Shoombooly schreef:
This is why i emailed to this list int he first place, to find out IF there is a rewuirement within the foundation to encourage finding sources and references, and if there is a rule about images that applies to all wikis.
There *is* a rule about images that applies to all wikipedias, and it's given in the first point of the resolution on http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy .
You may be interested to know that it is the Dutch policy that is the universal one. The English image licensing policy is only allowed as an exception (an EDP).
I find it odd that the dutch wikipedia is bound by Florida law, but in its own policy thinks it is bound by Dutch copyright law, even when it isn't!
I'm pretty sure it doesn't think that it's bound by Dutch law, but that it finds it useful to *pretend* to be bound by Dutch law. See my earlier mail.
No-one has yet explained to me why that is,
I gave 3 good reasons for the Dutch policy, see my earlier mail. As you perhaps do not remember it, you can reread it at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-June/075184.html
and no-one has said so far whether or nbot wikimedia is trying to get fair use permission from large corporations to prevent legal trouble int he future.
This is a misconception about fair use: you do not need permission to use an image as fair use, as long as you comply with the conditions stated in the U.S. copyright law. I think I've read arguments that seeking permission actually makes your claim weaker in one way or the other; details escape me at the moment.
If you do not comply with the fair use conditions, you do need to seek permission; but just permission to use an image on Wikipedia is not free enough, and it's not easy convincing large corporations to release their archives (which are often an important asset for them) under the GFDL or CC-SA.
English articles of less significance might be less well sources, but at least most of them have some sources, the dutch almost never use sources. This has nothing to do with the age of the wiki, but all with the attitude of the leadership and writing staff.
I don't know if you meant that, but Wikipedia does not have a writing staff. We're all volunteers. (At least, those few of us who are paid by "Wikipedia" are not writing any content, it seems.)
Furthermore i read on some userpages that people feel like "intellectuals" are being chased away in favor of the "everyone should contribute" attitude. Of course everyone should be able to contribute, but this way it is an unbalanced culture of quantity over quality.
I'm not trying to scare you away or anything, but are you familiar with Citizendium? It may be just the thing you'd like: Wikipedia, but with strict rules on contributors and articles. Personally, I think this removes exactly the thing that made Wikipedia a success: the ease of entry, the acceptance of editors from a very wide range of backgrounds with a large variety of interests. But you sound like you agree with CZ's founder on a lot of points.
I could write dozens of articles filled with factual inaccuracies or lies without having to quote any sources. And unless someone saw it and was willing to fix it, it would stay that way.
This is true. On the other hand, you could write dozens of nonsense articles while quoting a large number of (imaginary) sources. Unless someone saw it, recognized the sourcing as nonsense, and was willing to fix it...
People have actually tried this and made a string of articles about a sport that didn't exist, hundreds of pages of bull, and it took a year to finally figure it out, and that only because a dedicated individual pieced it all together. The persons who pulled this prank admitted it was to test the error-finding capability of wikipedia. This was rather innocent, but it could happen with more serious topics.
And it wouldn't have helped to have a strict sourcing requirement, as they would have made up some "hard-to-get" books as sources; if the articles weren't recognized as nonsense, the sources wouldn't have either. Unless you have a strict program of checking all references and removing content with hard to find sources...
Maybe it's just me, but i don't think this is a good situation.
Maybe it's just me, but these somewhat lax requirements for editing have made Wikipedia what it is now, and I think it's a damned good encyclopedia.
Eugene