On 6/2/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 03/06/07, Brock Weller <brock.weller(a)gmail.com> wrote:
As for argument 2, we are, first and foremost, a
free content project.
We
dont create this encyclopedia for us, but for
downstream users. We
support
and nurture free content. It's one of the
Five Pillars. Just because we
can
get away with breaking a free content license
does not mean we should.
Go
fork if this is what you truly believe.
Indeed, but it's not advisable to push potential contributors away.
With four years under my belt I think I've moved beyond potential and into
actual, and I have done a lot of work in my life for the cause of free
content, on Wikipedia and elsewhere. What I meant was simply this:
a) whether the page was or was not a GFDL violation seems subject to doubt
-- both in specific, as plausible arguments have been raised on this list
why it might not be a violation, and in general -- while I am no expert on
free licenses, I know enough people who are to know that there are few cut &
dried cases of interpretation, and I am not inclined to believe that this is
one of those rare and happy obvious situations;
b) regardless, I do not believe, as others have also stated, that BJAODN was
the most egregious potential copyright violation on the site, nor the most
important to fix;
c) if b) is true, then moving deleting the page up to the top of the to-do
pile and deleting it hastily seems advisable only if there is a real and
pressing danger that the page will affect Wikipedia adversely by existing,
which is usually because we are clearly breaking the law with a copyright
violation, or because someone is likely to sue and/or be harmed by the
contents;
d) the former danger (that it is a clear copyright and thus legal violation)
does not exist if a) is true; and the latter danger (that someone will sue
or be harmed) pretty clearly also doesn't exist, since the majority of stuff
in BJAODN is silly vandalism which I suspect no-one will ever come back to
claim or otherwise be bothered by ("hi, I vandalized Wikipedia in 2004, and
I'd like credit for it, plz!" or "your bad jokes and outrageous claims were
so bad they adversely affected my health, and I'm suing!");
e) hence, the action of deleting the entire group of 60 pages that were 6
years in the making on GFDL grounds with no review and no discussion seems,
well, a bit silly, if not downright rude. My concerns are not primarily with
the copyright issues, they are with the community, and whether this is
acceptable.
My apologies for condensing all this in a way that could be misinterpreted.
-- phoebe