At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cool_Wall we had a complete list
of cars which appear on the BBC Top Gear "Cool Wall". I removed this
as being almost certainly a violation of copyright. It is now being
argued that reproducing the list in full does not violate copyright,
because it is not published in the show's magazine or on the website
and has been compiled by collating the lists from numerous shows. It
is further asserted that compiling the list from these shows does not
constitute original research, although there is no known reliable
secondary source for any of the data, let alone the complete collated
Original research? You decide.
Copyright? I think so, but what do I know?
Fancruft? Ooooh, tricky :-)
On en.wikipedia, fair use images are allowed so long as they comply with
the fair use criteria as stipulated at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NFCC.
Recently, and especially subsequent to the Foundation's resolution
on licensing, significant efforts have been made to bring en.wikipedia
in compliance. A large number of users have engaged in activities
intended to bring images in compliance with our policies or be deleted.
There's been several key debates/events in this process:
* Images/screenshots in episode lists have been removed. This
was reported in Signpost
* User:Betacommand created a bot (BetacommandBot) to tag images missing fair
use rationales (a requirement under the fair use criteria) as
missing them, placing
them for deletion. This was debated in a number of places, most notably at
* Images in music discographies are being removed
* Based on dumps from May, a list of articles where fair use images were used
in large numbers was created and is now being worked on by several users. See:
These are not the only efforts underway, but should serve to demonstrate
what is happening.
Some of the problems that are happening, using a broad paintbrush:
* Some users are insisting that if the Foundation hasn't taken a position
specifically against fair use images being used in say discographies, that
it is therefore acceptable use.
* Some users have insisted that the bot tagging images missing fair use
rationales be permanently blocked. Further, that the deletion policy for
such images (WP:CSD I6) be suspended.
* Some users have been debating, at great length, that boiler plate fair
use rationales can be used to bring these images in compliance. This is
in large part due to the idea that fair use criteria is sufficiently met if
the fair use image serves to __identify__ the thing in question. Under
this argument, it is not necessary to have any critical commentary
regarding the product being displayed, or the cover art/logo being
* Debates that have previously occurred, even recently, are being disputed
as not achieving consensus. Yet, those attempting to act to bring our fair
use images in compliance are acting under policy and the Foundation's
resolution. It is frequently noted that consensus does not always trump
policy, or indeed our very mission to develop free content. These debates
are becoming endless, with no way to seemingly satisfy all parties.
I am summarizing in short as much as I can. Please understand that these
debates have been heavily rancorous at times, almost always long winded,
repetitive, and unending. Just about every negative word you could think
of a debate would apply to the sum of all that has happened on this overarching
debate in the last three months since the Foundation's resolution.
I am not looking for people from this mailing list to jump into the debates
and speak their minds in support of one camp or another. That will do
nothing to end this terrible situation.
--- What I think needs to be done ---
A clearer stance from the Foundation needs to be made with specific
regard to fair use on the English language Wikipedia. In particular, this
stance needs to clearly indicate one of several possible stances:
1) Fair use may be liberally used wherever it is legal within the confines
of fair use law in the United States.
- This is a stance that one side of this issue insists is acceptable.
2) Fair use may be used if it serves to identify a given thing, such as
an album, book, person, etc. No critical commentary on the image
in question is needed; just that it serves to identify.
- This is one interpretation of the current policy. Many people feel
this interpretation is correct. Many people feel it is not.
3) Fair use may be used only if it discussed within the context of
critical commentary inline with the article, thus the image is necessary
to the text of the article itself.
- This would greatly diminish fair use usage as it would remove logos,
book covers, album covers, and quite a number of other possible
types of images. It would retain images that are significant to the text
of an article, including unusual book covers, album covers, logos, etc.
where critical commentary on the design was present.
- Note there is a further division of this stance as there will be some
that will argue that if you are discussing a book, displaying the book
under this stance would be ok. Which is it? Commentary on the contents
of the book or the cover of the book?
4) Fair use works may not be used at all.
- This would bring en.wikipedia in line with other language Wikipedias,
but has the drawback of eliminating highly significant photographs
relevant to articles about the things depicted in those photographs.
It could be modified to have an exclusion for historically significant
images, but this reduces the bright line effect of this stance.
I know that Jimbo has stated a personal stance of limiting fair use
to highly historical photos. Stance (3) above supports that, but is
more broad. Stance (4), if modified, could support that. Stances (1)
and (2) can not.
Our current situation is very murky. The debates are endless and
are getting nowhere. People are acting to support perceived policy
and resolution, but are being called vandals often enough and
reverted numerous times. There is no clear line, and nothing
in policy that provides us with a clear delineation of what is
acceptable and what is not.
While fair use law is deliberately vague and does not provide
a bright line, I feel we must provide one in policy for en.wikipedia if
we are to have any chance of achieving the targets laid out in the
Foundation's licensing policy
Personally, I have been attempting to support our fair use policies
for a year and a half now. I have been attacked for it more times
than I care to account. I've been called an extremist, disruptive,
fair use nazi, revisionist, and all manner of assorted attacks. I am
growing tired of endlessly trying to explain to users that we are
a free content project, and our fair use policy is a superset of
law. I'm about ready to throw in the fair use towel because of my
perception that at a fundamental level, this issue doesn't matter
enough to the Foundation for the real power of this project to
step in and clearly support our mission. The licensing resolution
helps, but has suffered multiple interpretations locally.
On en.wikipedia, there are approximately 200 thousand fair
use, copyrighted images of ~750 thousand images total.
This is a major, major undertaking to bring ourselves into
compliance. Yet, in three months we've barely made a dent
affecting only a few thousand images, and fixing a similar
number of articles. At the rate we are progressing, the nearest
date we could come into compliance would be ~5 years from
now. Further, we'd have a huge amount of effort wasted in the
process debating endlessly over this subject.
Please help us.
The Mangoe wrote:
> far as I can tell, DennyColt just took it upon himself to turn the
> ArbCom statements into a policy and then began enforcing it against
> Wikipedia Review (which the ArbCom decision pointed to).
Actually, the arbitration decision often relied on for removing links to
attack sites involved Encyclopedia Dramatica and did not mention
Wikipedia Review at all. How far that principle extends is obviously a
matter of debate, but for an endeavor that requires as much
fact-checking as Wikipedia, I'm constantly disappointed with the
inability of some people to keep even simple, easily checked facts straight.
Utter contempt for the integrity of Wikipedia.
>From: Hello all [mailto:email@example.com]
>Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 03:39 PM
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Conflict of Interest and lobbyists for foreign governments
>The Hasbara Fellowship program is a project of the Israeli Foreign Ministry
>which "educates and trains university students to be effective pro-Israel
>activists". The program essentially pays people to engage in promoting
>Israel's point of view online.
>Hasbara has said the following about wikipedia:
>Everyone knows about Wikipedia, a place to go to get the 'real' scoop. How
>often do you use Wikipedia to look up subjects you know little about? Now
>imagine how often other people use Wikipedia to look up subjects related to
> Wikipedia is not an objective resource but rather an online encyclopedia
>that any one can edit. The result is a website that is in large part is
>controlled by 'intellectuals' who seek re-write the history of the
>Arab-Israeli conflict. These authors have systematically yet subtly
>rewritten key passages of thousands of Wikipedia entries to portray Israel
>in a negative light.
> You have the opportunity to stop this dangerous trend! If you are
>interested in joining a team of Wikipedians to make sure Israel is presented
>fairly and accurately, please contact director(a)israelactivism.com for
>This looks like a concerted and funded effort to push a particular political
>POV on wikipedia. If there is a "team" of people paid to edit Israel related
>articles in a POV fashion shouldn't they be required to declare their
>Conflict of Interest? Should employees or other individuals paid by Aish
>HaTorah, which runs the Hasbara Fellowships program on behalf of and with
>funding by Israel's Foreign Ministry, have to declare their COI if they edit
>Israel related articles?
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>From: Oleg Alexandrov [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 09:04 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Self-sensorship, how far should it go?
>On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 01:15:26PM +0000, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> Generally speaking we don't include stuff that is made up; unless it crosses the notability threshold. This might, but does not seem to yet.
>I am not talking about including this in articles. I am talking
>about people removing any mention of this from talk pages,
>not just the link to the attack site, nothing, nothing at all
>containing the words "SlimVirgin" and "news" is allowed to stand.
>I understand that such discussion may be off-topic on Wikipedia,
>but how far should people go to purge any mention on this from
>the site? This is not about notability anymore, not about
>protecting the feelings of an editor, it is about some
>Wikipedians using the policy of attack sites to censor and delete
>any discussions on the topic.
But is there anything to it? Or is it just nasty gossip? If you want to gossip, join the Navy.
The Hasbara Fellowship program is a project of the Israeli Foreign Ministry
which "educates and trains university students to be effective pro-Israel
activists". The program essentially pays people to engage in promoting
Israel's point of view online.
Hasbara has said the following about wikipedia:
Everyone knows about Wikipedia, a place to go to get the 'real' scoop. How
often do you use Wikipedia to look up subjects you know little about? Now
imagine how often other people use Wikipedia to look up subjects related to
Wikipedia is not an objective resource but rather an online encyclopedia
that any one can edit. The result is a website that is in large part is
controlled by 'intellectuals' who seek re-write the history of the
Arab-Israeli conflict. These authors have systematically yet subtly
rewritten key passages of thousands of Wikipedia entries to portray Israel
in a negative light.
You have the opportunity to stop this dangerous trend! If you are
interested in joining a team of Wikipedians to make sure Israel is presented
fairly and accurately, please contact director(a)israelactivism.com for
This looks like a concerted and funded effort to push a particular political
POV on wikipedia. If there is a "team" of people paid to edit Israel related
articles in a POV fashion shouldn't they be required to declare their
Conflict of Interest? Should employees or other individuals paid by Aish
HaTorah, which runs the Hasbara Fellowships program on behalf of and with
funding by Israel's Foreign Ministry, have to declare their COI if they edit
Israel related articles?
Rather than discuss the merits of this particular "outing," I think
it would be more productive to discuss ways of encouraging people to
edit under their own names rather than anonymously.
I realize that some people have legitimate reasons for preferring to
remain anonymous. Maybe they live under a repressive government.
Maybe they do some of their editing at work and don't want to get in
trouble with their boss. I don't have any quarrel with *allowing*
people to be anonymous. Most people, however, might as well edit
under their own name, and if Wikipedia could find a way encourage
this, it would cut down on some of the trolling and flame wars.
(People are more likely to be on their best behavior when their own
name and reputation is attached to what they do.)
| Sheldon Rampton
| Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org)
| Author of books including:
| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
| Mad Cow USA
| Trust Us, We're Experts
| Weapons of Mass Deception
| Banana Republicans
| The Best War Ever
| Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting:
| Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting: