In Jimbo's 2005 "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" post, he described the purpose of the project:
Wikipedia is first and foremost an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language.
Does this still hold true? There have been a lot of major changes in policy in the months since, which, we all hope, are supportive of our fundamental goals. I think almost everyone who contributes to the project agrees completely with this mission and wants to maintain it. But if you think about it, the statement actually contains several goals:
* free * (create an) encyclopedia * of the highest possible quality * (distribute) to every single person on the planet * in their own language
In fact, these goals occasionally conflict. For instance, machine translations are considered "worse than nothing" because of their poor quality, so it would seem that "of the highest possible quality" is more important than "in their own language".
If Jimbo's statement is still valid, which objectives override the others? Can they be arranged (preferably by Jimbo) in order of priority?
Can this statement or the principles it represents ever be repealed or changed? Who has the power to change it? Is this simply a top-down authoritarian mandate that can't be challenged, or do regular Wikipedians have a say when changes are made to the ultimate goals and priorities of the project?
Omegatron wrote:
In Jimbo's 2005 "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" post, he described the purpose of the project:
Wikipedia is first and foremost an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language.Does this still hold true? There have been a lot of major changes in policy in the months since, which, we all hope, are supportive of our fundamental goals. I think almost everyone who contributes to the project agrees completely with this mission and wants to maintain it. But if you think about it, the statement actually contains several goals:
- free
- (create an) encyclopedia
- of the highest possible quality
- (distribute) to every single person on the planet
- in their own language
In fact, these goals occasionally conflict. For instance, machine translations are considered "worse than nothing" because of their poor quality, so it would seem that "of the highest possible quality" is more important than "in their own language".
If Jimbo's statement is still valid, which objectives override the others? Can they be arranged (preferably by Jimbo) in order of priority?
Can this statement or the principles it represents ever be repealed or changed? Who has the power to change it? Is this simply a top-down authoritarian mandate that can't be challenged, or do regular Wikipedians have a say when changes are made to the ultimate goals and priorities of the project?
I think you missed out a vital phrase, the term "effort to create and distribute". And I don't think the rest of the statement can be pulled apart. I'd imagine it's like JFK's statement "First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth." Did people ask if it was more important to come back safely than to get there, or that the end of the decade was the goal, or that dogs would suffice? I think the goal is all of it.
On 1/25/07, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
I think you missed out a vital phrase, the term "effort to create and distribute".
I included it, actually. It's right there. "To create and distribute" means nothing by itself. "Create" is tied to "encyclopedia" and "distribute" is tied to "every single person on the planet"... as I said. Feel free to break it up differently if you think it should be.
And I don't think the rest of the statement can be pulled
apart.
Did you read my example of a case in which it conflicts with itself? There are many others.
Omegatron wrote:
On 1/25/07, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
I think you missed out a vital phrase, the term "effort to create and distribute".
I included it, actually. It's right there. "To create and distribute" means nothing by itself. "Create" is tied to "encyclopedia" and "distribute" is tied to "every single person on the planet"... as I said. Feel free to break it up differently if you think it should be.
I don't think it can be broken up, and no, when you broke it up you missed the word "effort", which contextualises the whole statement. And those readings are your readings, not mine.
And I don't think the rest of the statement can be pulled
apart.
Did you read my example of a case in which it conflicts with itself? There are many others.
I read your opinion on how it conflicts with itself. Since I don't see on what basis the statement can be pulled apart, I'm not sure how it can be described as self-contradictory. Did you happen to read the rest of my post?
Steve block
On 1/25/07, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
I don't think it can be broken up, and no, when you broke it up you missed the word "effort", which contextualises the whole statement.
The word "effort" indicates that it's a goal to reach, instead of a descriptive statement of what we already are, no?
And those readings are your readings, not mine.
What are yours?
I read your opinion on how it conflicts with itself. Since I don't see on what basis the statement can be pulled apart, I'm not sure how it can be described as self-contradictory. Did you happen to read the rest of my post?
Of course, but I don't see the relevance. I don't see how JFK's statement can be broken up in a way that conflicts with itself.
Of course I have a better reason for bringing this up than machine translations. A number of users are trying to change Wikipedia's policy to prohibit *all* fair use and permission-only images, and deleting scores of them. Their rationale hinges around this concept that we have a "primary goal" of creating free content, and a "secondary goal" of writing a high-quality encyclopedia. If the goals can in fact be split into multiple sub-goals (which itself is contentious), their subdivision seems completely wrong and backwards to me, and they're destroying a ton of irreplaceable encyclopedic content with it.
In the years I've been contributing to the project, I have always understood that our goal is to create a neutral, reliable encyclopedia "of the highest possible quality" that can be distributed as widely and freely as possible. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". Copyleft, free content is a tremendously important means to that end, but it isn't the end itself. We should use free content wherever possible, but when no free content exists to suit our encyclopedic purpose, we should still use whatever else we legally can and maximize the benefit downstream users get from the project. Our goal is to create a repository of "the sum of all human knowledge"; not "a collection of copyright-free human knowledge". (That's what Project Gutenberg is for.)
Should we remove articles that haven't been translated into other languages yet because it doesn't meet our subgoal of "in their own language"?
Should we delete images of money, Nazi insignia, and coats of arms because, while free content, they don't meet our subgoal of redistributability and usefulness for every purpose?
Should we delete and paraphrase all quotations and excerpts because they don't meet our subgoal of being free content? Quotation is a form of fair use copyright violation, too, yet I don't see any fanatics with "Say 'NO' to quotation!" banners on their user pages.
Our goal is to write a useful, authoritative encyclopedia and make it as distributable and accessible as possible. We should be doing everything we can to meet this goal.
On 1/27/07, Omegatron omegatron+wikienl@gmail.com wrote:
Should we delete images of money, Nazi insignia, and coats of arms because, while free content, they don't meet our subgoal of redistributability and usefulness for every purpose?
Most money is protected by copyright.
On 1/27/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Most money is protected by copyright.
Right. It can only be reproduced if it can't be mistaken for actual currency. But that means that images of money are not free content. Should we remove all images of money from Wikipedia?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Nazi_Swastika.svg This is an SVG image released into the public domain by its copyright holder. That's about as free as you can get. But it is not freely reproducible in Germany. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Germany Should we remove all Nazi insignia from Wikipedia?
Quotations are not free content, and cannot be licensed under the GFDL. Should we remove all quotations from Wikipedia? Should we delete Wikiquote? < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Can_I_reuse_Wikipedia.2...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tianasquare.jpg This is not free content. Should we remove it from Wikipedia? (I can think of a few people who would want it removed, but I hope they aren't Wikipedia editors...)
This movement to destroy all fair use content is incredibly misguided. Just looking through the file names of some of our fair use and permission-only images, I'm appalled that anyone who shares in the ideals of this project would want to prohibit them.
Image:Armeniangenocide-streets.jpg Image:Beslan child running.jpg Image:032806 francelaborprotests2.jpg Image:Aa McVeigh bombing.jpg Image:1938 Jews arrested during Kristallnacht line up for roll call at Buchenwald.jpg
The whole concept behind fair use is the protection of free speech in the face of information-imprisoning copyright laws. The whole concept behind "free as in free speech" content is to produce information that can't ever be locked up by copyright law. I can't fathom why anyone would think that one concept is noble and the other evil.
On 1/27/07, Omegatron omegatron+wikienl@gmail.com wrote:
This movement to destroy all fair use content is incredibly misguided.
Yes, it is. Is there any reason you keep talking about this while involved in discussion with people who do not wish to remove all fair use content (i.e. everyone currently active at [[WT:FU]])?
On 1/28/07, Omegatron omegatron+wikienl@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/27/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Most money is protected by copyright.
Right. It can only be reproduced if it can't be mistaken for actual currency.
False. It cannot be reproduced at all. You do know that the US gov is pretty much the only one to place government works in the public domain?
But that means that images of money are not free content. Should we remove all images of money from Wikipedia?
Those It should certainly be a consideration for those containing copyvio material.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Nazi_Swastika.svg This is an SVG image released into the public domain by its copyright holder. That's about as free as you can get. But it is not freely reproducible in Germany. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Germany Should we remove all Nazi insignia from Wikipedia?
This has nothing to do with copyright.
Quotations are not free content, and cannot be licensed under the GFDL. Should we remove all quotations from Wikipedia? Should we delete Wikiquote? <
There are many free quotations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tianasquare.jpg This is not free content. Should we remove it from Wikipedia? (I can think of a few people who would want it removed, but I hope they aren't Wikipedia editors...)
Certainly should not be as widely used as it is.
This movement to destroy all fair use content is incredibly misguided.
And doesn't exist outside your head.
Just looking through the file names of some of our fair use and permission-only images, I'm appalled that anyone who shares in the ideals of this project would want to prohibit them.
Image:Armeniangenocide-streets.jpg
PD pictures exist. More will exist in the coming decades.
Image:Beslan child running.jpg
Of no historical significance
Image:032806 francelaborprotests2.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Mouvement_anti-CPE
Image:Aa McVeigh bombing.jpg
File a freedom of information act to see what pics the US federal government took.
Image:1938 Jews arrested during Kristallnacht line up for roll call at Buchenwald.jpg
Talk to Danny.
The fair use claim for rather a lot of those images is highly questionable
(Non-iconic news photos used in the article about the event? I'd hate to try and defend that one)
The whole concept behind fair use is the protection of free speech in the face of information-imprisoning copyright laws.
Not exactly and in any case there are other ways of doing it.
The whole concept behind "free as in free speech" content is to produce information that can't ever be locked up by copyright law. I can't fathom why anyone would think that one concept is noble and the other evil.
Look at your examples. Half have "fair use" cases so weak it's embarrassing. I'm yet to see any case law for emotional impact being a valid argument supporting fair use
On 1/28/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
There are many free quotations.
You seriously think this way? We should remove all quotations from Wikipedia unless they have been released under free licenses? Seriously?
This movement to destroy all fair use content is incredibly misguided.
And doesn't exist outside your head.
It most certainly does. You aren't part of it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Walter#Say_no_to_fair_use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Say_NO_to_Fair_Use.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_no_fair_use < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_Janua...
The fair use claim for rather a lot of those images is highly questionable
You seriously think this way?
The whole concept behind fair use is the protection of free speech in the
face of information-imprisoning copyright laws.
Not exactly and in any case there are other ways of doing it.
Such as?
Look at your examples. Half have "fair use" cases so weak it's
embarrassing. I'm yet to see any case law for emotional impact being a valid argument supporting fair use
You seriously think these images have no value in an encyclopedia? Seriously?
You do realize that this is an encyclopedia, right? Are you actually interested in contributing to an encylopedia or are you just here to delete images?
On 1/28/07, Omegatron omegatron+wikienl@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/28/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote: You seriously think this way? We should remove all quotations from Wikipedia unless they have been released under free licenses? Seriously?
That would appear to be a strawman.
It most certainly does. You aren't part of it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Walter#Say_no_to_fair_use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Say_NO_to_Fair_Use.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_no_fair_use
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_Janua...
5 people is harldy a movement.
You seriously think this way?
I know that the fair use claims are highly questionable. I suspect I have a far better idea of what is in the image namespace than you do.
Such as?
Finding outher ways to describe the facts. IT is not posible to copyright facts.
You seriously think these images have no value in an encyclopedia? Seriously?
In many cases it is extreamly questionable. we are able to write about the fall of Carthage without pics.
You do realize that this is an encyclopedia, right?
Of course. One side effect of this is that we pay more attention to copyright than say youtube
Are you actually interested in contributing to an encylopedia or are you just here to delete images?
How does stealing Image:032806 francelaborprotests2.jpg produce a better free encycopedia that useing the free images I linked to?
On 1/28/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
That would appear to be a strawman.
I asked "Should we remove all quotations from Wikipedia? Should we delete Wikiquote?" and you simply responded "There are many free quotations." Does this mean that you are in favor of removing all quotations from Wikipedia and Wikiquote unless they are free content? if not, what do you mean by that statement?
5 people is harldy a movement.
So you are not part of this movement? You are in favor of the use of non-free images on Wikipedia?
I know that the fair use claims are highly questionable. I suspect I
have a far better idea of what is in the image namespace than you do.
You've certainly deleted a lot more of it...
How does stealing Image:032806 francelaborprotests2.jpg produce a
better free encycopedia that useing the free images I linked to?
It doesn't. I said I was looking at file names only. That image should be replaced with a free one.
On 1/29/07, Omegatron omegatron+wikienl@gmail.com wrote:
I asked "Should we remove all quotations from Wikipedia? Should we delete Wikiquote?" and you simply responded "There are many free quotations." Does this mean that you are in favor of removing all quotations from Wikipedia and Wikiquote unless they are free content? if not, what do you mean by that statement?
I mean there are many free quotations (a bit over 4000 years worth). It would not be impossible to create a wikiquote that used only free quotations.
But I don't deal with with Wikiquote so it isn't really something I'm going to worry to much about.
So you are not part of this movement? You are in favor of the use of non-free images on Wikipedia?
I tend to feel that the foundation has a valid case for not releasing the logo under a free licence. Even debian initialy didn't although I understand that has rather broken down.
You've certainly deleted a lot more of it...
Less than one day's worth of bad uplaods a month
It doesn't. I said I was looking at file names only. That image should be replaced with a free one.
But it hadn't been even though I was able to find free images inside 30 seconds. Why do you think that was?
geni wrote:
On 1/29/07, Omegatron omegatron+wikienl@gmail.com wrote:
I asked "Should we remove all quotations from Wikipedia? Should we delete Wikiquote?" and you simply responded "There are many free quotations." Does this mean that you are in favor of removing all quotations from Wikipedia and Wikiquote unless they are free content? if not, what do you mean by that statement?
I mean there are many free quotations (a bit over 4000 years worth). It would not be impossible to create a wikiquote that used only free quotations.
You could do that, but that would mean leaving out many of the juiciest ones used to describe modern society. :-)
Ec
geni wrote:
On 1/28/07, Omegatron omegatron+wikienl@gmail.com wrote:
Quotations are not free content, and cannot be licensed under the GFDL. Should we remove all quotations from Wikipedia? Should we delete Wikiquote?
There are many free quotations.
Quotations are the most fundamental application of fair use. If we are unable to use direct quotations, and must paraphrase the ideas the risks of inacurracy are too high.
This movement to destroy all fair use content is incredibly misguided.
And doesn't exist outside your head.
You have to admit that there are some people around here who have extreme views about this. :-)
Just looking through the file names of some of our fair use and permission-only images, I'm appalled that anyone who shares in the ideals of this project would want to prohibit them.
Image:Armeniangenocide-streets.jpg
PD pictures exist. More will exist in the coming decades.
In reviewing the copyrights for such a picture it's important to remember exactly when the Armenian genocide took place.
Image:1938 Jews arrested during Kristallnacht line up for roll call at Buchenwald.jpg
Talk to Danny.
The fair use claim for rather a lot of those images is highly questionable
(Non-iconic news photos used in the article about the event? I'd hate to try and defend that one)
We can safely assume that the picture was actually taken in 1938, but do we know who took it? There's a strong probability that the picture is already in the public domain, and if research establishes that we don't need fair use.
The whole concept behind fair use is the protection of free speech in the face of information-imprisoning copyright laws.
Not exactly and in any case there are other ways of doing it.
Not exactly, but in a different way. Copyright does not imprision information because information is not copyrightable; only the way in which the information is expressed is copyrightable. Patent applications include details on just what is to be protected. If, for whatever reason, something is not protected the question of fair use is moot. What often happens is that some people who claim fair use do so without any idea about the real copyright status of the item in question. Doing that is a lot easier than doing the research to determine the real copyright status.
The whole concept behind "free as in free speech" content is to produce information that can't ever be locked up by copyright law. I can't fathom why anyone would think that one concept is noble and the other evil.
Look at your examples. Half have "fair use" cases so weak it's embarrassing. I'm yet to see any case law for emotional impact being a valid argument supporting fair use
Allowing fair use depends on the material fitting the legal definitions, or at least having a legal rationale of some sort. Although I am philosophically closer to the permissive end about using fair use material, I fully agree that "emotional impact" is not such a legal rationale.
On 1/28/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Quotations are the most fundamental application of fair use. If we are unable to use direct quotations, and must paraphrase the ideas the risks of inacurracy are too high.
Text quotations are legaly fairly safe under most legal systems.
You have to admit that there are some people around here who have extreme views about this. :-)
There are people around who want to go for the de option. At the present time their numbers are too small to be considered a movement.
In reviewing the copyrights for such a picture it's important to remember exactly when the Armenian genocide took place.
1915 to 1917 however since the events took place in europe there is the posibilty for pics to still be under copyright.
We can safely assume that the picture was actually taken in 1938, but do we know who took it? There's a strong probability that the picture is already in the public domain, and if research establishes that we don't need fair use.
Talk to danny. Photos involveing that subject area are something he is rather good at.
Allowing fair use depends on the material fitting the legal definitions, or at least having a legal rationale of some sort.
There are a couple of extra requirments on en (material must have been previously published for example.
Omegatron wrote:
A number of users are trying to change Wikipedia's policy to prohibit *all* fair use and permission-only images, and deleting scores of them. Their rationale hinges around this concept that we have a "primary goal" of creating free content, and a "secondary goal" of writing a high-quality encyclopedia. If the goals can in fact be split into multiple sub-goals (which itself is contentious), their subdivision seems completely wrong and backwards to me, and they're destroying a ton of irreplaceable encyclopedic content with it.
What you call the "primary goal" applies to all Wikimedia projects; the "secondary goal" applies only to the Wikipedias. I think there is a place for fair use in Wikipedia, and at the same time I support the rationale for its being prohibited in Commons. Your talk of multiple sub-goals seems to be a second rate categorixation problem more than anything else. Don't make the issue more complicated than it should be.
In the years I've been contributing to the project, I have always understood that our goal is to create a neutral, reliable encyclopedia "of the highest possible quality" that can be distributed as widely and freely as possible. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". Copyleft, free content is a tremendously important means to that end, but it isn't the end itself. We should use free content wherever possible, but when no free content exists to suit our encyclopedic purpose, we should still use whatever else we legally can and maximize the benefit downstream users get from the project.
Jimbo, in his speech at Wikimania 2005, spoke of freeing various kinds of intellectual property. People seem to forget that he used the verb "free" rather than the noun "free". The verb is dynamic; the noun is static. That is the case irrespective of whether we are talking about "free as in beer" or "free as in speech". Simply taking material that is already free and regurgitating it is insufficient to the task. While I support fair use I still recognize the transitivity problem connected with it. Simply using fair use may not effect free use in all circumstances; it only does so in a difficult-to-define subset. If we are to regard "free" as a verb our task is to take things that are not now free, and through our efforts make them free. This is a more complex and more challenging task than what we have been doing up until now. It involves recognizing law as a tool, not as a hindrance.
Our goal is to create a repository of "the sum of all human knowledge"; not "a collection of copyright-free human knowledge". (That's what Project Gutenberg is for.)
Then what do you see as the goal of Wikisource?
Should we remove articles that haven't been translated into other languages yet because it doesn't meet our subgoal of "in their own language"?
That seems like a space cadet extension of the concept that no article should be allowed unless it is perfect in every respect from the beginning.
Should we delete and paraphrase all quotations and excerpts because they don't meet our subgoal of being free content? Quotation is a form of fair use copyright violation, too, yet I don't see any fanatics with "Say 'NO' to quotation!" banners on their user pages.
To get your terminology straight "fair use" is specifically NOT a "copyright violation". Don't muddle the argument by mixing up claimed fair use and actual fair use.
Our goal is to write a useful, authoritative encyclopedia and make it as distributable and accessible as possible. We should be doing everything we can to meet this goal.
Yes, but we still need to be mindful of prevailing constraints.
Ec
On 1/28/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I think there is a place for fair use in Wikipedia, and at the same time I support the rationale for its being prohibited in Commons.
Then we are in agreement.
Your talk of multiple sub-goals seems to be a second rate categorixation problem more than anything else. Don't make the issue more complicated than it should be.
This is the wording used on [[Wikipedia:Fair_use_criteria]], which I object to.
While I support fair use I still recognize the transitivity problem connected with it.
But as long as the fair use content cannot be replaced with free content, the transitivity is a non-issue. We can't do anything about it. When legal, we *can* still use it to further our encyclopedia, though.
Our goal is to create a repository of "the sum of all human knowledge"; not "a collection of copyright-free human knowledge". (That's what Project Gutenberg is for.)
Then what do you see as the goal of Wikisource?
I don't know much about Wikisource. They have their own comparison at http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Wikisource_and_Project_Gutenberg
To get your terminology straight "fair use" is specifically NOT a "copyright violation". Don't muddle the argument by mixing up claimed fair use and actual fair use.
Rather, it is "not an infringement of copyright", or an "exception to copyright".
--- Omegatron omegatron+wikienl@gmail.com wrote:
In the years I've been contributing to the project, I have always understood that our goal is to create a neutral, reliable encyclopedia "of the highest possible quality" that can be distributed as widely and freely as possible. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia".
Yes, and we're "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia".
Copyleft, free content is a tremendously important means to that end, but it isn't the end itself.
On [[Wikipedia talk:Fair use]], you said that you'd like to change:
"The primary goal on Wikipedia is to create a free content ("free" as in "free speech") encyclopedia which can be used by downstream users."
To:
"The primary goal on Wikipedia is to create a high-quality encyclopedia which can be used by downstream users."
Sorry to be blunt, but I think you're simply mistaken about this. To answer your question from the subject, I think the the Foundation Mission Statement covers it as close as anything will:
"Wikimedia Foundation is dedicated to the development and maintenance of online free, open content encyclopedias, collections of quotations, textbooks and other collections of documents, information, and other informational databases in all the languages of the world that will be distributed free of charge to the public under a free documentation license such as the Free Documentation License written by the Free Software Foundation Inc. at http://www.fsf.org or similar licensing scheme, see http://www.wikimedia.org."
We need to discuss fair use policy from the basis that freedom is an aspect of our goal, and not just a useful means to an end. It seems fruitless to argue about the details of any particular policy if we disagree on the purpose of the project.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes. http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://mail.yahoo.net/uk
On 1/28/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I mean there are many free quotations (a bit over 4000 years worth). It would not be impossible to create a wikiquote that used only free quotations.
Are you in favor of removing all non-free quotations from Wikipedia?
I tend to feel that the foundation has a valid case for not releasing the logo under a free licence. Even debian initialy didn't although I understand that has rather broken down.
Are you in favor of removing all non-free content from Wikipedia except the Wikimedia logos?
But it hadn't been even though I was able to find free images inside 30 seconds. Why do you think that was?
I'm pretty sure it's because a lot of people are indifferent about replacing legal non-free images with free ones.
Do you think that deleting huge amounts of such non-free content solves this problem?
Does it cause the majority of deleted content to be replaced with free content?
Does it improve the coverage, reliability, neutrality, or relevance of the encyclopedia?
Does it improve the net usefulness of the encyclopedia to downstream users?
On 1/29/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
You could do that, but that would mean leaving out many of the juiciest ones used to describe modern society. :-)
"Juiciness" is irrelevant. Modern society is not released under a free license and therefore must be immediately removed from our free <s>encyclopedia</s>!
On 1/29/07, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Yes, and we're "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia".
Yep. Why do you think it says that?
Sorry to be blunt,
Classic.
We need to discuss fair use policy from the basis that freedom is an aspect of our goal, and not just a useful means to an end.
I'm basing this concept of "primary and secondary goals" on the wording of the fair use policy page itself. The way the page is currently worded, writing a high-quality encyclopedia is a means to the end of creating free content. This is quite a silly notion, to me at least.
These arguments that free content is our primary goal is like an argument that our primary goal is to be a wiki, because hey, it's right there in the title of the project, right? This is, of course, demonstrably false. The wiki/"anyone can edit" aspect of the project, while highly important, is regularly ignored when it doesn't serve the primary purpose of writing a high-quality encyclopedia and making it available to as many people as possible.
The "wiki" in "Wikipedia" is a means to the end of writing a high-quality encyclopedia. The rationale is that breadth and quality will arise through the contributions of a great number of users. Unfortunately, allowing anyone to edit *anything* sometimes prevents high-quality articles from forming, so we block certain people from editing or (semi-)protect certain pages.
The "free" in "free encyclopedia" is a means to the end of making that high-quality encyclopedia useful and accessible to as many people as possible. The rationale is that free content can be redistributed free of charge, and continually shared and improved by downstream users. Unfortunately, there is a lot of encyclopedic content that will never be released under a free license, and limiting ourselves to *only* free content would also limit the breadth, usefulness, and neutrality of our encyclopedia. So we allow non-free content whenever it is encyclopedic, legal and doesn't displace equivalent free content.
It seems fruitless to argue about the details of any particular policy if we disagree on the purpose of the project.
I think you mean "It's fruitless to try to reach a consensus about the details of any particular policy when a small group of users have modified it to suit their ideals and are unwilling to compromise".
On 2/1/07, Omegatron omegatron+wikienl@gmail.com wrote:
Are you in favor of removing all non-free quotations from Wikipedia?
Quotations should for the most part be in wikiquote
Are you in favor of removing all non-free content from Wikipedia except the Wikimedia logos?
No.
I'm pretty sure it's because a lot of people are indifferent about replacing legal non-free images with free ones.
Why do you think that is?
Do you think that deleting huge amounts of such non-free content solves this problem?
over time
Does it cause the majority of deleted content to be replaced with free content?
over time
Does it improve the coverage, reliability, neutrality, or relevance of the encyclopedia?
yup
Does it improve the net usefulness of the encyclopedia to downstream users?
Impoves it for me and anyone else wanting to use stuff within the UK.
On 01/02/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/1/07, Omegatron omegatron+wikienl@gmail.com wrote:
Are you in favor of removing all non-free quotations from Wikipedia?
Quotations should for the most part be in wikiquote
Assume the context is the text being discussed in the article.
- d.
On 2/1/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/02/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/1/07, Omegatron omegatron+wikienl@gmail.com wrote:
Are you in favor of removing all non-free quotations from Wikipedia?
Quotations should for the most part be in wikiquote
Assume the context is the text being discussed in the article.
Depending on the context it is my understanding that. individual short quotations are de facto free with regards to copyright (not trademark) under every legal system I seen the issue raised under.
On 2/1/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Depending on the context it is my understanding that. individual short quotations are de facto free with regards to copyright (not trademark) under every legal system I seen the issue raised under.
Yes, and the mechanism for it is called "fair use" under United States law.
-Matt
On 2/1/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/1/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Depending on the context it is my understanding that. individual short quotations are de facto free with regards to copyright (not trademark) under every legal system I seen the issue raised under.
Yes, and the mechanism for it is called "fair use" under United States law.
-Matt
You are forgetting de minimis.
On 2/1/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/1/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote: You are forgetting de minimis.
Overlooking it in this case, but I doubt you could claim all the textual quotations in Wikipedia fall under that rule (i.e. not enough to copyright or insufficient infringement to be tortuous). Given that some copyright lawsuits have been over very small amounts of copying, I wouldn't want to rely solely on de minimis for legality - fortunately, we don't have to. Furthermore, explicitly or implicitly, part of the 'de minimis' calculation is that the copying is so small as to have little difficulty in using the defense of fair use successfully.
-Matt
--- Omegatron omegatron+wikienl@gmail.com wrote:
I'm basing this concept of "primary and secondary goals" on the wording of the fair use policy page itself. The way the page is currently worded, writing a high-quality encyclopedia is a means to the end of creating free content. This is quite a silly notion, to me at least.
That would be quite a silly notion, but nobody is arguing that.
Wikipedia is a Wikimedia Foundation project, and "Wikimedia Foundation is dedicated to the development and maintenance of online free, open content encyclopedias, collections of quotations, textbooks and other collections of documents, information, and other informational databases in all the languages of the world that will be distributed free of charge to the public under a free documentation license such as the Free Documentation License written by the Free Software Foundation Inc. at http://www.fsf.org or similar licensing scheme, see http://www.wikimedia.org."
The goal includes freedom.
So we allow non-free content whenever it is encyclopedic, legal and doesn't displace equivalent free content.
No, we don't. I refer you to [[WP:FAIR]] for the actual policy.
I think you mean "It's fruitless to try to reach a consensus about the details of any particular policy when a small group of users have modified it to suit their ideals and are unwilling to compromise".
No, I mean what I actually said: "It seems fruitless to argue about the details of any particular policy if we disagree on the purpose of the project."
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 10:00:05PM -0500, Omegatron wrote:
These arguments that free content is our primary goal is like an argument that our primary goal is to be a wiki, because hey, it's right there in the title of the project, right? This is, of course, demonstrably false. The wiki/"anyone can edit" aspect of the project, while highly important, is regularly ignored when it doesn't serve the primary purpose of writing a high-quality encyclopedia and making it available to as many people as possible.
Every contributor has his own motives for contribution. I imagine the general function of wikipedia to most contributors--its place in their lives--is an outlet for creativity or constructive impulses. Users may also be motivated by the desire to have some record of particular viewpoints or topics, or may have a purely destructive purpose (though, of course, effort is made to keep those users away). The passing on of knowledge--teaching--seems to be valuable to those who have been devoted to their own education. Reciprocity no doubt inspires some contribution--readers aware of the free nature of the content will feel some indebtedness and be encouraged by the ease of adding whatever corrections or additions might present themselves. Others value community and the sense of *autonomous* collaboration which is so often lacking in centrally-managed creative endeavors (such as work).
Many other motives could be ascribed to various groups or individuals. No "primary purpose" is going to give any *accurate* description of everyone or, probably, anyone--even those who would identify with some particular purpose. However, it is fairly certain--to me, anyway--that on the whole, the purpose of wikipedia is not in the product, but the process.
Unfortunately, there is a lot of encyclopedic content that will never be released under a free license, and limiting ourselves to *only* free content would also limit the breadth, usefulness, and neutrality of our encyclopedia. So we allow non-free content whenever it is encyclopedic, legal and doesn't displace equivalent free content.
I certainly agree with this (as much as I would prefer that free content replace non-free).
It seems fruitless to argue about the details of any particular policy if we disagree on the purpose of the project.
I think you mean "It's fruitless to try to reach a consensus about the details of any particular policy when a small group of users have modified it to suit their ideals and are unwilling to compromise".
I say, there's plenty of fruit for everyone.
On 1/25/07, Omegatron omegatron+wikienl@gmail.com wrote:
In Jimbo's 2005 "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" post, he described the purpose of the project:
Wikipedia is first and foremost an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language.Does this still hold true?
No, and it hasn't for a long while. I'll explain below.
There have been a lot of major changes in
policy in the months since, which, we all hope, are supportive of our fundamental goals.
"Months"? Try Years.
I think almost everyone who contributes to the
project agrees completely with this mission and wants to maintain it.
Even those who've given up bothering with the drama, nonsense, and futility of trying to actually improve it by editing, yes.
But if you think about it, the statement actually contains several
goals:
- free
- (create an) encyclopedia
- of the highest possible quality
- (distribute) to every single person on the planet
- in their own language
In fact, these goals occasionally conflict.
They are also conflicted by other "goals." Primarily, "of the highest possible quality" is the first thing sacrificed, which is very sad.
"Of the highest possible quality" is regularly circumvented by the myth of "consensus", which is the method by which organized large groups of POV pushers destroy content that they don't like and make our articles less than encyclopedic, less than accurate, and less than truthful.
"Of the highest possible quality" is also hamstrung by users who feel they should "own" an article after writing all and/or a large portion of it, by people associated with various products or companies who have more of an emotional attachment than they should writing articles that are lifted directly from the company's PR, and by the deletionists who feel that anything they personally don't have experience with should be removed (even if the article is well sourced and well written).
"Of the highest possible quality" ought to be our first priority, but it has been left out, abused, and turned into a joke by wikipedia policies. In its stead is "consensus", "respect for process" calls by people who have no respect for processes themselves, jerks who feel that "2+2=5" has to be sourced, jerks who will attack any source they disagree with and try to get it disallowed, and by a defeatist attitude by those who claim that wikipedia will "eventually" become quality while refusing to actively do anything to improve its quality themselves.
If Jimbo's statement is still valid, which objectives override the
others? Can they be arranged (preferably by Jimbo) in order of priority?
"Consensus" trumps factual accuracy, quality, and pretty much anything else it seems.
Can this statement or the principles it represents ever be repealed or
changed?
Already has been.
Who has the power to change it?
Jimbo did when he declared "Consensus" the guiding principle.
Is this simply a top-down
authoritarian mandate that can't be challenged, or do regular Wikipedians have a say when changes are made to the ultimate goals and priorities of the project?
You think you actually have a say? Look what happens to anyone who doesn't drink the group kool-aid.
Parker
You could try a machine translation, but if the intended audience don't understand the article because it's badly translated you've achieved nothing. That's why we don't do it. It is worse than nothing, because it can confuse the reader.
Mgm
On 1/25/07, Omegatron omegatron+wikienl@gmail.com wrote:
In Jimbo's 2005 "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" post, he described the purpose of the project:
Wikipedia is first and foremost an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language.
Does this still hold true? There have been a lot of major changes in policy in the months since, which, we all hope, are supportive of our fundamental goals. I think almost everyone who contributes to the project agrees completely with this mission and wants to maintain it. But if you think about it, the statement actually contains several goals:
- free
- (create an) encyclopedia
- of the highest possible quality
- (distribute) to every single person on the planet
- in their own language
In fact, these goals occasionally conflict. For instance, machine translations are considered "worse than nothing" because of their poor quality, so it would seem that "of the highest possible quality" is more important than "in their own language".
If Jimbo's statement is still valid, which objectives override the others? Can they be arranged (preferably by Jimbo) in order of priority?
Can this statement or the principles it represents ever be repealed or changed? Who has the power to change it? Is this simply a top-down authoritarian mandate that can't be challenged, or do regular Wikipedians have a say when changes are made to the ultimate goals and priorities of the project?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Some machine translation is good, unfortunately nothing that works between English and any other language at the moment. Please don't tar it all with the same brush though :)
Fran
On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 17:27 +0100, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
You could try a machine translation, but if the intended audience don't understand the article because it's badly translated you've achieved nothing. That's why we don't do it. It is worse than nothing, because it can confuse the reader.
Mgm
On 1/25/07, Omegatron omegatron+wikienl@gmail.com wrote:
In Jimbo's 2005 "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" post, he described the purpose of the project:
Wikipedia is first and foremost an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language.
Does this still hold true? There have been a lot of major changes in policy in the months since, which, we all hope, are supportive of our fundamental goals. I think almost everyone who contributes to the project agrees completely with this mission and wants to maintain it. But if you think about it, the statement actually contains several goals:
- free
- (create an) encyclopedia
- of the highest possible quality
- (distribute) to every single person on the planet
- in their own language
In fact, these goals occasionally conflict. For instance, machine translations are considered "worse than nothing" because of their poor quality, so it would seem that "of the highest possible quality" is more important than "in their own language".
If Jimbo's statement is still valid, which objectives override the others? Can they be arranged (preferably by Jimbo) in order of priority?
Can this statement or the principles it represents ever be repealed or changed? Who has the power to change it? Is this simply a top-down authoritarian mandate that can't be challenged, or do regular Wikipedians have a say when changes are made to the ultimate goals and priorities of the project?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 26/01/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
You could try a machine translation, but if the intended audience don't understand the article because it's badly translated you've achieved nothing. That's why we don't do it. It is worse than nothing, because it can confuse the reader.
Mgm
Stating the entire situation in terms of possible bad effects is a bit misleading. I have friends who are researchers in the area of machine translation and yes, they say its not the best, but saying that a possible confusion is worse than nothing is a personal view on it. If they realise that half of the article was not translated well, but they gain something from the other half I would assume they got something out of it despite confusion.
In saying that some confusion is worse than nothing you underestimate human abilities.
Peter Ansell
Omegatron wrote:
- free
- (create an) encyclopedia
- of the highest possible quality
- (distribute) to every single person on the planet
- in their own language
In fact, these goals occasionally conflict. For instance, machine translations are considered "worse than nothing" because of their poor quality, so it would seem that "of the highest possible quality" is more important than "in their own language".
No conflict at all. What is produced by machine translations is often not in anybody's own language. :-)
Ec