Steve Bennett wrote:
On 12/4/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Fair use generally only applies if you are using the copyrighted material in an article about the material itself.
That's a very specific example of fair use which Wikipedia generally dictates as the only one it's willing to accept. I believe that lots of other uses can be "fair use". For example, it's generally acceptable for an academic to photocopy bits out of a journal so that they can study it at home, if the journal can't be borrowed - no violation of copyright takes place. I believe this would be in the same category. We would not be copying the material to avoid someone having to buy the book, we'd be copying it to enable readers to simply check that it says what someone is claiming it does. Perfectly fair, IMHO.
I think that the theory that fair use is applicable in this is a dubious one. In any event the place for this kind of medium would be in Commons, and they don't allow fair use at all. The academic who photocopies an article for his own research does not normally make that article available to a broad range of people. Even limiting access to logged-on users is still making the article available to a very large number of people.
How much of an article would we keep? In some cases snippets may be enough, but in the really contentious material fact-checking may require a context for the material.
Most dead-tree sources can be found a good library, which should be
enough to verify it if we need to.
Know anyone who has ever gone to a library to verify a Wikipedia citation? Ever had a suspicion about a dead-tree citation? Could you be bothered going to a library to check it out? Could you be bothered to click on a link?
Honest and thorough fact checkers are not about to cut corners by avoiding a trip to the library if they feel it is important enough. I have frequently had suspicions about citations. Nothing stops us from asking another Wikipedian to check it out when we don't have access to convenient material. For some going to a well-stocked library may be a 100 mile drive. Clicking on a link is obviously convenient, but it could also promote tunnel vision and diminish the possibility of editors looking for alternative sources that may view the issue differently.
Ec