Theoretically, I have no objections against building an open filtering system for Wikipedia, that is, one where several, differing standards can be implemented in parallel (such as my team certification model). Of course, nobody of the current developers other than myself is particularly invested in that idea, so it will probably not get built unless some unforseen incident allows me to spend large amount of time on the Wikipedia codebase (particularly one that does not involve a kidnapping and programming at gunpoint).
Practically, there is one problem that has not been sufficiently addressed in the previous discussion; Axel touched upon it, and I'd like to try to spell it out more clearly.
F I L T E R S A R E B A D.
OK, here's the complex version. Wikipedia is built by persons with a fairly progressive mindset, and I believe most of us agree that it's a bad idea to shield young eyes from so-called "dangerous" content, *especially* in an encyclopedia, that filters don't work properly etc.
If we, as Wikipedia, offer a convenient filtering option for schools and libraries, we effectively endorse the strategy of having those filters in place. We say: "Yeah, we know, you have to operate under these standards, so, here's a checkbox you have to click to make sure they are followed."
If we, as Wikipedia, refuse to do so, we effectively challenge these schools and libraries to ban an encyclopedia. They may get away with banning porn sites easily, but an *entire* encyclopedia? Just because it discusses sexual content on some of its pages? I bet the ACLU would love to challenge that on first amendment grounds.
If you dislike mandatory filters for schools and libraries, not having them as a part of Wikipedia is a very good strategy to combat them. Wikipedia is a highly important project that may well become the center of a future lawsuit in defense of free speech. I don't think we should effectively endorse the use of mandatory filters just because of Jimbo's mother.
And just to be a little more provocative, the same goes for fair use (I don't know what Jimbo's mom has to say about that, though): By endorsing fair use, we defend this principle. By rejecting it, we give the opponents of fair use an opportunity to say: "Oh well, look at Wikipedia, they have built a free encyclopedia of 3 million articles without stealing any content with that so called fair use thing. So why not get rid of it altogether?"
Our decisions, our rules, affect the world outside of Wikipedia. Specifically, our openness and tolerance can make the world more open and tolerant. Never for a second believe that we are not important enough to have such an effect.
Regards,
Erik
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
And just to be a little more provocative, the same goes for fair use (I don't know what Jimbo's mom has to say about that, though): By endorsing fair use, we defend this principle. By rejecting it, we
give
the opponents of fair use an opportunity to say: "Oh well, look at Wikipedia, they have built a free encyclopedia of 3 million articles without stealing any content with that so called fair use thing. So
why
not get rid of it altogether?"
I can turn that one around. Suppose we freely use fair use materials. "I have heard from my dear constituents, the media conglomerates, that the Wikipedia people have built a free encyclopedia of 3 million articles, much of it stolen as so-called 'fair use'. We need to put an end to this immediately."
As you might have guessed, I don't see the two topics of filtering and fair use as analogous at all. If we don't filter, and schools eventually block us, we'll get a tremendous boost of positive publicity out of it, and the school blockers will look like the idiots they are. On the other hand, if we allow fair-use materials, and fair-use is eventually limited by law or court interpretation, then we don't get anything positive out of it, indeed quite the opposite.
Axel
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
Axel-
I can turn that one around. Suppose we freely use fair use materials. "I have heard from my dear constituents, the media conglomerates, that the Wikipedia people have built a free encyclopedia of 3 million articles, much of it stolen as so-called 'fair use'. We need to put an end to this immediately."
Sure, anyone could call fair use in our articles piracy, but that would be like calling Wikipedia pornographic because we have a photo of a clitoris. Each statement is believable only to persons who are retarded or the givers or recipients of bribes. Wikipedia is a not-for-profit encyclopedia, it is *exactly* the kind of project that fair use has been created for. The above is therefore hardly a useful statement to effect any political outcome, and would probably have the reverse psychology results that obvious vested interest statements tend to have: drive more people to Wikipedia.
Anyone fighting fair use is fighting an uphill struggle. By explicitly prohibiting fair use, we would support that struggle. And I can only emphasize once again: We lose nothing by allowing fair use -- those who want to commercialize Wikipedia can easily filter out the contents that do not meet their prospective use. But the irony lies in the fact that cracking down on "piracy" and fair use does provide an incentive to create more open content -- GNU people are secretly smiling when they hear that China is doing another public CD destruction, because they know that nothing will drive free software adoption more.
It is this fundamental conflict of interest that tends to cloud the judgment. In the end, it does not matter where the content comes from, as long as it is freely available. International copyright codes contain provisions for copying certain valuable information for educational purposes. We should do so where reasonably possible -- *with restrictions* because fair use is more narrow than the rights granted by the FDL. But cracking down on fair use altogether is an irresponsible, extremist position that will not support the cause of providing free education to the masses. And frankly, your arguments so far that we don't need any of those fair use images have been tragically weak. You won't get Don Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein to pose again in front of the camera, you know. And if we just link to a site containing the picture, that site will face the same fair use concerns that we would face by hosting it -- only it would not be able to state that it is a free encyclopedia with 130,000 articles and a clearly educational mission. And probably a decent team of lawyers by the time such problems come up.
Regards,
Erik
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Practically, there is one problem that has not been sufficiently addressed in the previous discussion; Axel touched upon it, and I'd like to try to spell it out more clearly.
F I L T E R S A R E B A D.
OK, here's the complex version. Wikipedia is built by persons with a fairly progressive mindset, and I believe most of us agree that it's a bad idea to shield young eyes from so-called "dangerous" content, *especially* in an encyclopedia, that filters don't work properly etc.
If we, as Wikipedia, offer a convenient filtering option for schools and libraries, we effectively endorse the strategy of having those filters in place. We say: "Yeah, we know, you have to operate under these standards, so, here's a checkbox you have to click to make sure they are followed."
If we, as Wikipedia, refuse to do so, we effectively challenge these schools and libraries to ban an encyclopedia. They may get away with banning porn sites easily, but an *entire* encyclopedia? Just because it discusses sexual content on some of its pages? I bet the ACLU would love to challenge that on first amendment grounds.
If you dislike mandatory filters for schools and libraries, not having them as a part of Wikipedia is a very good strategy to combat them. Wikipedia is a highly important project that may well become the center of a future lawsuit in defense of free speech. I don't think we should effectively endorse the use of mandatory filters just because of Jimbo's mother.
And just to be a little more provocative, the same goes for fair use (I don't know what Jimbo's mom has to say about that, though): By endorsing fair use, we defend this principle. By rejecting it, we give the opponents of fair use an opportunity to say: "Oh well, look at Wikipedia, they have built a free encyclopedia of 3 million articles without stealing any content with that so called fair use thing. So why not get rid of it altogether?"
Our decisions, our rules, affect the world outside of Wikipedia. Specifically, our openness and tolerance can make the world more open and tolerant. Never for a second believe that we are not important enough to have such an effect.
Regards,
Erik
I support you here Erik
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Theoretically, I have no objections against building an open filtering system for Wikipedia, that is, one where several, differing standards can be implemented in parallel (such as my team certification model). Of course, nobody of the current developers other than myself is particularly invested in that idea, so it will probably not get built unless some unforseen incident allows me to spend large amount of time on the Wikipedia codebase (particularly one that does not involve a kidnapping and programming at gunpoint).
Practically, there is one problem that has not been sufficiently addressed in the previous discussion; Axel touched upon it, and I'd like to try to spell it out more clearly.
F I L T E R S A R E B A D.
OK, here's the complex version. Wikipedia is built by persons with a fairly progressive mindset, and I believe most of us agree that it's a bad idea to shield young eyes from so-called "dangerous" content, *especially* in an encyclopedia, that filters don't work properly etc.
If we, as Wikipedia, offer a convenient filtering option for schools and libraries, we effectively endorse the strategy of having those filters in place. We say: "Yeah, we know, you have to operate under these standards, so, here's a checkbox you have to click to make sure they are followed."
If we, as Wikipedia, refuse to do so, we effectively challenge these schools and libraries to ban an encyclopedia. They may get away with banning porn sites easily, but an *entire* encyclopedia? Just because it discusses sexual content on some of its pages? I bet the ACLU would love to challenge that on first amendment grounds.
If you dislike mandatory filters for schools and libraries, not having them as a part of Wikipedia is a very good strategy to combat them.
Wikipedia is a highly important project that may well become the center of a future lawsuit in defense of free speech. I don't think we should
effectively endorse the use of mandatory filters just because of Jimbo's mother.
And just to be a little more provocative, the same goes for fair use (I don't know what Jimbo's mom has to say about that, though): By endorsing fair use, we defend this principle. By rejecting it, we give the opponents of fair use an opportunity to say: "Oh well, look at Wikipedia, they have built a free encyclopedia of 3 million articles without stealing any content with that so called fair use thing. So why not get rid of it altogether?"
Our decisions, our rules, affect the world outside of Wikipedia. Specifically, our openness and tolerance can make the world more open and tolerant. Never for a second believe that we are not important enough to have such an effect.
Regards,
Erik
Your opinions mirror mine on these matters.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
A very eloquent statement. For just this once, I'm speechless, since I agree with everything you say here, at least at the moment, despite the fact that I've been arguing the other side for several days now.
So I'll shut up for a little while and think this over. :-)
Erik Moeller wrote:
Theoretically, I have no objections against building an open filtering system for Wikipedia, that is, one where several, differing standards can be implemented in parallel (such as my team certification model). Of course, nobody of the current developers other than myself is particularly invested in that idea, so it will probably not get built unless some unforseen incident allows me to spend large amount of time on the Wikipedia codebase (particularly one that does not involve a kidnapping and programming at gunpoint).
Practically, there is one problem that has not been sufficiently addressed in the previous discussion; Axel touched upon it, and I'd like to try to spell it out more clearly.
F I L T E R S A R E B A D.
OK, here's the complex version. Wikipedia is built by persons with a fairly progressive mindset, and I believe most of us agree that it's a bad idea to shield young eyes from so-called "dangerous" content, *especially* in an encyclopedia, that filters don't work properly etc.
If we, as Wikipedia, offer a convenient filtering option for schools and libraries, we effectively endorse the strategy of having those filters in place. We say: "Yeah, we know, you have to operate under these standards, so, here's a checkbox you have to click to make sure they are followed."
If we, as Wikipedia, refuse to do so, we effectively challenge these schools and libraries to ban an encyclopedia. They may get away with banning porn sites easily, but an *entire* encyclopedia? Just because it discusses sexual content on some of its pages? I bet the ACLU would love to challenge that on first amendment grounds.
If you dislike mandatory filters for schools and libraries, not having them as a part of Wikipedia is a very good strategy to combat them. Wikipedia is a highly important project that may well become the center of a future lawsuit in defense of free speech. I don't think we should effectively endorse the use of mandatory filters just because of Jimbo's mother.
And just to be a little more provocative, the same goes for fair use (I don't know what Jimbo's mom has to say about that, though): By endorsing fair use, we defend this principle. By rejecting it, we give the opponents of fair use an opportunity to say: "Oh well, look at Wikipedia, they have built a free encyclopedia of 3 million articles without stealing any content with that so called fair use thing. So why not get rid of it altogether?"
Our decisions, our rules, affect the world outside of Wikipedia. Specifically, our openness and tolerance can make the world more open and tolerant. Never for a second believe that we are not important enough to have such an effect.
Regards,
Erik _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l