This morning, I did a survey of 100 image uploads. The sample size with relation to the overall quantity of image uploads per month is not statistically significant, but it is terrifying nonetheless. With that grain of salt in mind;
I found that 44% of images uploaded were tagged as being under a non-free license.
Let that sink in for a bit. 44%
That's nearly HALF our image uploads.
Reviewing five days worth of uploads, we are (at least this month) going to upload about 76 thousand images. Fully 33 thousand of them are or will be tagged as non-free content.
Let THAT sink in for a bit. 33 thousand per month. Over a year, assuming growth, we're looking at a whopping half million images uploaded over the next year under a non-free license.
We need a culture change. We need it now.
The English Wikipedia is no longer a free content encyclopedia and is not working towards our mission of providing neutral educational content under a free content license.
Either we need to drop the charade that we are a free content encyclopedia, or we need to harshly restrict image uploads until better tools are in place to handle the overwhelming deluge of non-free content we are being hit with on a daily basis, and the overwhelming mass of non-free images we are currently suffering under is reviewed.
If the people are on this mailing list are unable to make decisions on this, who should I take this matter to? I'm of the understanding that Jimbo wanted this list to be the main source of business work, so to speak. Yet, the support I've seen regarding fair use issues brought up in an earlier thread is weak at best. Is there another place I should be taking this?
-Durin
WikipediaEditor Durin wrote:
I found that 44% of images uploaded were tagged as being under a non-free license.
Ideally, the ratio would be 100%, since we encourage people to upload free images to commons, where they are available to more than just en: .
The English Wikipedia is no longer a free content encyclopedia [...]
One could argue that it stopped being that when the first non-free image was uploaded.
If the people are on this mailing list are unable to make decisions on this, who should I take this matter to? I'm of the understanding that Jimbo wanted this list to be the main source of business work, so to speak. Yet, the support I've seen regarding fair use issues brought up in an earlier thread is weak at best. Is there another place I should be taking this?
Let's get a little perspective here. When I started working on WP about 4.5 years ago, we supposedly distinguished between free and non-free images, but nobody actually did anything about it. We've come a really long ways towards developing a system that articulates the rules and enforces them; nobody else, on any project public or private, has anything that operates on this scale. So as imperfect as it is, we don't have any superior alternatives to adopt, and the "free only" stance has such radical consequences that most people recoil from it. (I always wonder how many of the free-only ideologues from de: use interwiki links to "sneak over" and look at the forbidden images in en:) There is no magic wand to wave, nobody to issue a diktat that will solve the problem all at once.
Occasional grumbles notwithstanding, I'm personally quite pleased with how much better we're handling non-free content these days, and I'm confident that continued steady effort will improve it even further.
Stan
On 7/19/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
So as imperfect as it is, we don't have any superior alternatives to adopt,
I disagree. There are alternatives; but nobody seems to want to do anything substantiative about it.
and the "free only" stance has
such radical consequences that most people recoil from it.
That is one possible route, yes. As you note (in text not quoted here), other projects have no fair use allowed. Maybe there are lots of people that come to en.wikipedia for the fair use pictures, but those projects continue on despite having no fair use allowed.
While people might recoil in horror at the idea of no fair use at all, it is a solution that will not cause en.wikipedia to collapse. I personally am not in favor of the stance, but it at least provides a bright line defense.
There is no
magic wand to wave, nobody to issue a diktat that will solve the problem all at once.
I tend to disagree. Maybe I'm naive, but we've had diktats that have been enforced before. Right now, as noted in the prior thread, we have a badly muddled situation that is ultimately untenable. There ARE alternatives.
Occasional grumbles notwithstanding, I'm personally quite pleased with
how much better we're handling non-free content these days, and I'm confident that continued steady effort will improve it even further.
We've gotten better, but facing 500 thousand fair use images over the next year and calling ourselves "free content" is a joke.
en.wikipedia is utterly failing at executing the Foundation's mission, and it is THE flagship project.
In any organization, it is a right and good thing to evaluate progress against the mission and vision of the organization. We might be further along towards the goal of properly managing non-free content than we were four years ago. But, the goal is not to properly manage non-free content.
It's almost like we're a professional sports team. We lose, year after year after year. Our defense to this? "We're not losing as much as we have in the past, and our marketing seems to be doing ok" The point of a team is to win.
Wikipedia's mission is to provide neutral educational content under a free license.
We've failed, in so far as images are concerned, and there's no ignoring that or trying to make it better by saying we're doing a better job of managing the failure.
When is too much too much? Are we going to allow ourselves to get to a situation where we have 50 million non-free images and be happy about it because they are properly sourced, tagged, and have rationales in line with our policies? That's not what Wikipedia is supposed to be. If people really think that's an acceptable situation, then en.Wikipedia has utterly lost its way.
Somebody pass me a free beer...
-Durin
WikipediaEditor Durin wrote:
[...] Maybe I'm naive, but we've had diktats that have been enforced before. Right now, as noted in the prior thread, we have a badly muddled situation that is ultimately untenable. There ARE alternatives.
What are these alternatives then? It's not like you're the first Wikipedian to have agonized over all this.
The situation is muddled, but less than it was. To borrow your sports analogy, if you have a team that's losing year after year, do you figure out what needs to change long-term and implement it steadily, even if it might mean several more years of losing before things turn around, or do you cast around for something - star player, yet another coach, new mascot - in the hopes of getting a win immediately?
It's a hard problem, and it's going to defeat everyone who has to have a solution Right Now.
Stan
Some thoughts on the topic in general, and personal experiences:
* On de.wikipedia, the second largest wikipedia, we only allow free images. One can easily see what effects a "no fair use" policy would have by comparing en and de articles. No album covers there, which is not really a loss IMHO. On the other hand, having next to no images on celebreties (living or deceased), compared to en, is a pity, but can encourage people taking such pictures and uploading them. I did that myself already.
* Uploading of free images should only happen on commons, however, many *new) users do not know that, or they know and don't want to create Yet Another account on commons.
* Also, free images on en.wikipedia should be moved to commons. I already moved my images from de and en using my commonshelper tool. However, for large volumes, this is still a pain.
* I hope/expect to see some ease of use and attraction to commons from Single Login (really soon, now!:-) and the extended file management (by Tim Starling, I believe). Combining these two, I hope it will be possible for users (or at least admins) to "transparently" move images from xx.wikipedia to commons with a single click, while fully preserving upload history. I certainly would take part in such a "mass movement" (pardon the pun).
What can be done right now?
* IMHO awareness could be raised concerning the "fair use problem", and I'm not talking about this mailing list. Maybe an automatic, big red border around all fair use images? Along with a hovertext asking for help in replacing it with a free image?
* Maybe more extreme would be a "no fair use day", where we replace all fair use images in all articles for one day with an appropriate message?
* If this is not done already: A bot could flag all new fair use images for deletion if they are not used on an article say, three days, after upload? That would give time to flag it fair use and to put it into an article, or remove it if it's not appropriate there.
* Commons and other wikipedias, especially "free images only" ones, should be systematically and repeatedly screened for free replacements of fair use images. A bot or a tool could do this semi-automatically.
* Attempts to get free replacements for fair use images should be more organized. The current single wiki page (or group of pages) on each wikipedia/commons is neither well-known nor particularly nice. There should be a central place for all wikimedia projects where images (or files in general) can be "requested". That place could then be advertised, for example, in the sitenotice. "Did you take pictures on a concert? Happen to catch that celebrity on film? Help improve wikipedia! Upload your photos under a free license on [[commons]]! See [here] for what images are wanted badly, or add some requests of your own!". Have an "image raiser" in between fundraisers :-)
Concluding: IMHO fair use per se is not a problem on en.wikipedia. The problem starts when the average user thinks it is the norm, rather than an exception as it should be. As stated above, fair use images should be more clearly marked as "being problematic", and that they should be replaced by a free one ASAP.
Cheers, Magnus
Magnus Manske wrote:
- If this is not done already: A bot could flag all new fair use
images for deletion if they are not used on an article say, three days, after upload? That would give time to flag it fair use and to put it into an article, or remove it if it's not appropriate there.
Make sure there's some sort of significant delay between flagging the image and actually deleting it, otherwise vandalism that removes images from articles could result in them being deleted before the vandalism can be reverted.
On 7/19/07, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
Some thoughts on the topic in general, and personal experiences:
- On de.wikipedia, the second largest wikipedia, we only allow free
images. One can easily see what effects a "no fair use" policy would have by comparing en and de articles. No album covers there, which is not really a loss IMHO. On the other hand, having next to no images on celebreties (living or deceased), compared to en, is a pity, but can encourage people taking such pictures and uploading them. I did that myself already.
Photos of living people on en are generally required to be under a free license.
- IMHO awareness could be raised concerning the "fair use problem",
and I'm not talking about this mailing list. Maybe an automatic, big red border around all fair use images? Along with a hovertext asking for help in replacing it with a free image?
Replaceable fair use is already a deletion criteria on en.
- If this is not done already: A bot could flag all new fair use
images for deletion if they are not used on an article say, three days, after upload? That would give time to flag it fair use and to put it into an article, or remove it if it's not appropriate there.
Orphanbot
- Attempts to get free replacements for fair use images should be more
organized. The current single wiki page (or group of pages) on each wikipedia/commons is neither well-known nor particularly nice. There should be a central place for all wikimedia projects where images (or files in general) can be "requested". That place could then be advertised, for example, in the sitenotice. "Did you take pictures on a concert? Happen to catch that celebrity on film? Help improve wikipedia! Upload your photos under a free license on [[commons]]! See [here] for what images are wanted badly, or add some requests of your own!". Have an "image raiser" in between fundraisers :-)
Wikipedia does not need more banner ads. I prefer this approach:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fromowner_documentation
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?
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.
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.
On 7/20/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@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
John Lee wrote:
On 7/20/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@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@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.
On 7/20/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Absolutely. That is the whole point of non-free content - where no other substitute is simply acceptable, and the article is irrevocably harmed if we do not include the non-free content. The trouble is that much of our non-free content (including, I freely admit, a substantial amount of the stuff I've uploaded in the past) simply does not meet this standard.
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.
Absolutely.
Johnleemk
On 7/19/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
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.
This gets to one of the core disputes on the subject; is fair use for purposes of identification alone sufficient to meet our requirements for the inclusion of non-free content?
People who advocate for fair use inclusion say yes, because it is legal. Of course this misses the point of what we are supposed to be fundamentally, but even when this is raised they fail to see an issue. Thus, any encroachment on the ability to use fair use for identification without critical commentary is harshly criticized, reverted, and argued over.
-Durin
On 7/20/07, WikipediaEditor Durin wikidurin@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/19/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
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.
This gets to one of the core disputes on the subject; is fair use for purposes of identification alone sufficient to meet our requirements for the inclusion of non-free content?
People who advocate for fair use inclusion say yes, because it is legal. Of course this misses the point of what we are supposed to be fundamentally, but even when this is raised they fail to see an issue. Thus, any encroachment on the ability to use fair use for identification without critical commentary is harshly criticized, reverted, and argued over.
Hence the need to effect a paradigm change of dealing with free and non-free content, as opposed to free and fair use content, because fair use is an American legal concept; non-free content is a concept applicable around the world, and cuts to the thrust of what we are discussing.
Johnleemk
On 7/19/07, WikipediaEditor Durin wikidurin@gmail.com wrote:
This gets to one of the core disputes on the subject; is fair use for purposes of identification alone sufficient to meet our requirements for the inclusion of non-free content?
People who advocate for fair use inclusion say yes, because it is legal. Of course this misses the point of what we are supposed to be fundamentally, but even when this is raised they fail to see an issue. Thus, any encroachment on the ability to use fair use for identification without critical commentary is harshly criticized, reverted, and argued over.
Let me be a bit impolitic here.
There's a dynamic between two sets of people here on the project; those who want to build the best possible encyclopedia, and those who want to build the best possible set of completely open content.
On some of the foreign projects, either the law or the local set of people have decided that it has to be completely open content. That's fine.
The greater majority of the active participants on the English wikipedia do not, in my judgement, agree. A majority of us are encyclopedia-first-open-content-second. In my judgement, it's a majority of senior editors and admins, and a great majority of normal editors.
I understand that this is frustrating to those who come to the project looking for open-content-first-encyclopedia-second. I understand why it's causing tension.
But the reality is that it's not just your project; it's all of our project.
Images matter. The old saw about "An image is worth a thousand words" may not be precisely accurate, but there's significant value to having images. Human beings, readers of the encyclopedia, are very visually oriented. Anyone who feels that a text-only encyclopedia in areas where images are by nature fair-use is ok is greatly misunderstanding how humans take knowledge in and remember it.
Is this a project for our writers/editors? Or is it a project for our readers.
If this project is oriented towards "us" (the editors/admins) then it would be reasonable to impose our philosophical open content demands on it.
But I disagree that it's really for us. The value isn't in what we're doing with it; it's in what everyone else is doing with it. You would not get millions of articles out of a group of a few thousand active people talking to each other for fun.
The question of value for readers really isn't concretely arguing for using fair use content either; there's the complication of distribution of fair-use content to other languages, other mirror sites, etc. But using the fair use material significantly helps the english wikipedia, and only hurts other projects if having it turns out to discourage the creation of open content.
There are three broad categories of fair use images used. One is where an event happened and is past, and nobody can go back and re-take a replacement open license image. Another is where the nature of the material - a screen capture from a film, tv show, album cover scan etc - is by nature copyrighted, and any attempt to illustrate the character or album or show will by nature have to be fair use. The third is a potentially replacable image, but one which hasn't been replaced.
The first two categories are not replacable. You can tell us not to illustrate those articles, but if you force the issue by actions or attempt to remake policy, then call it a vote or consensus or whatever, the fair use inclusionists will win the fight due to sheer numbers. The Foundation policy covered such use, the policies in use now for labeling them cover such use, and a majority of people who care support their use. The claims that there has to be some sort of additional commentary or critical analysis isn't legally supported and is seen by fair-use supporters as a smokescreen for radical open-content-only deletionism.
The third category, replacable fair use, is much more of a grey area, and one where the fair-use-discourages-open-content-generation argument may have some traction.
The pity here is that a number of people are setting up an unnecessary conflict. If you really truly believe in making everything as open as possible, a project to focus on replacing every replaceable fair use image would probably gain some ground. Doing that is not taking anything away from articles, and is something that even the encyclopedia-first people can agree is good and support. If you made a really active project and applied peer pressure to people, you could probably get a lot of the encyclopedia-first people going along... Despite being an encyclopedia-first type myself, I have spent significant time and effort on generating open content images specifically for the project, and would do so more if I had more bandwidth and more people helping out.
Do you want to try and fix the situation by fighting people (and, ultimately, losing in a terrible fireball), or by creating open content?
Pick your fights.
WikipediaEditor Durin wrote:
On 7/19/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
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.
This gets to one of the core disputes on the subject; is fair use for purposes of identification alone sufficient to meet our requirements for the inclusion of non-free content?
People who advocate for fair use inclusion say yes, because it is legal. Of course this misses the point of what we are supposed to be fundamentally, but even when this is raised they fail to see an issue. Thus, any encroachment on the ability to use fair use for identification without critical commentary is harshly criticized, reverted, and argued over.
-Durin _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
When it comes right down to it, fair use for identification fails the directive from the Foundation-that we must use fair use minimally, and only where it serves an irreplaceable purpose. I can identify Microsoft by showing you their logo, true. But I also just identified them by saying "Microsoft". You knew who I meant. Therefore, the image is replaceable, in this case by plain old text. The same is true of album covers and the like in most cases. I can identify Nirvana's Nevermind, the Beatles' White Album, or for that matter Roger Clyne and the Peacemakers' Americano simply by stating their name. The image serves no purpose that the text does not, and unless the cover/logo itself was somehow iconic, controversial, or otherwise suitable to -actually be discussed- in the article, it's unneeded and decorative.
And there's where we should draw the cutoff line. Is the image being discussed (not just mentioned, discussed) in the article? Is there a lot of source material that discusses and covers that image? If we can provide a good discussion of the image within the article (without "padding" in an attempt to game the system) it's probably important to have the image there. If not, it's a pretty for the infobox, and that's decorative. I would imagine most cases fall into the latter category, and shouldn't have those images.
On 7/19/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
When it comes right down to it, fair use for identification fails the directive from the Foundation-that we must use fair use minimally, and only where it serves an irreplaceable purpose. I can identify Microsoft by showing you their logo, true. But I also just identified them by saying "Microsoft". You knew who I meant. Therefore, the image is replaceable, in this case by plain old text. The same is true of album covers and the like in most cases. I can identify Nirvana's Nevermind, the Beatles' White Album, or for that matter Roger Clyne and the Peacemakers' Americano simply by stating their name. The image serves no purpose that the text does not, and unless the cover/logo itself was somehow iconic, controversial, or otherwise suitable to -actually be discussed- in the article, it's unneeded and decorative.
And there's where we should draw the cutoff line. Is the image being discussed (not just mentioned, discussed) in the article? Is there a lot of source material that discusses and covers that image? If we can provide a good discussion of the image within the article (without "padding" in an attempt to game the system) it's probably important to have the image there. If not, it's a pretty for the infobox, and that's decorative. I would imagine most cases fall into the latter category, and shouldn't have those images.
There are two major problems with this:
One, please stop using "decorative" to refer to ID images. Visual content is a major educational and user experience benefit to the project, even if we don't critically discuss all of the visual content we use. It brings flavor and helps people remember what they're reading.
Two, I respectfully believe that you and others are reading too much into the Foundation policy. Erik posted earlier in thread. There is a difference between "Boardmember said" and "Board-approved foundation policy is...", but it should be given due weight in considering the intent of the board. The policy requires us to have good reasons for using images. It doesn't say that identifying things is a bad reason to use images.
To quote from the policy: "Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose."
To emphasize: "to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works."
George Herbert wrote:
On 7/19/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
When it comes right down to it, fair use for identification fails the directive from the Foundation-that we must use fair use minimally, and only where it serves an irreplaceable purpose. I can identify Microsoft by showing you their logo, true. But I also just identified them by saying "Microsoft". You knew who I meant. Therefore, the image is replaceable, in this case by plain old text. The same is true of album covers and the like in most cases. I can identify Nirvana's Nevermind, the Beatles' White Album, or for that matter Roger Clyne and the Peacemakers' Americano simply by stating their name. The image serves no purpose that the text does not, and unless the cover/logo itself was somehow iconic, controversial, or otherwise suitable to -actually be discussed- in the article, it's unneeded and decorative.
And there's where we should draw the cutoff line. Is the image being discussed (not just mentioned, discussed) in the article? Is there a lot of source material that discusses and covers that image? If we can provide a good discussion of the image within the article (without "padding" in an attempt to game the system) it's probably important to have the image there. If not, it's a pretty for the infobox, and that's decorative. I would imagine most cases fall into the latter category, and shouldn't have those images.
There are two major problems with this:
One, please stop using "decorative" to refer to ID images. Visual content is a major educational and user experience benefit to the project, even if we don't critically discuss all of the visual content we use. It brings flavor and helps people remember what they're reading.
Two, I respectfully believe that you and others are reading too much into the Foundation policy. Erik posted earlier in thread. There is a difference between "Boardmember said" and "Board-approved foundation policy is...", but it should be given due weight in considering the intent of the board. The policy requires us to have good reasons for using images. It doesn't say that identifying things is a bad reason to use images.
To quote from the policy: "Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose."
To emphasize: "to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works."
To start with, if I see it as decorative, I'll say "decorative". And I can see little to no value of any type but decoration in the vast majority and cover-shots.
There's a big difference between something being identifying and something just being there. If a company's logo is iconic or widely discussed, or if the company is known much better by logo than by name, that argument just might hold water. On the other hand, "Microsoft", "Coca-Cola", "Chevrolet". I just perfectly well -identified- three companies without a single image. "Dark Side of the Moon", "Sam's Town", "Disintegration". There's three albums, identified just fine there too. For the most part, "identification" images are easily replaceable, as we can replace them by identifying the item or organization with text. (And remember, free replacements need not be -as good- for fair-use to be considered replaceable, simply adequate!)
On 7/20/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
To start with, if I see it as decorative, I'll say "decorative". And I can see little to no value of any type but decoration in the vast majority and cover-shots.
Here's the problem.
You are representative of a large fraction of editors/admin who are taking your ideological axe to the project. Your opinion above is legitimate and sincere, but bad for Wikipedia.
As I stated, these "decorative" images are important visual parts of the site experience and learning experience for the normal visitor. This is due to fundamental aspects of how human minds work and learn.
When you call them "decorative" you're betraying an inherent value judgement which is at odds with human nature, learning, and the value of the encyclopedia. It's an irrational attempt to demean some of the visual content to justify its removal, and it's just not sensible or justifyable. The language choice you're insisting on is proving my point.
I haven't heard anyone speak up against the use of identical content if the source has open-licensed it. If there is truly opposition to album covers or logos for logos and album covers sakes, it's being very quiet. In the rare instances where it's been open licensed, everyone seems happy, not upset.
It's reasonable to say "I wish to balance open content and encyclopedia content" and discuss where the balance point should be. It's not reasonable to demean the reader value of specific instances because their licensing is one way or the other.
Todd Allen wrote:
There's a big difference between something being identifying and something just being there. If a company's logo is iconic or widely discussed, or if the company is known much better by logo than by name, that argument just might hold water. On the other hand, "Microsoft", "Coca-Cola", "Chevrolet". I just perfectly well -identified- three companies without a single image.
Interesting choice. In terms of copyright, two of three logos predate 1923, and showing them would not be a copyvio.
Ec
On 7/19/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@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?
Our mission says nothing about striving to become a top 10 website.
Please have a look at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mission
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.
Then we might as well liberally allow fair use, since we're unconcerned with derivative uses.
-Durin
WikipediaEditor Durin wrote:
On 7/19/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@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?
Our mission says nothing about striving to become a top 10 website.
True. But it does say we're trying to become a good encyclopedia, and the fact that we're a top 10 website is evidence that we're succeeding in that goal. Or are you suggesting that the vast numbers of visitors we're getting are coming for something _other_ than encyclopedia content? I can't imagine why else they'd be coming to Wikipedia if not to read encyclopedia articles.
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.
Then we might as well liberally allow fair use, since we're unconcerned with derivative uses.
I'm suggesting that there's a _balance_ to be found here. Since we keep everything non-free tagged with explicit non-free labels, people who wish to create derivative works that can't make use of fair use exemptions the way we do can easily strip out the content that they can't use.
There's material on Wikipedia with licences that are even less restrictive than the GFDL but it would be silly to decide to strip out everything licenced under the GFDL solely for the sake of freeing things up even more. Again, different competing goals must strike a balance.
WikipediaEditor Durin wrote:
On 7/19/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@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?
Our mission says nothing about striving to become a top 10 website.
Please have a look at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mission
developing content under a free content licence does not require that the material be free before we use it. It is more important that we participate in making it free.
Ec
Bryan Derksen 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.
I agree. Such hyperbole does nothing for finding solutions.
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?
The photo archives are scared too. Once enough free material is available on-line the markets for their proprietary stock will collapse.
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.
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.
I have always felt that a policy where we would not allow fair use because we could not guarantee that it would be fair use when used by a downstream user has been unrealistic On the other hand pushing our use of fair use to its extremes would be foolish.
Ec
On 7/22/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The photo archives are scared too. Once enough free material is available on-line the markets for their proprietary stock will collapse.
Not exactly. Free material in combination with a good search engine.
On 22/07/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/22/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The photo archives are scared too. Once enough free material is available on-line the markets for their proprietary stock will collapse.
Not exactly. Free material in combination with a good search engine.
Yuh. Mayflower Search on Commons is better than what was there, but it still doesn't feel like it's cracked the problem.
(For those online in 1997, Mayflower feels like AltaVista did after the other incredibly crappy search engines; the Google-level advance has yet to be worked out.)
- d.
On 7/19/07, WikipediaEditor Durin wikidurin@gmail.com wrote:
Reviewing five days worth of uploads, we are (at least this month) going to upload about 76 thousand images. Fully 33 thousand of them are or will be tagged as non-free content.
A significant number will be deleted.
Let THAT sink in for a bit. 33 thousand per month. Over a year, assuming growth, we're looking at a whopping half million images uploaded over the next year under a non-free license.
Probably a bit less but not to bad given likely artice growth in the same period and that maybe 1/3 -1/2 will be deleted.
We need a culture change. We need it now.
A lot of uploaders are not exactly part of any wikipedia culture.
The English Wikipedia is no longer a free content encyclopedia and is not working towards our mission of providing neutral educational content under a free content license.
No longer?
Either we need to drop the charade that we are a free content encyclopedia, or we need to harshly restrict image uploads until better tools are in place to handle the overwhelming deluge of non-free content we are being hit with on a daily basis, and the overwhelming mass of non-free images we are currently suffering under is reviewed.
Can't. Would be throwing away too much free content.
If the people are on this mailing list are unable to make decisions on this, who should I take this matter to?
WP:VP
I'm of the understanding that Jimbo wanted this list to be the main source of business work, so to speak. Yet, the support I've seen regarding fair use issues brought up in an earlier thread is weak at best. Is there another place I should be taking this?
Not really. Short of a foundation ruleing there are unlikely to be any significant changes in our upload system without a software change.
WikipediaEditor Durin wrote:
This morning, I did a survey of 100 image uploads. The sample size with relation to the overall quantity of image uploads per month is not statistically significant, but it is terrifying nonetheless. With that grain of salt in mind;
I found that 44% of images uploaded were tagged as being under a non-free license.
For a long time now we've been pushing the notion that images under free licence should be uploaded to Commons rather than en.wikipedia. I think it's a good approach myself. So it hardly seems surprising (and certainly not "terrifying") that a high percentage of the material that remains is material that isn't under a free licence.
If freely licenced images should go to Commons and non-free images shouldn't be uploaded at all, then why even have image uploads enabled on en.wikipedia? That would seem to cover all the bases.
On 7/19/07, WikipediaEditor Durin wikidurin@gmail.com wrote:
We need a culture change. We need it now.
The English Wikipedia is no longer a free content encyclopedia and is not working towards our mission of providing neutral educational content under a free content license.
Are you sure that using only free images is part of Wikipedia's mission to be a free content encyclopedia?
Images weren't even part of the project until a year(?) after it was founded. (We used to just link to images on third-party websites!) And when we did add images and other media to the site, there were no qualms about using copyrighted ones, as long as it was legally permitted (fair use, with permission, etc.) I don't understand why this has changed.
Either we need to drop the charade that we are a free content encyclopedia,
What does the uploading of non-free images have to do with the fact that we are a free content encyclopedia? All of our encyclopedic content is free, and always will be. I don't see this changing because of our use of non-free images.
(And our use of non-free images is only *decreasing* over time, as our ability to use certain types of images is restricted further and further by agenda-pushing policy makers. It's a far different situation now than it was when I started editing four years ago.)
If the people are on this mailing list are unable to make decisions on
this, who should I take this matter to? I'm of the understanding that Jimbo wanted this list to be the main source of business work, so to speak.
Mailing lists only attract a small percentage of Wikipedia's (technically-oriented) user base, and don't represent the community very well. I, for example, have strong feelings about our use of non-free content, but think that mailing lists suck, and try to avoid reading and posting in most cases. (I only noticed this post by accident.) The mail interface is clunky and outdated, and the social aspects generate too much noise with not enough signal.
On 7/20/07, Omegatron omegatron+wikienl@gmail.com wrote:
What does the uploading of non-free images have to do with the fact that we are a free content encyclopedia? All of our encyclopedic content is free, and always will be. I don't see this changing because of our use of non-free images.
Images are encyclopedic content. You cannot reasonably write an encyclopaedia article on an iconic image without that image in some way being reproduced.
(And our use of non-free images is only *decreasing* over time, as our
ability to use certain types of images is restricted further and further by agenda-pushing policy makers. It's a far different situation now than it was when I started editing four years ago.)
What I think concerns people like Durin and definitely myself is that our culture is definitely becoming more pro-non-free - i.e. "What's wrong with non-free content?" Four years ago, I think, more editors understood what it meant to be a free encyclopaedia.
Johnleemk
John Lee wrote:
What I think concerns people like Durin and definitely myself is that our culture is definitely becoming more pro-non-free - i.e. "What's wrong with non-free content?" Four years ago, I think, more editors understood what it meant to be a free encyclopaedia.
Really? Not my impression. Remember that there had to be a big push several years ago just to differentiate between free and nonfree images, there being a significant percentage of images that were used, but had no identifying information whatsoever, and many of those added by "respected editors". Those editors then later fumed and expostulated when they were asked for sources and licenses.
The main thing I see over time is that as the editor base grows, there are more and more individuals who are far out on all ends of the ideological spectra, and by virtue of being outliers, they get more than their usual share of attention. My usual experience with random articles I haven't looked at in a long time is to be pleasantly surprised that they have free illustrations now, when they were unillustrated or depending on fair use before.
Stan
On 7/20/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
John Lee wrote:
What I think concerns people like Durin and definitely myself is that
our
culture is definitely becoming more pro-non-free - i.e. "What's wrong
with
non-free content?" Four years ago, I think, more editors understood what
it
meant to be a free encyclopaedia.
Really? Not my impression. Remember that there had to be a big push several years ago just to differentiate between free and nonfree images, there being a significant percentage of images that were used, but had no identifying information whatsoever, and many of those added by "respected editors". Those editors then later fumed and expostulated when they were asked for sources and licenses.
Yeah, guess I should have said two or three years ago instead then. My impression then was that even if not everyone appreciated the need to tag images appropriately (I still think the same holds true; people are now fetishising rationales without understanding why they are necessary), at least our usage of non-free content was not as blatant and flagrant as it is today - I feel the proportion of fair use images I saw that were generally justified was more then than it is today. I fully recognise that my impressions are hardly scientific. ;-)
The main thing I see over time is that as the editor base grows, there
are more and more individuals who are far out on all ends of the ideological spectra, and by virtue of being outliers, they get more than their usual share of attention. My usual experience with random articles I haven't looked at in a long time is to be pleasantly surprised that they have free illustrations now, when they were unillustrated or depending on fair use before.
Yeah, I get that a lot too. But I see a lot of fetishisation about our image licensing processes without understanding what they are for, which I think is bad, considering my impression that most of us pushing for better usage of these processes at least understood them, back in the day.
Johnleemk
Omegatron wrote:
I think that mailing lists suck, and try to avoid reading and posting in most cases. (I only noticed this post by accident.) The mail interface is clunky and outdated, and the social aspects generate too much noise with not enough signal.
Completely OT, but have you heard of Gmane? You can access this group through a Usenet newsreader, with all of the goodies inherent in an interface built for threaded discussion.
http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english http://gmane.org/about.php
HTH,
On 7/19/07, WikipediaEditor Durin wikidurin@gmail.com wrote:
<snip/>
None of this surprises me at all, though it would be nice if I could actually do something about it. Anyway I'm curious what the "first coming of hell" would have been, looking at the subject line.
—C.W.
On 7/19/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
None of this surprises me at all, though it would be nice if I could actually do something about it. Anyway I'm curious what the "first coming of hell" would have been, looking at the subject line.
Printed encyclopedias, which suffered limited distribution compared to what a free encyclopedia can do, and have ultimately been a scam to charge for what is common knowledge through various sources.
The less free we become, the more hellish it will get.
-Durin
WikipediaEditor Durin wrote:
On 7/19/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
None of this surprises me at all, though it would be nice if I could actually do something about it. Anyway I'm curious what the "first coming of hell" would have been, looking at the subject line.
Printed encyclopedias, which suffered limited distribution compared to what a free encyclopedia can do, and have ultimately been a scam to charge for what is common knowledge through various sources.
The less free we become, the more hellish it will get.
That last statement has dimensions that go well beyond what we are trying to do.
You're judging the printed encyclopedias too harshly, and applying to-day's standards to a great step forward of the 18th century.
What has changed is the means of production. The economic model that supported the 18th century encyclopedists and provided a healthy living for their heirs is no longer tenable.
Ec
I don't think it's the best solution to restrict uploads. It'd be easier if local uploads were simply disabled, and people would use the free media resource that is Commons.
Alex (Majorly)
On 19/07/07, WikipediaEditor Durin wikidurin@gmail.com wrote:
This morning, I did a survey of 100 image uploads. The sample size with relation to the overall quantity of image uploads per month is not statistically significant, but it is terrifying nonetheless. With that grain of salt in mind;
I found that 44% of images uploaded were tagged as being under a non-free license.
Let that sink in for a bit. 44%
That's nearly HALF our image uploads.
Reviewing five days worth of uploads, we are (at least this month) going to upload about 76 thousand images. Fully 33 thousand of them are or will be tagged as non-free content.
Let THAT sink in for a bit. 33 thousand per month. Over a year, assuming growth, we're looking at a whopping half million images uploaded over the next year under a non-free license.
We need a culture change. We need it now.
The English Wikipedia is no longer a free content encyclopedia and is not working towards our mission of providing neutral educational content under a free content license.
Either we need to drop the charade that we are a free content encyclopedia, or we need to harshly restrict image uploads until better tools are in place to handle the overwhelming deluge of non-free content we are being hit with on a daily basis, and the overwhelming mass of non-free images we are currently suffering under is reviewed.
If the people are on this mailing list are unable to make decisions on this, who should I take this matter to? I'm of the understanding that Jimbo wanted this list to be the main source of business work, so to speak. Yet, the support I've seen regarding fair use issues brought up in an earlier thread is weak at best. Is there another place I should be taking this?
-Durin
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Alex wrote:
I don't think it's the best solution to restrict uploads. It'd be easier if local uploads were simply disabled, and people would use the free media resource that is Commons.
Other WPs have tried that, and the immediate reaction is for commons to be hit with large numbers of non-free uploads, often deliberately mislabeled in the hope of getting by commons admins. There is no quick fix.
Stan
I suggest get more people who like dealing with images to come to Commons and help out there then. Commons' backlogs are HUGE, so every little help would be appreciated. I never upload free stuff to Wikipedia anymore, always to Commons. Why limit it to one project when others could make good use of it too?
Alex (Majorly)
On 19/07/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Alex wrote:
I don't think it's the best solution to restrict uploads. It'd be easier
if
local uploads were simply disabled, and people would use the free media resource that is Commons.
Other WPs have tried that, and the immediate reaction is for commons to be hit with large numbers of non-free uploads, often deliberately mislabeled in the hope of getting by commons admins. There is no quick fix.
Stan
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 7/19/07, Alex axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
I don't think it's the best solution to restrict uploads. It'd be easier if local uploads were simply disabled, and people would use the free media resource that is Commons.
Given how dirty the en image stream is that is really not a good idea.
I love your use of the word dirty - made me lol :)
On 19/07/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/19/07, Alex axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
I don't think it's the best solution to restrict uploads. It'd be easier
if
local uploads were simply disabled, and people would use the free media resource that is Commons.
Given how dirty the en image stream is that is really not a good idea.
-- geni
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 0, WikipediaEditor Durin wikidurin@gmail.com scribbled:
This morning, I did a survey of 100 image uploads. The sample size with relation to the overall quantity of image uploads per month is not statistically significant, but it is terrifying nonetheless. With that grain of salt in mind;
I found that 44% of images uploaded were tagged as being under a non-free license.
Let that sink in for a bit. 44%
That's nearly HALF our image uploads.
Reviewing five days worth of uploads, we are (at least this month) going to upload about 76 thousand images. Fully 33 thousand of them are or will be tagged as non-free content.
Let THAT sink in for a bit. 33 thousand per month. Over a year, assuming growth, we're looking at a whopping half million images uploaded over the next year under a non-free license.
We need a culture change. We need it now.
The English Wikipedia is no longer a free content encyclopedia and is not working towards our mission of providing neutral educational content under a free content license.
Either we need to drop the charade that we are a free content encyclopedia, or we need to harshly restrict image uploads until better tools are in place to handle the overwhelming deluge of non-free content we are being hit with on a daily basis, and the overwhelming mass of non-free images we are currently suffering under is reviewed.
If the people are on this mailing list are unable to make decisions on this, who should I take this matter to? I'm of the understanding that Jimbo wanted this list to be the main source of business work, so to speak. Yet, the support I've seen regarding fair use issues brought up in an earlier thread is weak at best. Is there another place I should be taking this?
-Durin
Of course we have so many fair use images - Free images go to Commons. I'm astounded that the percentage of fair use is so low. We need to work to make the percentage of fair use images 100%, not ~40%.
-- gwern imapct R oswell ESN COS E.T. credit card
On 7/19/07, WikipediaEditor Durin wikidurin@gmail.com wrote:
This morning, I did a survey of 100 image uploads. The sample size with relation to the overall quantity of image uploads per month is not statistically significant, but it is terrifying nonetheless. With that grain of salt in mind;
Is there a survey on the _types_ of fair use images that persist a month after upload or so? I would be much more interested in that.
I have no problem with thousands of book & album covers, logos & screenshots. These are cases where there will be no alternative to fair use for the foreseeable future. Wikipedia is, in some ways, like a visitor from another planet, trying to document this one's culture: The fact that _we_ use a free license is very odd, as most contemporary culture is proprietary.
If there's one area we should focus on purging of any & all fair use, it's photos of living celebrities. But the mere fact that the quantity of fair use images is high does not indicate that something is fundamentally wrong; the quantity of articles documenting pop culture is also very high, and documenting contemporary works will often include fair use excerpts. I would be more open to a rigid approach if copyright terms weren't so ridiculously high, but there is no relevant process of contemporary works passing into the public domain anymore. Making use of the few exemptions the law provides seems entirely reasonable.
The issue requires a balanced approach, not a binary one. What are we trying to achieve? Does it help anyone to nuke thousands of album covers, for example -- does it make it more likely that free replacements will be added? I don't think so.
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 7/19/07, WikipediaEditor Durin wikidurin@gmail.com wrote:
This morning, I did a survey of 100 image uploads. The sample size with relation to the overall quantity of image uploads per month is not statistically significant, but it is terrifying nonetheless. With that grain of salt in mind;
Is there a survey on the _types_ of fair use images that persist a month after upload or so? I would be much more interested in that.
I have no problem with thousands of book & album covers, logos & screenshots. These are cases where there will be no alternative to fair use for the foreseeable future. Wikipedia is, in some ways, like a visitor from another planet, trying to document this one's culture: The fact that _we_ use a free license is very odd, as most contemporary culture is proprietary.
If there's one area we should focus on purging of any & all fair use, it's photos of living celebrities. But the mere fact that the quantity of fair use images is high does not indicate that something is fundamentally wrong; the quantity of articles documenting pop culture is also very high, and documenting contemporary works will often include fair use excerpts. I would be more open to a rigid approach if copyright terms weren't so ridiculously high, but there is no relevant process of contemporary works passing into the public domain anymore. Making use of the few exemptions the law provides seems entirely reasonable.
The issue requires a balanced approach, not a binary one. What are we trying to achieve? Does it help anyone to nuke thousands of album covers, for example -- does it make it more likely that free replacements will be added? I don't think so.
It doesn't particularly matter if free replacements will be added to those articles. "The Free Encyclopedia" means more than "free of charge". It means, to the greatest degree possible, that it should be free of restrictive copyright terms; free to reuse, copy, and modify as you see fit.
View "free" and "encyclopedia" as two equally important halves of our mission. In the case of some articles, a nonfree image adds such tremendous educational value to an article that it's worth it to use it, though it detracts slightly from the "free" aspect. But what, I wonder, do you learn about Wal-Mart from seeing their logo? About your average album or book from seeing what the cover looks like? By using thousands of these images, we're taking away greatly from the "free" aspect of our mission, and adding marginally if at all to the "encyclopedia" part.
On 7/19/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
It doesn't particularly matter if free replacements will be added to those articles. "The Free Encyclopedia" means more than "free of charge". It means, to the greatest degree possible, that it should be free of restrictive copyright terms; free to reuse, copy, and modify as you see fit.
View "free" and "encyclopedia" as two equally important halves of our mission. In the case of some articles, a nonfree image adds such tremendous educational value to an article that it's worth it to use it, though it detracts slightly from the "free" aspect. But what, I wonder, do you learn about Wal-Mart from seeing their logo? About your average album or book from seeing what the cover looks like? By using thousands of these images, we're taking away greatly from the "free" aspect of our mission, and adding marginally if at all to the "encyclopedia" part.
I'm sorry, but the additional value provided by visual identifiers such as logos and album cover art is significant.
Human learning and memory processes are significantly keyed by such visual content, and it makes it much more enjoyable to read.
The entire reason that the Web took off in the early 90s and that Archie/Gopher/Veronica/WAIS/etc hadn't was visual content on web pages. They became accessable to "normal people" because they weren't just reading, they were seeing.
The visual design of Mediawiki and the existing projects is acutely aware of this. Pretending that this isn't a significant part of the user experience, or a significant part of the "customer value", is silly.
George Herbert wrote:
On 7/19/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
It doesn't particularly matter if free replacements will be added to those articles. "The Free Encyclopedia" means more than "free of charge". It means, to the greatest degree possible, that it should be free of restrictive copyright terms; free to reuse, copy, and modify as you see fit.
View "free" and "encyclopedia" as two equally important halves of our mission. In the case of some articles, a nonfree image adds such tremendous educational value to an article that it's worth it to use it, though it detracts slightly from the "free" aspect. But what, I wonder, do you learn about Wal-Mart from seeing their logo? About your average album or book from seeing what the cover looks like? By using thousands of these images, we're taking away greatly from the "free" aspect of our mission, and adding marginally if at all to the "encyclopedia" part.
I'm sorry, but the additional value provided by visual identifiers such as logos and album cover art is significant.
Human learning and memory processes are significantly keyed by such visual content, and it makes it much more enjoyable to read.
The entire reason that the Web took off in the early 90s and that Archie/Gopher/Veronica/WAIS/etc hadn't was visual content on web pages. They became accessable to "normal people" because they weren't just reading, they were seeing.
The visual design of Mediawiki and the existing projects is acutely aware of this. Pretending that this isn't a significant part of the user experience, or a significant part of the "customer value", is silly.
If all we need is -some- kind of visual, we could easily enough do a free-content picture of a band in the album article or the like. I doubt most people could tell you what more than a handful of album covers or corporate logos look like, but could probably tell you the -names- of hundreds. (I bet you that more people know the name Microsoft, Coca-Cola, or IBM than know what the logo looks like.) There are some logos which have become iconic, such as Nike's, and I don't have any problem with those. But the vast majority are just decorative, or at the very least serve a limited educational purpose. Such theoretical and limited benefits are not worth real and serious damage to the other half of the mission-"free as in freedom".
Todd Allen wrote:
If all we need is -some- kind of visual, we could easily enough do a free-content picture of a band in the album article or the like. I doubt most people could tell you what more than a handful of album covers or corporate logos look like, but could probably tell you the -names- of hundreds. (I bet you that more people know the name Microsoft, Coca-Cola, or IBM than know what the logo looks like.) There are some logos which have become iconic, such as Nike's, and I don't have any problem with those. But the vast majority are just decorative, or at the very least serve a limited educational purpose.
That's your personal opinion.
Such theoretical and limited benefits are not worth real and serious damage to the other half of the mission-"free as in freedom".
What serious damage? If the usage really is a fair one there is no damage.
I can respect an argument based onan ethical position that such usage is not done, but not an argument that is based on a total lack of understanding of the legal environment.
Ec
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, George Herbert wrote:
Human learning and memory processes are significantly keyed by such visual content, and it makes it much more enjoyable to read.
<anti-spoiler-warning> B-- but it's *redundant*, right? Ease of use doesn't matter; if we're using it to tell the reader something he can already figure out, it must be deleted, right? </anti-spoiler-warning>
On 7/20/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
<anti-spoiler-warning> B-- but it's *redundant*, right? Ease of use doesn't matter; if we're using it to tell the reader something he can already figure out, it must be deleted, right? </anti-spoiler-warning>
Ken, you're being a broken record. It's getting to the point of whining now, IMO.
-Matt
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007, Matthew Brown wrote:
<anti-spoiler-warning> B-- but it's *redundant*, right? Ease of use doesn't matter; if we're using it to tell the reader something he can already figure out, it must be deleted, right? </anti-spoiler-warning>
Ken, you're being a broken record. It's getting to the point of whining now, IMO.
Do you know *how* many times I've seen the argument about spoiler warnings that since the user can already figure out that a plot section contains a spoiler, it must not be labelled? And do you know how many times I've pointed out the ease of use and consistency argument, and nobody bothers to pay attention? Let's just say, lots of times.
On 22/07/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007, Matthew Brown wrote:
Ken, you're being a broken record. It's getting to the point of whining now, IMO.
Do you know *how* many times I've seen the argument about spoiler warnings that since the user can already figure out that a plot section contains a spoiler, it must not be labelled? And do you know how many times I've pointed out the ease of use and consistency argument, and nobody bothers to pay attention? Let's just say, lots of times.
Yes, that's what Matthew just pointed out. You seem to have missed the point he was making, which is that this is tedious and doesn't make anyone care any more than they do.
I note on Harry Potter-related articles, the {{current fiction}} tag is achieving some currency. This is analogous with the {{current}} tag for real-world events. Nicely consistent and gets rid of the argument that sections containing plot elements should be redundantly marked {{spoiler}} because the work is a recent release.
- d.
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007, David Gerard wrote:
Yes, that's what Matthew just pointed out. You seem to have missed the point he was making, which is that this is tedious and doesn't make anyone care any more than they do.
You seem to have missed *my* point, which is that I've explained it time and time again and some people Just Don't Get It. How clueless do you have to be to still think that spoiler warnings on plot sections should be removed because they are redundant? Not only have I explained what's wrong with the idea, the explanation is straightforward enough that nobody really disputes it (well, maybe the user interface idea). *Nobody* says "I disagree, in fact, every plot element *is* a spoiler" or "I disagree, I don't think that a warning in the middle of the section gives the reader more specific information about the location of the spoiler". Disputing those would be silly.
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007, David Gerard wrote:
Yes, that's what Matthew just pointed out. You seem to have missed the point he was making, which is that this is tedious and doesn't make anyone care any more than they do.
You seem to have missed *my* point, which is that I've explained it time and time again and some people Just Don't Get It. How clueless do you have to be to still think that spoiler warnings on plot sections should be removed because they are redundant? Not only have I explained what's wrong with the idea, the explanation is straightforward enough that nobody really disputes it (well, maybe the user interface idea). *Nobody* says "I disagree, in fact, every plot element *is* a spoiler" or "I disagree, I don't think that a warning in the middle of the section gives the reader more specific information about the location of the spoiler". Disputing those would be silly.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Nobody_cares
Wasn't this particular thread supposed to be about fair use? Why are we discussing spoiler tags?
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Todd Allen wrote:
Wasn't this particular thread supposed to be about fair use? Why are we discussing spoiler tags?
The argument was that fair use images should be avoided because they don't give the user information.
The response is given the way the human mind categorizes and understands things, having images makes the article easier to read and understand even if, strictly speaking, the image doesn't provide the reader with new facts.
Of course, the same argument has been made against spoiler warnings in plot sections, and (one of the) responses is the same.
On 7/23/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
You seem to have missed *my* point, which is that I've explained it time and time again and some people Just Don't Get It.
You might want to consider that if you keep repeating yourself and people don't agree, perhaps they just don't agree. This isn't a simple logic puzzle with one Right Answer; it involves weighing a bunch of different factors and judging in a very subjective way which are more important.
If other people are repeatedly coming to a different conclusion than you, it's probably because they weight those different factors in a different way than you do.
Thus, repetition is not going to solve anything. (Even if you were right and there was only one correct solution, simply repeating yourself is not going to help; people have probably already stopped listening).
-Matt
Erik Moeller wrote:
If there's one area we should focus on purging of any & all fair use, it's photos of living celebrities. But the mere fact that the quantity of fair use images is high does not indicate that something is fundamentally wrong; the quantity of articles documenting pop culture is also very high, and documenting contemporary works will often include fair use excerpts. I would be more open to a rigid approach if copyright terms weren't so ridiculously high, but there is no relevant process of contemporary works passing into the public domain anymore. Making use of the few exemptions the law provides seems entirely reasonable.
Absolutely, but I do find that people get stuck on "fair use" when there are other alternatives in law. If for any reason a copyright has expored, or the material wasn't copyrightable in the first place we don't need to consider fair use.
Ec
On 7/19/07, WikipediaEditor Durin wikidurin@gmail.com wrote:
This morning, I did a survey of 100 image uploads. The sample size with relation to the overall quantity of image uploads per month is not statistically significant, but it is terrifying nonetheless. With that grain of salt in mind;
I found that 44% of images uploaded were tagged as being under a non-free license.
What is the total amount of non-free images on wikipedia? I think the English Wikipedia is probably the largest (non-free content) copyrighted image depositary found on the internet. I know for sure some people use it as that.
Garion96
Heh that's an interesting way of seeing it. But so much for "free encyclopedia" over "copyrighted image depositary"...
Alex (Majorly)
On 20/07/07, Garion96 garion96@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/19/07, WikipediaEditor Durin wikidurin@gmail.com wrote:
This morning, I did a survey of 100 image uploads. The sample size with relation to the overall quantity of image uploads per month is not statistically significant, but it is terrifying nonetheless. With that grain of salt in mind;
I found that 44% of images uploaded were tagged as being under a
non-free
license.
What is the total amount of non-free images on wikipedia? I think the English Wikipedia is probably the largest (non-free content) copyrighted image depositary found on the internet. I know for sure some people use it as that.
Garion96 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Garion96 wrote:
What is the total amount of non-free images on wikipedia? I think the English Wikipedia is probably the largest (non-free content) copyrighted image depositary found on the internet. I know for sure some people use it as that.
They're probably going to be disappointed since any non-free images that aren't actually used in an article are marked for death, and I don't think even the most fair-use-friendly editors object to this. That'd make for a pretty unreliable depository.
I've read through these 2 threads again, and I think Durin's initial post (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-July/077358.html) and George Herbert's reply (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-July/077966.html) are excellent summations of the issue.
(I'm a reductionist by nature, so, to synopsize even further...) This seems to be a fundamental disagreement between 2 philosophies: *The "open-content-first" folks (idealists), and the immediatists (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Immediatism) and *The "encyclopedia-first" folks (utilitarians?), and the eventualists (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Eventualism)
Does that sound about right?
Quiddity
On 7/21/07, quiddity blanketfort@gmail.com wrote:
I've read through these 2 threads again, and I think Durin's initial post (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-July/077358.html) and George Herbert's reply (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-July/077966.html) are excellent summations of the issue.
(I'm a reductionist by nature, so, to synopsize even further...) This seems to be a fundamental disagreement between 2 philosophies: *The "open-content-first" folks (idealists), and the immediatists (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Immediatism) and *The "encyclopedia-first" folks (utilitarians?), and the eventualists (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Eventualism)
Does that sound about right?
Sadly not quite.
There are eventualists who want us to be *eventually* strictly open content, and eventualists who don't really care as long as we are eventually a quality encyclopaedia, under what ever IP Regime.
There are also people who are in an unsconcionable hurry to make sure nothing that is of low quality *at the moment* remain on wikipedia, but who don't really register IP issues on their radar.
I don't really don't think you can make a case for such alignments. Wikiphilosophical attitudes are very much pick and choose. You won't be able to make "two parties" of wikipedians no matter how hard you try to massage the statistics.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On 7/21/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/21/07, quiddity blanketfort@gmail.com wrote:
I've read through these 2 threads again, and I think Durin's initial post (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-July/077358.html) and George Herbert's reply (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-July/077966.html) are excellent summations of the issue.
(I'm a reductionist by nature, so, to synopsize even further...) This seems to be a fundamental disagreement between 2 philosophies: *The "open-content-first" folks (idealists), and the immediatists (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Immediatism) and *The "encyclopedia-first" folks (utilitarians?), and the eventualists (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Eventualism)
Does that sound about right?
Sadly not quite.
There are eventualists who want us to be *eventually* strictly open content, and eventualists who don't really care as long as we are eventually a quality encyclopaedia, under what ever IP Regime.
There are also people who are in an unsconcionable hurry to make sure nothing that is of low quality *at the moment* remain on wikipedia, but who don't really register IP issues on their radar.
I don't really don't think you can make a case for such alignments. Wikiphilosophical attitudes are very much pick and choose. You won't be able to make "two parties" of wikipedians no matter how hard you try to massage the statistics.
some thoughts:
1) I realize that nobody *is* an archetype, I'm just trying to reframe the problem from another perspective (using over-generalizations/meta-labels/abstract archetypes (simply because my thought patterns gravitate towards point-form taxonomies)).
There doesn't seem to be a consensus forming, and from what I understand of the issues, consensus isn't likely to form, as the two viewpoints are fundamentally opposed.
2) I was specifically thinking of [[Image:Einstein tongue.jpg]] as an example. The immediatists/idealists wanted it gone or fixed instantly; whereas the eventualists were happy with the initial short description under the assumption that it would get expanded at some point in the future. (with many other factors, disclaimer disclaimer, but that was the gist)
3) I was going to suggest what Bryan Derkson wrote:
I'm suggesting that there's a _balance_ to be found here. Since we keep everything non-free tagged with explicit non-free labels, people who wish to create derivative works that can't make use of fair use exemptions the way we do can easily strip out the content that they can't use.
(much like the {{selfref}} template does) though it does get more complicated when one takes into account the non-free images that *are* explicitly discussed within an article. Those sections wouldn't make sense if the images were stripped out.
4) My unhappiness/interest in the issue is primarily due to the harm that it's causing - Good editors are being discouraged/disgruntled/dismayed, on a wide scale. Both sides have intelligent, rational, and positive positions, and we're an idealistic project to begin with, so it's always going to be more complex than a summary can do justice. But the more clearly/simply we define the legal/philosophical/opinion based stances, the easier it might be (for me at least) to discuss them. (Though I'm leaning towards agreeing that we need an official policy "from above", whatever that might be.)
Just thinking out-loud, in case it helps anyone :)
Quiddity
quiddity wrote:
On 7/21/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/21/07, quiddity blanketfort@gmail.com wrote:
I've read through these 2 threads again, and I think Durin's initial post (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-July/077358.html) and George Herbert's reply (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-July/077966.html) are excellent summations of the issue.
(I'm a reductionist by nature, so, to synopsize even further...) This seems to be a fundamental disagreement between 2 philosophies: *The "open-content-first" folks (idealists), and the immediatists (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Immediatism) and *The "encyclopedia-first" folks (utilitarians?), and the eventualists (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Eventualism)
Does that sound about right?
Sadly not quite.
There are eventualists who want us to be *eventually* strictly open content, and eventualists who don't really care as long as we are eventually a quality encyclopaedia, under what ever IP Regime.
There are also people who are in an unsconcionable hurry to make sure nothing that is of low quality *at the moment* remain on wikipedia, but who don't really register IP issues on their radar.
I don't really don't think you can make a case for such alignments. Wikiphilosophical attitudes are very much pick and choose. You won't be able to make "two parties" of wikipedians no matter how hard you try to massage the statistics.
some thoughts:
- I realize that nobody *is* an archetype, I'm just trying to reframe
the problem from another perspective (using over-generalizations/meta-labels/abstract archetypes (simply because my thought patterns gravitate towards point-form taxonomies)).
There doesn't seem to be a consensus forming, and from what I understand of the issues, consensus isn't likely to form, as the two viewpoints are fundamentally opposed.
While I make no secret about which polarity I prefer, I recognize the danger of defining them too clearly. It makes rallying about one's preference too easy, and the finding of compromises more difficult. Reductionism has the unfortunate tendency of sandpapering over the very flaws in each side that might be the start of some future life-line.
- I was specifically thinking of [[Image:Einstein tongue.jpg]] as an
example. The immediatists/idealists wanted it gone or fixed instantly; whereas the eventualists were happy with the initial short description under the assumption that it would get expanded at some point in the future. (with many other factors, disclaimer disclaimer, but that was the gist)
There are very few images that have the "iconic" associations of that Einstein image. That makes them bad examples upon which to base policy. As much as I support our use of this image, I do not accept that being "iconic" is the best argument upon which to base our stand. The apparent abandonment of rights, and the doctrine of laches strike me as more effective when we are dealing with an image that is ubiquitous.
A little search has led me to find out that the image is claimed by Corbis, and that they in turn acquired it when they bought out the rights of the Bettman Archive. Now there's a can of worms!! Does one believe everything that Corbis says? Does one believe everything that the man who ultimately pulls Corbis's strings says? :-$
Corbis aggregates archives. Bettman acquired the UPI archive. UPI acquired the picture from Albert Sasse. Someone has claimed that he was an employee, but can we be sure of that? Can Corbis trace its ownership of the rights with documentation? Do they even want to go there?
- I was going to suggest what Bryan Derkson wrote:
I'm suggesting that there's a _balance_ to be found here. Since we keep everything non-free tagged with explicit non-free labels, people who wish to create derivative works that can't make use of fair use exemptions the way we do can easily strip out the content that they can't use.
(much like the {{selfref}} template does) though it does get more complicated when one takes into account the non-free images that *are* explicitly discussed within an article. Those sections wouldn't make sense if the images were stripped out.
Using all non-free images would be as absurd as using none of them.
- My unhappiness/interest in the issue is primarily due to the harm
that it's causing - Good editors are being discouraged/disgruntled/dismayed, on a wide scale. Both sides have intelligent, rational, and positive positions, and we're an idealistic project to begin with, so it's always going to be more complex than a summary can do justice. But the more clearly/simply we define the legal/philosophical/opinion based stances, the easier it might be (for me at least) to discuss them. (Though I'm leaning towards agreeing that we need an official policy "from above", whatever that might be.)
It won't happen, because there is no simple solution that fits all circumstances, or even most of them. Some very broad policy can be developed "from above", but as these become more detailed the dynamics between the WMF and the projects can be radically altered.
Ec
On 7/22/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Corbis aggregates archives. Bettman acquired the UPI archive. UPI acquired the picture from Albert Sasse. Someone has claimed that he was an employee, but can we be sure of that? Can Corbis trace its ownership of the rights with documentation? Do they even want to go there?
They are fairly triger happy in terms of writeing letters.
geni wrote:
On 7/22/07, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Corbis aggregates archives. Bettman acquired the UPI archive. UPI acquired the picture from Albert Sasse. Someone has claimed that he was an employee, but can we be sure of that? Can Corbis trace its ownership of the rights with documentation? Do they even want to go there?
They are fairly trigger happy in terms of writeing letters.
Probably so. That can be quite intimidating to most people. This Einstein picture would probably not be a good one for them to take a stand on, but that's as much because of the nature of the picture itself; too many people would turn it into a big joke against them. That's also what would make it a poor precedent for anything else.
At some point someone will challenge whether Corbis really owns the copyright of some of the pictures in its archives, possibly on a variety of bases including a lack of a clear title.. I'm NOT saying that we should be the ones to do it, but it should be fun to watch.
Ec
On 0, quiddity blanketfort@gmail.com scribbled:
I've read through these 2 threads again, and I think Durin's initial post (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-July/077358.html) and George Herbert's reply (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-July/077966.html) are excellent summations of the issue.
(I'm a reductionist by nature, so, to synopsize even further...) This seems to be a fundamental disagreement between 2 philosophies: *The "open-content-first" folks (idealists), and the immediatists (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Immediatism) and *The "encyclopedia-first" folks (utilitarians?), and the eventualists (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Eventualism)
Does that sound about right?
Quiddity
Not quite. There are some independent axes I think here; for example, 'encyclopedia-first'/'free-content-first' is independent of eventualism/immediatism since you can construct an eventualist argument for both getting rid of and keeping free content (ex. "There's no need to delete that fair use photo of the subject; I'm sure someone will come along eventually with a Free picture we can replace it with.")
-- gwern mania 701 CTP CATO Phon-e Chicago Posse NSDM