In a message dated 3/2/2008 12:56:08 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
dgerard(a)gmail.com writes:
I'd call that one immediatism vs eventualism. The lack of an image, or
the presence of a placeholder, reminds people that Wikipedia remains a
work in progress. And placeholders do score us new free content.>>
------------------
A position against which I've never argued, by the way.
But what we're discussing here is actually not this, but rather, the removal
of images where we do not have any replacement.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 3/2/2008 12:50:25 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
dgerard(a)gmail.com writes:
Actually, constantly beating the free drum is *precisely* Foundation
policy, and WP:NONFREE follows accordingly.>>
----------------
No the policy is, we do allow fair use images.
Nonfree does not say we do not allow fair use images.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 3/2/2008 12:54:05 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
dgerard(a)gmail.com writes:
Because, you know, the bot really isn't
doing anything that's actually contrary to the wording *or* the spirit
of the non-free images policy.>>
--------------------------------------------------
False dichotomy. We've been through this.
"Contrary" and "In accord with" do not encompass the universe.
It's not a dichotomy (a two-state system). So stating that the bot didn't
do anything "contrary to" doesn't address what the problem created actually
was.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 3/2/2008 12:47:58 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
toddmallen(a)gmail.com writes:
There is no discord there. Geni's assertion, that nonfree images are
never acceptable when it would be possible to replace them with free
ones, is correct. >>
------------------------------
Correct is the wrong word here.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 3/2/2008 7:51:42 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
eugene(a)vanderpijll.nl writes:
On the other hand, in terms of WP policy this is probably never
acceptable; since we are "in contact" with the copyright holder, there
is a possibility to get a proper free license from him, and therefore
the current image is replaceable.>>
----------------------------
"Replaceable" is a very tenuous term.
If we have no free-use image, we should be and are free to use a fair-use
image
*until* such time as we do have a free-use image.
Not just until some time as someone figures out that an image *might* be
able to be replaced somehow (but we don't have one);
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 3/2/2008 1:44:07 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
Of course. Normally wikipedia policy is problematical to rule lawyer
because it is a bit fuzzy. Wikipedia's copyright policy isn't. Fuzzy
was tried but it turned out that the average internet user knew so
little or about copyright or had so little respect for copyright that
that system didn't work. Thus we created a system of hard rules that
made it less hard to decide if what you were doing was legit or not.>>
----------------------
This actually bears little to no relationship to what the particular problem
is now.
Maybe you could focus on the actual problem.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 3/2/2008 7:42:03 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
dgerard(a)gmail.com writes:
we have everything in order that we could quickly and successfully
defend our continued use? Failing that, could we show that removal
almost immediately upon notification showed enough good faith not to
be liable for damages,>>
-----------------------------------------
The first step in any *suit* would simply be a cease and desist letter from
a lawyer.
You comply, that's the end of it.
Hyper-paranoidism is not warranted.
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 3/2/2008 4:59:06 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
dgerard(a)gmail.com writes:
You shouldn't need to be a seasoned cyber-warrior able to
deal with any ridiculous crap just to be an admin on Wikipedia. In
fact, such a requirement will I suspect lead to more burnout.>>
------------------
Indeed. We don't want warriors as admins.
I'd much rather have an *army* of cheerleaders, than an army of people
wielding power-drills.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 3/2/2008 4:30:30 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
dgerard(a)gmail.com writes:
and really isn't about
the law at all - it's about an overwhelmingly strong bias toward
genuine free content, and non-free content is basically here under
sufferance.
So any discussion of the non-free images policy that talks about fair
use and what the law allows is (IMO) missing the point of the non-free
images policy.>>
--------------------------
Thank you for pointing that out.
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 3/2/2008 11:07:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
kmw(a)armory.com writes:
Once a week, on the same day as the admin was
initially confirmed, someone checks to see if they still meet that
threshold.
If they fall below the threshold for two consecutive weeks, they are
de-adminned (requiring two consecutive weeks rather than just>>
-----------
I like this suggestion.
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)