On 7/20/07, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
WikipediaEditor Durin wrote:
en.wikipedia is utterly failing at executing the
Foundation's mission,
and
it is THE flagship project.
This is unwarranted hyperbole. If we're utterly failing, why is
Wikipedia a top-10 website that's rapidly gaining cachet as the first
place to look for general information, why is Britannica in terror of
us, and (specifically on the "free" front) why is the Wikipedia database
being used by literally hundreds of mirrors?
We're succeeding at the "encyclopaedia" part; not so much at the
"free"
part. Also, there would be significant legal concerns about hosting the
content, let alone publishing it in hard copy form, anywhere outside the US.
Also, bear in mind that "free" is only one half of our fundamental goal.
The other half is "encyclopedia".
Adding fair use content may restrict
the "free" half while enhancing the "encyclopedia" half, so it's
hardly
an obvious net loss.
From what I understand of Durin's argument, it
is that our encyclopaedia is
not being significantly enhanced by the usage of much
of our non-free
content. If we're just sticking things in to look nice and illustrate
articles without actually using them to enhance the reader's understanding
and appreciation of the article's subject, we're not exactly doing much on
the encyclopedic front.
The same rationales that we use for fair use images can be used by
others who wish to use Wikipedia's material
in the same context (as an
educational encyclopedia), so it's not like the fair use images are
completely useless for people wishing to reuse our content. They just
have to make the judgement for themselves which licences are compatible
with their use and strip out the bits that aren't.
The point of WP is kinda' that downstream reusers shouldn't have to do this,
or at least not to the degree that they currently have to. Living outside
the US, I would be very hesitant at republishing Wikipedia here because I
have no way of differentiating what I am legally licensed to use, or am
permitted to use despite lacking a licence, and what I am not.
Johnleemk
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I think it depends on the article. I like to use [[Kim Phuc]] as an
example of an article where the use of a non-free image adds
significantly to the encyclopedic value of the article. In that case,
the image adds such significant educational value that it's worth using
it even if it's nonfree.
On the other hand, I'm not too convinced in the majority of cases. Some
album/book/movie covers and corporate logos, where the images or logos
themselves are widely discussed, iconic, or controversial, may work that
way. But I'm not convinced that most use of such things is anything more
than decorative. In those cases, they don't add significantly to
encyclopedic value, but do detract from the free-content mission. In
those cases, we shouldn't be using them. In 99%* of album articles, for
example, there barely even is an article. "X is an album by YZ which
contained the following tracks:". I don't know that there's any
educational value in such an article at all, and I certainly doubt that
there's any more with an image of the album cover.
*Source: My totally unscientific rough guess, take with a large dose of
salt.