William Pietri wrote:
Rich Holton wrote:
It's tough to beat no image as an incentive to find one. And it's easy to ignore a frame or a notice. How ugly and intrusive a frame or notice would you be willing to accept?
Yes, I agree that making the encyclopedia less useful is the most dramatic spur to making it more useful.
Must it be ugly and intrusive? If the notion is that people care about free images, I'd think a simple and reasonable notice would be enough. We could try that theory, anyhow, and see how it works.
The alternative theory seems to be that even the people who want free images believe that most people don't care, and so making things ugly is a way to force everybody else to conform to their standards, avoiding the hard work of persuasion, or the even harder work of actually taking the photos they want. That's not the theory, is it?
I may be going out on a limb here, but I've always thought our primary purpose here was to make an encyclopedia for people to use, and that free content is the mechanism by which we do that, not the main point of the project.
As I and others have stated elsewhere, the primary purpose is to create a *free encyclopedia*.
Ok. That's not inconsistent with what I said. I see a public encyclopedia as a goal, and Gnu-style freeness as the mechanism.
Is there some practical purpose to what I gather is a recent wave of image deletions? And by practical, I mean described such that a named group of people will experience near-term benefits. I've only seen it explained in terms of ideological compliance or technical license compliance, which has always left me underwhelmed.
"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge."
Every non-free image we have makes that goal more distant.
Perhaps I was unclear, but you didn't answer my question. You gave me an ideology, not a practical reason to do this. And personally, I think "freely share" is not strongly related to Richard Stallman's particular definition of freedom. Let me try again:
Would you please name a group or groups of people who are prevented from learning from Wikipedia because of the not-completely-free nature of some images?
Thanks,
William
Your question could just as easily be "What group or groups of people are prevented from learning from Wikipedia when blatant copyright violations are included?" Many authors would not care, and can always issue a take-down notice if they do.
Of course, with "fair-use", if the author would prefer we not use it, we can safely ignore their preferences.
Yes, this is a bit silly, because there is an underlying assumption that we are really about more than just letting people learn from Wikipedia.
We are also here to encourage the use of free licenses in the process of building a free encyclopedia.
The Mission Statement of the Wikimedia Foundation (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement) states:
The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.
When we allow people to use non-free images where a free option exists, we are "preventing" them from using Wikipedia in the way that the mission of the foundation explicitly states is a goal. We are not educating our editors in the use of free materials.
I am not educated in all the legal issues, but I understand that "fair use" images creates more legal issues than free licensed images, especially when you go to distributing to those who do not have access to the internet. Is distributing to non-internet connected users not also part of our goal?
-Rich Holton