rather than
> diametrically opposed viewpoints.
>
> I think we can come to an agreement on what it means to be a *free*
> *encyclopedia*. It would probably speed things up to organize the effort,
> and that's why I proposed as part of my platform when I ran for the
> Wikimedia board to start a committee with the task of defining those terms
> by community consensus (i.e. what the term means to us). I think a
> definition of the term "Free Encyclopedia", similar in concept and spirit to
> the GNU Project's definition of Free Software (see
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html), formed by the community as a
> whole and ratified by the board, would *be* an agreement, and I think it
> could be reached. Maybe I'm just overly optimistic.
>
> > Thanks and regards,
> > Jens Ropers
>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
--
Michael Becker
> Message: 10
> Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:38:12 -0400
> From: "Anthony DiPierro" <anthonydipierro(a)hotmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] defining Free Encyclopedia
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> "Anthony DiPierro" <anthonydipierro(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Well, the email has been sent already, so why don't we see what they
>> reply with? I hardly see how any kind of permission (or refusal)
>> from AP
>> could [be] bad for us: It clarifies our options, but we don't /have/
>> to
>> avail of them if we don't want.
>
> First of all, refusal wouldn't clarify our options. If the image is
> being
> used in a way which is fair use, then it's fair use regardless of
> whether or
> not AP has refused to allow us to use it.
Ok, fair point. But if they refuse it would be a strong indication to
us to maybe only "go against them" once we got 100% agreement and a
rock solid case as regards our legal standing -- neither of which would
apply given the dispute. So this *would* resolve it in telling us "yea,
it may still be fair use, but it's really too hot to handle". None of
us, I think, would want to make the Wikipedia /ask/ for a lawsuit.
Besides, even the Associated Press is aware of fair use legislation and
I don't have reason to believe that they would maliciously exaggerate
their rights. Maybe I'm naive and overly optimistic in that.
> Secondly, clarifying our options
> doesn't resolve the dispute. Having options is exactly the reason we
> have
> the dispute. If we didn't have any options, we wouldn't have a
> dispute.
Ack. War of words. What I mean is that some people think we CAN include
the pic under fair use and and some people think we CAN'T.
Once we know whether we realistically (ie. w/o asking for a lawsuit)
can include the picture that should for all intents and purposes remove
one of these alternatives (or alternating views if you prefer).
>> Besides, the root of the problem _as I perceive it_ is that this is a
>> proxy political dispute:
>
>> The very people pushing hardest against that picture's use and for its
>> removal on copyright grounds made edits that would seem to hint at a
>> political affiliation which might make them feel uncomfortable about
>> this picture. (That's not a judgment, just an observation.)
>
> That's certainly not the *root* of the problem. It may be why the
> problem
> came to light in this particular instance, but the root of the problem
> has
> nothing to do with these details. The root of the problem is that we
> haven't decided what it means to be a *free* encyclopedia. This needs
> to be
> resolved in a way which provides objective criteria for inclusion.
> We've
> started along on that path, but we've still got a long way to go.
>
> Incidently, this is somewhat analogous to the problem of deciding what
> it
> means to be a free *encyclopedia*. We're farther along with that
> definition, and have already come up with somewhat objective criteria
> at
> [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]]. But we still resort to
> [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]], still have ongoing inclusion
> disputes, and
> people still abuse the abiguities for political purposes.
>
>> My motivation was to settle the copyright situation, yay or nay, so
>> people can THEN deal with it.
>
>> If we first wanted to wait till we had agreement, we'd wait till
>> kingdom come.
>
> I don't think that's at all the case. I'm probably one of the biggest
> objectors to having non-free images on Wikipedia, and I've come a long
> way
> toward accepting some non-GFDL images as being "free enough". I
> actually
> think the majority of the problem is a lack of understanding rather
> than
> diametrically opposed viewpoints.
>
> I think we can come to an agreement on what it means to be a *free*
> *encyclopedia*. It would probably speed things up to organize the
> effort,
> and that's why I proposed as part of my platform when I ran for the
> Wikimedia board to start a committee with the task of defining those
> terms
> by community consensus (i.e. what the term means to us). I think a
> definition of the term "Free Encyclopedia", similar in concept and
> spirit to
> the GNU Project's definition of Free Software (see
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html), formed by the community
> as a
> whole and ratified by the board, would *be* an agreement, and I think
> it
> could be reached. Maybe I'm just overly optimistic.
I think most folks embroiled in the Image:TrangBang.jpg dispute really
don't care that much about the underlying and wider aspects. Please
don't see this as a personal attack of any sort, but it is my
impression that the general establishment of firm *free encyclopedia*
definitions and attendant ground rules is something that /you/
particularly care about (I would have written "pet project", but I
don't mean to offend). I think you're going to find that most parties
to the TrangBang image dispute will claim that the existing rules are
totally clear and sufficient, only the *other side* is so politically
skewed that they misinterpret the rules towards their ends, consciously
or not.
I don't think you're going to find huge motivation for the wider
"defining Wikipedia" policy initiative as you seek pursuing it -- not
among the parties to this dispute anyway, because either side thinks
the rules are already on their side and would perceive any
"(re-)definition initiative" as a policy change initiative that could
work against them.
For these reasons, if it's the wider policy initiative that you care
about, then this dispute IMHO is among the absolute worst opportunities
to push for it -- *even if* you're right and the rules aren't clear and
need improvement.
(btw. the image is now up again, so we're going round in circles)
- Jens
In time of need call on the editor's creed:
Thesis, antithesis, synthesis!
If you think what you read should be NPOV-ed,
Thesis, antithesis, synthesis!
So plant a good seed
And do a good deed
And don't ever stop until all have agreed
And then they will call you a real Wikiped-
Ian.
Thesis, antithesis, synthesis!
> Well, the email has been sent already, so why don't we see what they
> reply with? I hardly see how any kind of permission (or refusal) from AP
> could [be] bad for us: It clarifies our options, but we don't /have/ to
> avail of them if we don't want.
First of all, refusal wouldn't clarify our options. If the image is being
used in a way which is fair use, then it's fair use regardless of whether or
not AP has refused to allow us to use it. Secondly, clarifying our options
doesn't resolve the dispute. Having options is exactly the reason we have
the dispute. If we didn't have any options, we wouldn't have a dispute.
> Besides, the root of the problem _as I perceive it_ is that this is a
> proxy political dispute:
> The very people pushing hardest against that picture's use and for its
> removal on copyright grounds made edits that would seem to hint at a
> political affiliation which might make them feel uncomfortable about
> this picture. (That's not a judgment, just an observation.)
That's certainly not the *root* of the problem. It may be why the problem
came to light in this particular instance, but the root of the problem has
nothing to do with these details. The root of the problem is that we
haven't decided what it means to be a *free* encyclopedia. This needs to be
resolved in a way which provides objective criteria for inclusion. We've
started along on that path, but we've still got a long way to go.
Incidently, this is somewhat analogous to the problem of deciding what it
means to be a free *encyclopedia*. We're farther along with that
definition, and have already come up with somewhat objective criteria at
[[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]]. But we still resort to
[[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]], still have ongoing inclusion disputes, and
people still abuse the abiguities for political purposes.
> My motivation was to settle the copyright situation, yay or nay, so
> people can THEN deal with it.
> If we first wanted to wait till we had agreement, we'd wait till
> kingdom come.
I don't think that's at all the case. I'm probably one of the biggest
objectors to having non-free images on Wikipedia, and I've come a long way
toward accepting some non-GFDL images as being "free enough". I actually
think the majority of the problem is a lack of understanding rather than
diametrically opposed viewpoints.
I think we can come to an agreement on what it means to be a *free*
*encyclopedia*. It would probably speed things up to organize the effort,
and that's why I proposed as part of my platform when I ran for the
Wikimedia board to start a committee with the task of defining those terms
by community consensus (i.e. what the term means to us). I think a
definition of the term "Free Encyclopedia", similar in concept and spirit to
the GNU Project's definition of Free Software (see
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html), formed by the community as a
whole and ratified by the board, would *be* an agreement, and I think it
could be reached. Maybe I'm just overly optimistic.
> Thanks and regards,
> Jens Ropers
Anthony
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 06:30:42 -0700, Poor, Edmund W
<edmund.w.poor(a)abc.com> wrote:
> Two or three very responsible Wikipedians have volunteered recently to
> serve.
>
> * Ronny ('fire(a)zwinger.wikimedia.org')
> * David Gerard (very active, level-headed Wikipedian)
> * Fuzheado (Andrew Lih, professor from Taiwan)
s/Taiwan/Hong Kong/. Same neighborhood, different island.
--
Andrew Lih
andrew.lih(a)gmail.com
(Cross-posted to the village pump)
I'd just like to make everyone aware of this - as most of you know,
US Government documents are public domain. What most of you
probably don't know is that some libraries across the country are
"Federal document repositories" - IE, they are storehouses for goverment
documents. A Federal respository library is *THE* biggest cache of
public domain information you will ever find. So if you are in need of
pictures, maps, or diagrams on any topic, you can go to one and get
them by the kilo. Here (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/libraries.html ) is
a listing of federal repository libraries.
--Mark
Jim Cecropia wrote:
>Maybe I just take things too literally. ;-)
>
An indication that you have something in common with many lawyers, even
if you aren't one yourself. The profession is known more for being the
butt of jokes than for its talent at recognizing a joke.
--Michael Snow
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
>Stan Shebs wrote:
>
>
>>Unfortunately, the WP ref comes after he describes how mutual trust
>>makes Linux work, so of course the business readers' heads will have
>>twisted around several times, fallen off, and rolled into the corner.
>>
>>
>Don't underestimate business readers -- the smart ones know what's up.
>
>
But many more fail to realize that "Dilbert" was written about them.
Ec