Steve Block wrote:
Delirium wrote:
Steve Block wrote:
So that means we aren't an encyclopedia about anything then? We're actually an encyclopedia about what suits commercial usages? Fair play, we have to look out for commercial users, but what is more important here, the encyclopedia or the potential reuse of it?
We've never been *solely* an encyclopedia---we've explicitly been a *free-as-in-freedom* encyclopedia. The *entire point* of creating Wikipedia is to make a reusable encyclopedia, not solely to make an encyclopedia hosted on wikipedia.org and distributed by the Wikimedia Foundation (if that were the goal, there would be no reason to have an open-content license in the first place). In the case of fair use, this is a tradeoff: We want to make as unencumbered an encyclopedia as possible, with maximal possible reuse by anyone for any purpose, balanced against the fact that we'd like maximal coverage of everything as well. So, we allow fair use, but generally prefer free sources where possible, and only use fair use where it ads something that makes it worth the potential copyright difficulties for reusers.
You seem to have misunderstood me, which is entirely my fault, I wasn't clear enough. What I want to know is, if as you say:
We've never been *solely* an encyclopedia---we've explicitly been a *free-as-in-freedom* encyclopedia. The *entire point* of creating Wikipedia is to make a reusable encyclopedia
Then that means we can create an encyclopedia, and as long as all uses of information qualify for encyclopedic purposes, there is no problem. However, where you say:
So, we allow fair use, but generally prefer free sources where possible, and only use fair use where it ads something that makes it worth the potential copyright difficulties for reusers.
That to me implies there is a potential conflict between creating an encyclopedia which is reusable, and making an encyclopedia tailored to reusers. If we are doing the latter, then I for one would rather be renumerated for my work, thank you very much. At what point do we censor the encyclopedia for the commercial sensitivities of reusers?
I may be missing something here, and am willing to cede that, and I admit my language is rather strong, for which I apologise, but I draw your attention to this quote from Jimmy Wales: "Wikipedia is first and foremost an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language."
Now to me, "the highest possible quality" doesn't imply that such quality is tempered by potential reuse considerations, because, let's be frank, what we are arguing about here is commercial reuse, isn't it? Now, I do not see why, if the material is useable on the online Wikipedia, it should be removed due to reuse considerations.
However, if it is decided that commercial reuse does place limits on the material we use, then some mention of that fact should be made quite explicitly somewhere. Unless I have really got the wrong end of the stick. However I see no mention of the fact that Wikipedia tailors its material to suit commercial considerations in the article at [[Wikipedia]]. If someone can clarify that is the case, I will gladly correct that.
Please ignore this, my apologies, I think I may well have over-reacted ever so slightly. I wish to humbly retract this statement, since, after further thought, can quite clearly see the error in my thinking, I believe. Apologies to one and all for wasting time.