I can NOT emphasize this enough.
There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.
I think a fair number of people need to be kicked out of the project just for being lousy writers. (This is not a policy statement, just a statement of attitude and frustration.)
On 5/16/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I think a fair number of people need to be kicked out of the project just for being lousy writers. (This is not a policy statement, just a statement of attitude and frustration.)
I realize it's written out of frustration, but you really have to appreciate much more how difficult it is to "kick out" people. You do know that Lir is still around, right? How many times did we block the guy? The fact that problem users become invisible in terms of traceable identities doesn't make them go away. It makes the problem worse. And you also remember User:Michael, I'm sure. I think that experiment is generally considered to be successful?
Wikipedia is an open system. Creating a new account is trivial; so is circumventing a block. For most people who have dynamic IPs, it doesn't even take any effort other than waiting a few hours. Heck, we don't even _require_ people to register, and when they do, we don't require email address confirmation (which itself is trivial to circumvent - mailinator.net, etc.).
Unless we want to radically reduce that level of openness, we need to stick to our usual patience in dealing with problem users. Otherwise we risk to turning an incompetent good faith editor into a malicious sock puppetteer. The fact that we have all these complex processes and policies - RfC, ArbCom, mediation, etc. - makes it all work.
That doesn't mean that we can't do more. We should make better use of the key advantage we get from _not_ blocking problem users and bad writers: traceability. There's nothing wrong with telling someone: "We appreciate your contributions, but their quality is not yet up to our standards, so we're going to put you in a different class of users."
Highlight their edits. Create a page where volunteers can sign up as mentors to deal with them. Only in the worst cases, tell them that if they don't find someone to mentor, they will be blocked. And I probably should polish my "School of Wikipedia" idea a bit more. Writing is a skill that can be acquired.
Erik
On 5/17/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
Highlight their edits. Create a page where volunteers can sign up as mentors to deal with them. Only in the worst cases, tell them that if they don't find someone to mentor, they will be blocked. And I probably should polish my "School of Wikipedia" idea a bit more. Writing is a skill that can be acquired.
I fully agree that editing Wikipedia is a learning process, as would, I hope, practically everyone on the project. This is, in fact, one of the main ideas behind the current plans for Wikiversity [1] - to provide for a way for people to learn how to do useful things related to Wikimedia projects - such as, say, identify and critique sources for Wikipedia articles or Wikibooks, grab and edit video clips (Commons, Wikipedia), create diagrams and illustrations for articles, textbooks, etc.
Wikipedia is a strong learning community, but not all the time. Too often, I see people saying things like "You have no idea what you're talking about", when the person is merely expressing what they believe to be true - which results in a typical flamewar, arbitration case etc. I think that we need to have a place for people to be free to experiment and to learn collaboratively - there are, of course aspects of this inherent in Wikipedia (as in all wikis) but it's not enough in my opinion. I think that Wikiversity should be that "School of Wikip/media".
Best, Cormac (Cormaggio)
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity/Modified_project_proposal
Erik Moeller wrote:
I realize it's written out of frustration, but you really have to appreciate much more how difficult it is to "kick out" people. You do know that Lir is still around, right? How many times did we block the guy? The fact that problem users become invisible in terms of traceable identities doesn't make them go away. It makes the problem worse. And you also remember User:Michael, I'm sure. I think that experiment is generally considered to be successful?
I am not talking about trolls and problem users in this case, though. I am talking about bad editors, editors who don't stop to think that reverting someone who is trying to remove libel about themselves is a horribly stupid thing to do.
Unless we want to radically reduce that level of openness, we need to stick to our usual patience in dealing with problem users.
Right, and I do not think we have a problem with that.
On 5/16/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I think a fair number of people need to be kicked out of the project just for being lousy writers. (This is not a policy statement, just a statement of attitude and frustration.)
No they need to have their energies redirected to some element of the project where they can be more useful.
G'day geni,
On 5/16/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I think a fair number of people need to be kicked out of the project just for being lousy writers. (This is not a policy statement, just a statement of attitude and frustration.)
No they need to have their energies redirected to some element of the project where they can be more useful.
I agree. The problem isn't "lousy writers", /per se/, but lousy writers who think they're God's gift to the written word.
On 5/16/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
On 5/16/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I think a fair number of people need to be kicked out of the project just for being lousy writers. (This is not a policy statement, just a statement of attitude and frustration.)
... The problem isn't "lousy writers", /per se/, but lousy writers who think they're God's gift to the written word.
Poor writing is what's most noticeable about our articles and it's not invariably because of people who aren't able to write, but often because of laziness. Someone'll make an edit that changes the flow of a paragraph but then won't bother to tidy up after themselves, so one paragraph ends up saying the same thing three times in different ways; or a sentence will contradict the sentence that comes after it. It would be good if we could somehow raise people's consciousness about the importance of narrative flow.
Sarah
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I can NOT emphasize this enough.
There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.
There are vast swaths of articles on Wikipedia that are completely unsourced right now. While I in no way dispute that this is a bad thing and it needs to be corrected, IMO it'd be a worse thing to simply go around _deleting_ all that stuff. Deleting "unfinished" stuff can often greatly hinder the eventual creation of "finished" stuff. Wikipedia's not done yet.
There are nights where I do nothing but cruise around on random article patrol, doing little bits of tidying on subjects I know nothing about and which I don't care to research in-depth. One of the things I do is add {{citation needed}} when I hit statements that look particularly significant and unsupported, in the hopes that someone who _does_ know about the subject will be prompted to check them and fill in the blanks at some point later on. How is this "wrong"? Seems like perfectly straightforward collaborative editing to me, dividing labor between proofreading and doing the actual problem-fixing work.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
One of the things I do is add {{citation needed}} when I hit statements that look particularly significant and unsupported, in the hopes that someone who _does_ know about the subject will be prompted to check them and fill in the blanks at some point later on. How is this "wrong"? Seems like perfectly straightforward collaborative editing to me, dividing labor between proofreading and doing the actual problem-fixing work.
There is nothing wrong with this, except what I am saying is this:
If you see an unsourced statement that would be libel if false, and it makes you feel suspicious enough to want to tag it as {{citation needed}}, please do not do that! Please just remove the statement and ask a question on the talk page.
Here is an example from an article I deleted: "The most recent disaster that <name omitted> claims his organization has responded to is the 2004 South Asia Tsunami, although there is no convincing evidence that he or any of his team has been there.[citation needed]"
That is really really really awful.
--Jimbo
On 5/19/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
If you see an unsourced statement that would be libel if false, and it makes you feel suspicious enough to want to tag it as {{citation needed}}, please do not do that! Please just remove the statement and ask a question on the talk page.
Agree with this. Is it added to the relevant policy pages?
Here is an example from an article I deleted:
"The most recent disaster that <name omitted> claims his organization has responded to is the 2004 South Asia Tsunami, although there is no convincing evidence that he or any of his team has been there.[citation needed]"
That is really really really awful.
It's also just stupid, bad writing. "Nobel peace prize winner Jim Smith said all people should donate money to charities. Ironically, Smith has never given money to the [insert name of charity picked at random here."
IMHO this kind of writing breaches NPOV and almost NOR - we start to make claims about the person by connecting unrelated facts together. We should never attempt to expose hypocrisy in our subjects - if it exists, we should find reliable sources that have already done that. This was the problem with [[Safe Speed]] - editors had tried to debunk claims made by the group, whereas what they should have been doing was citing others who had debunked them, not just general research that apparently contradicts their claims.
Selective juxtaposition of facts to imply something is definitely out. You either say it and cite a source, or you don't say it at all.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
IMHO this kind of writing breaches NPOV and almost NOR - we start to make claims about the person by connecting unrelated facts together. We should never attempt to expose hypocrisy in our subjects - if it exists, we should find reliable sources that have already done that. This was the problem with [[Safe Speed]] - editors had tried to debunk claims made by the group, whereas what they should have been doing was citing others who had debunked them, not just general research that apparently contradicts their claims.
Selective juxtaposition of facts to imply something is definitely out. You either say it and cite a source, or you don't say it at all.
Yes. One important factor in this whole thing is that two things have happened recently (in the past year):
1. Wikipedia has become a major cultural force especially in the English speaking world, but also in many other languages as well. It is important enough that a current Senator and former US Presidential candidate I met last week told me that he has his staff check his biography every day.
But we do not generally have serious problems with people who are that notable. Everyone who has a bio in wikipedia is likely to check it with some regularity. I try really really hard to not even look at mine, because I find it so strange to read, but I still do from time to time.
2. Wikipedia has grown in size to the point that many people who are NOT particularly famous have an article. It is easy to understand that supporters and opponents of George W. Bush will keep an eye on his article and make sure it do
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/19/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
If you see an unsourced statement that would be libel if false, and it makes you feel suspicious enough to want to tag it as {{citation needed}}, please do not do that! Please just remove the statement and ask a question on the talk page.
Agree with this. Is it added to the relevant policy pages?
Here is an example from an article I deleted:
"The most recent disaster that <name omitted> claims his organization has responded to is the 2004 South Asia Tsunami, although there is no convincing evidence that he or any of his team has been there.[citation needed]"
That is really really really awful.
It's also just stupid, bad writing. "Nobel peace prize winner Jim Smith said all people should donate money to charities. Ironically, Smith has never given money to the [insert name of charity picked at random here."
The real problem with the last statement is that it is a negative one. Saying that someone has _never_ done something is virtually impossible to verify. (Unless he was out of contact with everyone when his Oceanic Airlines flight home from the Nobel ceremonies crashed on a South Pacific Island)
IMHO this kind of writing breaches NPOV and almost NOR - we start to make claims about the person by connecting unrelated facts together. We should never attempt to expose hypocrisy in our subjects - if it exists, we should find reliable sources that have already done that. This was the problem with [[Safe Speed]] - editors had tried to debunk claims made by the group, whereas what they should have been doing was citing others who had debunked them, not just general research that apparently contradicts their claims.
It's still a matter of how you expose the hypocrisy. In the case of the Massachusetts congressman who openly campaigned for a maximum of four terms, it was a verifiable fact that he was in his seventh term.
Selective juxtaposition of facts to imply something is definitely out. You either say it and cite a source, or you don't say it at all.
Yes, but a skillfull wordsmith can still find ways around that.
Ec
On 5/20/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It's still a matter of how you expose the hypocrisy. In the case of the Massachusetts congressman who openly campaigned for a maximum of four terms, it was a verifiable fact that he was in his seventh term.
I would still be careful - I doubt that we could not have found a source for someone else pointing out the hypocrisy. If it was up to us, we would have to be very careful that he had indeed promised that, that there were not significant mitigating circumstances in the meantime, that anybody actually cared etc.
Politicians make lots of broken promises...it's appropriate to point out the ones that made headlines. Pointing out that a promise made as a backbencher to completely reform the nation's tax system was never carried out...well, you'd struggle to find a one line mention in a local paper about that.
Steve
On 21/05/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/20/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It's still a matter of how you expose the hypocrisy. In the case of the Massachusetts congressman who openly campaigned for a maximum of four terms, it was a verifiable fact that he was in his seventh term.
I would still be careful - I doubt that we could not have found a source for someone else pointing out the hypocrisy. If it was up to us, we would have to be very careful that he had indeed promised that, that there were not significant mitigating circumstances in the meantime, that anybody actually cared etc.
Politicians make lots of broken promises...it's appropriate to point out the ones that made headlines. Pointing out that a promise made as a backbencher to completely reform the nation's tax system was never carried out...well, you'd struggle to find a one line mention in a local paper about that.
My view, incidentally, is that it would be worthwhile mentioning that as a backbencher he promised X, Y and Z - it shows where his interests lay, which is always of note - but actually saying "and, of course, he never managed it" is itself the "spin" You assume by default that a backbencher's goals are never going to be carried out, and whilst on the rare occasions when one manages it you say so*, actually pointing it out seems like you're trying to make a point.
I guess this ties in well with the headlines thing - successes should be remarked on, and Big Things which fail remarked on, but not the things that no-one noticed...
* A. P. Herbert gave a maiden speech on his second day in the House promising to reform the divorce laws - and had it done within a year!
On 5/19/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
If you see an unsourced statement that would be libel if false, and it makes you feel suspicious enough to want to tag it as {{citation needed}}, please do not do that! Please just remove the statement and ask a question on the talk page.
Yes. And this is what we used to do before {{fact}} or its synonyms became widespread. I think that, because {{fact}} is so easy to tag onto something, the practice of moving dubious claims may have decreased somewhat in favor of tagging them. What can we practically do to change this? I think policy alone will not be sufficient, given how ubiquitous {{fact}} has already become.
Perhaps we need a new tag for claims which should be moved within n days unless cited, with its own category for maintenancy. But that might further increase the use of tagging as opposed to talk pages.
Erik
On Fri, 19 May 2006 10:24:30 +0200, you wrote:
Yes. And this is what we used to do before {{fact}} or its synonyms became widespread. I think that, because {{fact}} is so easy to tag onto something, the practice of moving dubious claims may have decreased somewhat in favor of tagging them. What can we practically do to change this? I think policy alone will not be sufficient, given how ubiquitous {{fact}} has already become.
I believe it is worse than that: there is a view among many editors that nothing should be removed unless it can be *proven* false, which is completely the wrong way round, whether it be for a living person or not. There is also a widespread view that a large number of Google hits equals verifiability.
Guy (JzG)
On May 19, 2006, at 1:24 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
Yes. And this is what we used to do before {{fact}} or its synonyms became widespread. I think that, because {{fact}} is so easy to tag onto something, the practice of moving dubious claims may have decreased somewhat in favor of tagging them. What can we practically do to change this? I think policy alone will not be sufficient, given how ubiquitous {{fact}} has already become.
Perhaps we need a new tag for claims which should be moved within n days unless cited, with its own category for maintenancy. But that might further increase the use of tagging as opposed to talk pages.
Curtailing the use of {{fact}} on dubious statements that are unsourced or poorly sourced is what we are discussing. [[WP:LIVING]] as recently updated by SlimVirgin, UninvitedCompany and others, although not policy, cover this subject quite unambiguously:
"We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references — particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page."
Maybe it is time to consider upgrading [[WP:LIVING]] to policy status.
-- Jossi
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 5/19/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
If you see an unsourced statement that would be libel if false, and it makes you feel suspicious enough to want to tag it as {{citation needed}}, please do not do that! Please just remove the statement and ask a question on the talk page.
Yes. And this is what we used to do before {{fact}} or its synonyms became widespread. I think that, because {{fact}} is so easy to tag onto something, the practice of moving dubious claims may have decreased somewhat in favor of tagging them. What can we practically do to change this? I think policy alone will not be sufficient, given how ubiquitous {{fact}} has already become.
Perhaps we need a new tag for claims which should be moved within n days unless cited, with its own category for maintenancy. But that might further increase the use of tagging as opposed to talk pages.
Multiplying the number of tags only provides new opportunities for getting things wrong.
Ec
On 5/20/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
Perhaps we need a new tag for claims which should be moved within n days unless cited, with its own category for maintenancy. But that might further increase the use of tagging as opposed to talk pages.
Multiplying the number of tags only provides new opportunities for getting things wrong.
Ec
It wouldn't be very hard to implement the *procedure* "claims should be moved [to the talk page] [after] n days" without implementing a new tag. I'm sure someone could whip up a quick db search tool to create a list.
As an aside, maybe in the longer term a timestamp could be built right into "what links here".
Anthony
On 5/16/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I can NOT emphasize this enough.
There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.
I seriously doubt you've edited enough with sockpuppets to understand what this is all about. Either that or you've abandoned your previous notion that edit warring is bad.
I do agree with you about negative information on living people, especially non-incredibly famous living people. But in general the best a non-admin can do is point things out and hope someone listens.
Anthony
On 5/17/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.
I seriously doubt you've edited enough with sockpuppets to understand what this is all about. Either that or you've abandoned your previous notion that edit warring is bad.
I agree that Jimbo's ideal is a very, very long way from being current accepted practice. Indeed, I did think that random speculative info was better than none. I'm happy to be corrected, but I was under the impression that as long as we can convey that the information is not guaranteed accurate (by the use of cite tags), then "speculative" information is better than none.
As a reader, often you approach a topic knowing nothing at all. If Wikipedia can at least give you a broad outline of the topic with some clues as to where it fits with respect to other topics, then it's doing well. Whether or not it's a neutral, balanced and totally factually accurate article is a secondary concern to me, as a reader.
Here's an example: [[Solo climbing]], as I found it a few months ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solo_climbing&oldid=27480122
No sources, no guarantee of accuracy. However, I found my way onto this page when someone told me that the crazy video I'd just seen was representative of "free soloing". Wikipedia certainly explained what the concept was and gave me some background. Would a blank article have been preferable? I would say no.
If we are implementing a hard line "all unsourced information must be removed immediately" policy, then, that's ok - but it's going to a be a major shock to a lot of people, and is a significant departure from current practice.
Steve
On Wed, 17 May 2006 13:24:29 +0200, you wrote:
I'm happy to be corrected, but I was under the impression that as long as we can convey that the information is not guaranteed accurate (by the use of cite tags), then "speculative" information is better than none.
In the case of living individuals? You want to pay for the lawsuits? I can't see any problem at all with requiring all critical information on living individuals to be robustly sourced before insertion. Where's the downside? That we fail to repeat speculation on blogs and attack sites? Seems to me that would improve credibility, not reduce it.
Guy (JzG)
On 5/17/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
In the case of living individuals? You want to pay for the lawsuits? I can't see any problem at all with requiring all critical information on living individuals to be robustly sourced before insertion. Where's the downside? That we fail to repeat speculation on blogs and attack sites? Seems to me that would improve credibility, not reduce it.
Living individuals aside.
Steve
Jimbo's original post was specifically referring to living individuals. Let's not get off track, this is an important topic (and important distinction).
k
On 5/17/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/17/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
In the case of living individuals? You want to pay for the lawsuits? I can't see any problem at all with requiring all critical information on living individuals to be robustly sourced before insertion. Where's the downside? That we fail to repeat speculation on blogs and attack sites? Seems to me that would improve credibility, not reduce it.
Living individuals aside.
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/17/06, Katefan0 katefan0wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Jimbo's original post was specifically referring to living individuals. Let's not get off track, this is an important topic (and important distinction).
"This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."
If his point was only about living individuals, then I have no further comment to make.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/17/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
In the case of living individuals? You want to pay for the lawsuits? I can't see any problem at all with requiring all critical information on living individuals to be robustly sourced before insertion. Where's the downside? That we fail to repeat speculation on blogs and attack sites? Seems to me that would improve credibility, not reduce it.
Living individuals aside.
Right, although there are other categories where this can be important:
1. Existing companies and other organizations (an extension of the living persons, since these are groups of living persons)
2. Information which might have some significant safety implications
On 5/19/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Right, although there are other categories where this can be important:
- Existing companies and other organizations (an extension of the
living persons, since these are groups of living persons)
- Information which might have some significant safety implications
This is getting interesting. Do we leave it up to common sense, or do we encode this list somewhere? Would legal information qualify? Medicine? What about information which could influence voters in an election?
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
Here's an example: [[Solo climbing]], as I found it a few months ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solo_climbing&oldid=27480122
No sources, no guarantee of accuracy. However, I found my way onto this page when someone told me that the crazy video I'd just seen was representative of "free soloing". Wikipedia certainly explained what the concept was and gave me some background. Would a blank article have been preferable? I would say no.
This is indeed an interesting example, because although I haven't touched that article, I can vouch for every statement, at least partly because I did a tiny bit of free soloing in my younger days (heart in mouth the whole time :-) ). But my personal library of climbing literature is kind of oldish and includes no references to the practice, so presumably I learned about it by word of mouth, or perhaps from magazines.
Right now I don't see that we have a "culture of referencing" in the same way that we have a "culture of completeness" organized around lists of missing articles, or a "culture of image tagging" that has become fairly effective at searching out and destroying bad uploads. For instance, my own library is in some areas better than what most universities have, yet I have no idea if there are articles that need me to go pull a book off the shelf, check the claims, and type in the reference if OK. I could also imagine a future culture where an unsupported claim is handled like an untagged image, and gets a seven-day grace period before being reverted. As with images, good faith is helped along by having a bit of incentive and punishment.
Stan
On 5/17/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Right now I don't see that we have a "culture of referencing" in the same way that we have a "culture of completeness" organized around lists of missing articles, or a "culture of image tagging" that has become fairly effective at searching out and destroying bad uploads. For instance, my own library is in some areas better than what most universities have, yet I have no idea if there are articles that need me to go pull a book off the shelf, check the claims, and type in the reference if OK. I could also imagine a future culture where an unsupported claim is handled like an untagged image, and gets a seven-day grace period before being reverted. As with images, good faith is helped along by having a bit of incentive and punishment.
Right. And why is that? Because referencing is hard. Finding good sources is generally difficult, and takes time and effort. And it doesn't have that same neat, orderly feel about it that attracts people to tasks like filling in red links, stub sorting or categorising. It takes all sorts to make Wikipedia work, but frankly, we need a lot more of the people that like finding sources on random subjects and researching them, to make Wikipedia meet its goals.
It would probably be fair to say that there are a small number of people who contribute significant amounts of material, an even smaller number that do it outside their narrow fields of interest, but a much larger number who categorise, order, shape, copy edit, structure and so forth.
If anyone knows how to get more of these people that we need (yes, we're basically talking about university undergrads or grads, or even possible retired academics...), it would be worth sharing them.
Steve
On 5/17/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/17/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Right now I don't see that we have a "culture of referencing" in the same way that we have a "culture of completeness" organized around lists of missing articles, or a "culture of image tagging" that has become fairly effective at searching out and destroying bad uploads. For instance, my own library is in some areas better than what most universities have, yet I have no idea if there are articles that need me to go pull a book off the shelf, check the claims, and type in the reference if OK. I could also imagine a future culture where an unsupported claim is handled like an untagged image, and gets a seven-day grace period before being reverted. As with images, good faith is helped along by having a bit of incentive and punishment.
Right. And why is that? Because referencing is hard. Finding good sources is generally difficult, and takes time and effort. And it doesn't have that same neat, orderly feel about it that attracts people to tasks like filling in red links, stub sorting or categorising. It takes all sorts to make Wikipedia work, but frankly, we need a lot more of the people that like finding sources on random subjects and researching them, to make Wikipedia meet its goals.
I actually don't think finding good sources or referencing is particularly hard, it just isn't very well suited to the current wiki software. When writing an academic paper finding sources and writing the actual text is two separate steps. Wikis jumble the two very different steps into one.
How to address that at this point, without upsetting everything (and everyone), is a very difficult question to answer.
Anthony
On 5/17/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I actually don't think finding good sources or referencing is particularly hard, it just isn't very well suited to the current wiki software. When writing an academic paper finding sources and writing the actual text is two separate steps. Wikis jumble the two very different steps into one.
<elitist> I believe it's hard for the "average person". Anyone who hasn't been to university is pretty unlikely to suddenly develop research skills and the ability to go to a library and look up journal articles. </elitist>
Steve
On 5/17/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/17/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I actually don't think finding good sources or referencing is particularly hard, it just isn't very well suited to the current wiki software. When writing an academic paper finding sources and writing the actual text is two separate steps. Wikis jumble the two very different steps into one.
<elitist> I believe it's hard for the "average person". Anyone who hasn't been to university is pretty unlikely to suddenly develop research skills and the ability to go to a library and look up journal articles. </elitist>
Nowadays you don't even have to go to a library to look up journal articles. Wikipedians must be getting the information they put into articles from somewhere, and I find it hard to believe that more than a miniscule portion of it is straight from their memory.
The ad hoc system in place now is completely backwards. You're supposed to get your sources first, *then* write the article. Believe it or not I'm completely in agreement with Jimbo that unsourced material should not be in Wikipedia articles. But just telling people to do a better job or "be kicked out of the project just for being lousy writers" is not a very productive way of achieving that.
Anthony
On 5/18/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Nowadays you don't even have to go to a library to look up journal articles. Wikipedians must be getting the information they put into articles from somewhere, and I find it hard to believe that more than a miniscule portion of it is straight from their memory.
I know heaps of stuff that isn't in Wikipedia. And I didn't get it from reading "reliable sources". To take another example, [[Bouchon]]. Any person who has spent more than a couple of days in Lyon knows what a bouchon is (a typically Lyonnais restaurant). Yet Wikipedia had nothing on them. I didn't feel like I was going out on a limb creating a stub about a bouchon saying that they serve very meaty dishes that many foreigners wouldn't necessarily appreciate. Of course for the details on exactly what they do and don't serve, I went to a book.
I'm offering this account not as what should be done, but what I believe is current practice - but the use of a book is even more stringent than most, I suspect.
The interpretation of WP:V that says that any information that is not accompanied by a citation should never enter Wikipedia is, IMHO, novel. I would have nothing against that becoming the official interpretation, but it's not even close to being the dominant one at the moment.
The ad hoc system in place now is completely backwards. You're
supposed to get your sources first, *then* write the article. Believe it or not I'm completely in agreement with Jimbo that unsourced material should not be in Wikipedia articles. But just telling people to do a better job or "be kicked out of the project just for being lousy writers" is not a very productive way of achieving that.
If we don't want unsourced material, why have we tolerated it so long?
Steve
On 5/18/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/18/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Nowadays you don't even have to go to a library to look up journal articles. Wikipedians must be getting the information they put into articles from somewhere, and I find it hard to believe that more than a miniscule portion of it is straight from their memory.
I know heaps of stuff that isn't in Wikipedia. And I didn't get it from reading "reliable sources". To take another example, [[Bouchon]]. Any person who has spent more than a couple of days in Lyon knows what a bouchon is (a typically Lyonnais restaurant). Yet Wikipedia had nothing on them. I didn't feel like I was going out on a limb creating a stub about a bouchon saying that they serve very meaty dishes that many foreigners wouldn't necessarily appreciate. Of course for the details on exactly what they do and don't serve, I went to a book.
I'm offering this account not as what should be done, but what I believe is current practice - but the use of a book is even more stringent than most, I suspect.
Maybe my estimate is wrong, in which case this would be a lot more work than I suspect. But then again, it wasn't that hard for me to find a few decent sources to use when writing about bouchons, using Google books: The Concise Larousse Gastronomique: The World's Greatest Cookery Encyclopedia has a short entry, and France by Lonely Planet Publications has half a page. That should be enough for a stub.
Now what if the software didn't let you create a stub right off the bat? What if you had to list your sources first, then take info from those sources, *then* you could start a stub? I don't think writing an article would be incredibly harder, it'd just be radically different. Getting away with plagiarism would be a lot harder too, probably harder than just writing a decent article yourself.
This isn't to say that I think *Wikipedia* should work that way. After all, Wikipedia has a long history of running completely different from that, and a relatively successful history too (certainly volume-wise, and the average quality isn't too bad). What I'm saying is that providing enough sources to write a decent encyclopedia article isn't very hard for any but the most obscure subjects, whether you've been to university or not. Providing sources for an encyclopedia article that's already written, on the other hand - that can be hard or nearly impossible (or even impossible if the article is unverifiable).
Anyway, to bring this out of theory and back to reality, is there anything I can do with those two references I found on bouchon? Put them in the ==References== section, even though no one actually used the source? Put them on the talk page? Maybe we need a "notes" page which can be organized a little bit better than the talk page.
The interpretation of WP:V that says that any information that is not accompanied by a citation should never enter Wikipedia is, IMHO, novel. I would have nothing against that becoming the official interpretation, but it's not even close to being the dominant one at the moment.
I don't interpret WP:V that way. The way I interpret WP:V (as of a few months ago), it means that a citation should be easily added to any information upon request, which in turn means that anything not cited, at least in hidden comments, is subject to potential removal. What I'd like to see Wikipedia move toward is a situation where all the information is sourced somewhere, though for practicality purposes the details would probably not be in the article itself (just a list of sources in ==References== is acceptable for unextraordinary claims).
But let me be clear that I don't think this can be achieved simply by a change of policy. I'm not even sure there is a critical mass of Wikipedians that want this in order for it to happen.
The ad hoc system in place now is completely backwards. You're
supposed to get your sources first, *then* write the article. Believe it or not I'm completely in agreement with Jimbo that unsourced material should not be in Wikipedia articles. But just telling people to do a better job or "be kicked out of the project just for being lousy writers" is not a very productive way of achieving that.
If we don't want unsourced material, why have we tolerated it so long?
I never said "we" don't want unsourced material. Jimbo said *he* didn't want it. And I said I agreed: I don't think there should be unsourced material *in Wikipedia articles*. If you want to create a stub from your memory, I think it should go on the talk page (yeah, even if there isn't anything on the article page).
But I'm not claiming to speak for all Wikipedians, just giving my opinion.
Why have Wikipedians tolerated unsourced material so long? Because not tolerating unsourced material is *exceedingly* anti-wiki, and Wikipedia evolved from a wiki.
Anthony
On 5/18/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Now what if the software didn't let you create a stub right off the bat? What if you had to list your sources first, then take info from those sources, *then* you could start a stub? I don't think writing an article would be incredibly harder, it'd just be radically different. Getting away with plagiarism would be a lot harder too, probably harder than just writing a decent article yourself.
That's a pretty good description of [[WP:AFC]] - and you're not the first to consider using that as a model for *all* editors.
This isn't to say that I think *Wikipedia* should work that way.
After all, Wikipedia has a long history of running completely different from that, and a relatively successful history too (certainly volume-wise, and the average quality isn't too bad). What I'm saying is that providing enough sources to write a decent encyclopedia article isn't very hard for any but the most obscure subjects, whether you've been to university or not. Providing sources for an encyclopedia article that's already written, on the other hand
- that can be hard or nearly impossible (or even impossible if the
article is unverifiable).
If you can't find sources for a written article, it's not a very good article is it!
Anyway, to bring this out of theory and back to reality, is there
anything I can do with those two references I found on bouchon? Put them in the ==References== section, even though no one actually used the source? Put them on the talk page? Maybe we need a "notes" page which can be organized a little bit better than the talk page.
==Further reading== is my preference. I've occasionally seen ==Bibliography==. I would suggest putting them in the main article rather than the talk page unless you have strong doubts about their relevance. Remember, we're trying to be helpful to the reader - giving pointers to further information fulfils that goal.
Incidentally, I feel a bit dumb not having used the Lonely Planet - I have a copy, which I use frequently, but have never yet used for Wikipedia, though it's such an incredibly obvious source of good concise information on all aspects of France.
I don't interpret WP:V that way. The way I interpret WP:V (as of a
few months ago), it means that a citation should be easily added to any information upon request, which in turn means that anything not
I object to any proposals that rely on challenges, requests, original authors etc. The wiki model explicitly rejects the idea that the original author is going to hang around or is contactable or responsible for his contributions. Once the article is written, all future contributors should be equally responsible for its content, no?
cited, at least in hidden comments, is subject to potential removal.
What I'd like to see Wikipedia move toward is a situation where all the information is sourced somewhere, though for practicality purposes the details would probably not be in the article itself (just a list of sources in ==References== is acceptable for unextraordinary claims).
You don't like footnotes?
But let me be clear that I don't think this can be achieved simply by
a change of policy. I'm not even sure there is a critical mass of Wikipedians that want this in order for it to happen.
There are certainly large parts of Wikipedia where sources and WP:V are seen as an inconvenience, and a necessary step to avoid WP:AFD, but nothing more. Then there are lots of parts where people genuinely make an effort to include sources to make WP more useful. I wouldn't want to guess at the relative proportions.
If we don't want unsourced material, why have we tolerated it so long?
I never said "we" don't want unsourced material. Jimbo said *he* didn't want it. And I said I agreed: I don't think there should be unsourced material *in Wikipedia articles*. If you want to create a stub from your memory, I think it should go on the talk page (yeah, even if there isn't anything on the article page).
But I'm not claiming to speak for all Wikipedians, just giving my opinion.
Why have Wikipedians tolerated unsourced material so long? Because not tolerating unsourced material is *exceedingly* anti-wiki, and Wikipedia evolved from a wiki.
When do we flick the switch and say "We're not a wiki anymore, our standards have been raised"? My proposal for designating classes of articles based on their gradings is effectively a way of progressively flicking that switch. Articles start as stubs where almost anything goes. As they improve, the classes act as a ratchet mechanism preventing the inclusion of material which degrades the quality of the article. Once it reaches "A" level (the one below FA) you could consider that article to have fully "evolved from a wiki", and that WP:V is now strictly enforced.
Put differently, Jimbo wants (IIUC) a hard-line WP:V policy, but doesn't say how he would roll it out. I'm suggesting a way.
Steve
On 5/18/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/18/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Now what if the software didn't let you create a stub right off the bat? What if you had to list your sources first, then take info from those sources, *then* you could start a stub? I don't think writing an article would be incredibly harder, it'd just be radically different. Getting away with plagiarism would be a lot harder too, probably harder than just writing a decent article yourself.
That's a pretty good description of [[WP:AFC]] - and you're not the first to consider using that as a model for *all* editors.
Well, certainly not literally [[WP:AFC]], which is a huge mess.
This isn't to say that I think *Wikipedia* should work that way. After all, Wikipedia has a long history of running completely different from that, and a relatively successful history too (certainly volume-wise, and the average quality isn't too bad). What I'm saying is that providing enough sources to write a decent encyclopedia article isn't very hard for any but the most obscure subjects, whether you've been to university or not. Providing sources for an encyclopedia article that's already written, on the other hand
- that can be hard or nearly impossible (or even impossible if the
article is unverifiable).
If you can't find sources for a written article, it's not a very good article is it!
If it's not possible to find sources for a written article, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. It might very well be good, but it's not verifiable.
Anyway, to bring this out of theory and back to reality, is there anything I can do with those two references I found on bouchon? Put them in the ==References== section, even though no one actually used the source? Put them on the talk page? Maybe we need a "notes" page which can be organized a little bit better than the talk page.
==Further reading== is my preference.
Good point. Hopefully I'll remember this when I get home.
I don't interpret WP:V that way. The way I interpret WP:V (as of a few months ago), it means that a citation should be easily added to any information upon request, which in turn means that anything not
I object to any proposals that rely on challenges, requests, original authors etc. The wiki model explicitly rejects the idea that the original author is going to hang around or is contactable or responsible for his contributions. Once the article is written, all future contributors should be equally responsible for its content, no?
I didn't mean to imply that the request had to be fulfilled by the original author.
cited, at least in hidden comments, is subject to potential removal. What I'd like to see Wikipedia move toward is a situation where all the information is sourced somewhere, though for practicality purposes the details would probably not be in the article itself (just a list of sources in ==References== is acceptable for unextraordinary claims).
You don't like footnotes?
I don't think every single fact in an article should have a footnote. Maybe "extraordinary" is a bit too high of a standard, though.
But let me be clear that I don't think this can be achieved simply by a change of policy. I'm not even sure there is a critical mass of Wikipedians that want this in order for it to happen.
There are certainly large parts of Wikipedia where sources and WP:V are seen as an inconvenience, and a necessary step to avoid WP:AFD, but nothing more. Then there are lots of parts where people genuinely make an effort to include sources to make WP more useful. I wouldn't want to guess at the relative proportions.
If we don't want unsourced material, why have we tolerated it so long?
I never said "we" don't want unsourced material. Jimbo said *he* didn't want it. And I said I agreed: I don't think there should be unsourced material *in Wikipedia articles*. If you want to create a stub from your memory, I think it should go on the talk page (yeah, even if there isn't anything on the article page).
But I'm not claiming to speak for all Wikipedians, just giving my opinion.
Why have Wikipedians tolerated unsourced material so long? Because not tolerating unsourced material is *exceedingly* anti-wiki, and Wikipedia evolved from a wiki.
When do we flick the switch and say "We're not a wiki anymore, our standards have been raised"?
Actually, I'd say Wikipedia is already "not a wiki anymore", certainly not by the original definition, although the popularity of Wikipedia has tended to change the definition so that Wikipedia always fits.
My proposal for designating classes of articles based on their gradings is effectively a way of progressively flicking that switch. Articles start as stubs where almost anything goes. As they improve, the classes act as a ratchet mechanism preventing the inclusion of material which degrades the quality of the article. Once it reaches "A" level (the one below FA) you could consider that article to have fully "evolved from a wiki", and that WP:V is now strictly enforced.
I see that as backward, though. The sources should be found first, then the article should be written.
That said, I can't say I fully remember the details of your proposal. I kind of skimmed over it when I first saw it. Could you point me to the email where you wrote it, or (even better) to a web page where you described it?
Put differently, Jimbo wants (IIUC) a hard-line WP:V policy, but doesn't say how he would roll it out. I'm suggesting a way.
Steve
What if there were only two classes, "notes" and "article"? That'd be a lot easier to implement. Just add a namespace called "notes". Of course, the talk page could theoretically be used for this. The main problem with that is that people don't treat talk pages like wikis. Rather, talk pages are used more like a mailing list or discussion board.
Anthony
On 5/18/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
That's a pretty good description of [[WP:AFC]] - and you're not the
first to
consider using that as a model for *all* editors.
Well, certainly not literally [[WP:AFC]], which is a huge mess.
No, using the *model*. IMHO, AFC is a 'huge mess' in the way that a dirty car filter is a 'huge mess'. Sure, it's dirty, but thankfully all that dirt didn't end up in your engine.
I didn't mean to imply that the request had to be fulfilled by the
original author.
Ah cool.
I don't think every single fact in an article should have a footnote.
No, but we don't have a good middle ground. It'd be nice to somehow indicate that all the unfootnoted material from one section is verifiable from one particular source.
I see that as backward, though. The sources should be found first,
then the article should be written.
To use different nomenclature, I'm saying that the *stub* is written, and when sources are found, it can become an article "start" class. Distinguishing between *articles* and *stubs* might be valuable - anything can be in a stub without affecting our overall quality level. Maybe?
That said, I can't say I fully remember the details of your proposal.
I kind of skimmed over it when I first saw it. Could you point me to the email where you wrote it, or (even better) to a web page where you described it?
It's still evolving :) But good idea, I'll attempt to write it up in my userspace.
What if there were only two classes, "notes" and "article"? That'd be a lot easier to implement. Just add a namespace called "notes". Of course, the talk page could theoretically be used for this. The main problem with that is that people don't treat talk pages like wikis. Rather, talk pages are used more like a mailing list or discussion board.
Yes. But then, the link to them is called "discussion" after all. A notes/scrapbook/fragments/sources/material page would definitely be handy. It would also be very useful when preparing a new version of a section/article. What would be really ideal would be if the notes page had some means of mirroring the structure of the actual article. It would just provide all the same headings and subheadings as the main article, but you could provide metacomments about the content.
Steve
On 5/18/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I object to any proposals that rely on challenges, requests, original authors etc. The wiki model explicitly rejects the idea that the original author is going to hang around or is contactable or responsible for his contributions. Once the article is written, all future contributors should be equally responsible for its content, no?
Exactly! An uncited fact should not be a battleground between opposing political viewpoints, where one side challenges the other with "Either source this or I'm removing this fact I don't like immediately". Once an challenged fact has been in the article a while, for years in some cases, all editors on an article should share the responsibility of researching and verifying, not just those of a certain political affiliation.
On 5/18/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote: ...
This isn't to say that I think *Wikipedia* should work that way. After all, Wikipedia has a long history of running completely different from that, and a relatively successful history too (certainly volume-wise, and the average quality isn't too bad). What I'm saying is that providing enough sources to write a decent encyclopedia article isn't very hard for any but the most obscure subjects, whether you've been to university or not. Providing sources for an encyclopedia article that's already written, on the other hand
- that can be hard or nearly impossible (or even impossible if the
article is unverifiable).
Anyway, to bring this out of theory and back to reality, is there anything I can do with those two references I found on bouchon? Put them in the ==References== section, even though no one actually used the source? Put them on the talk page? Maybe we need a "notes" page which can be organized a little bit better than the talk page.
....
Anthony
Actually, this runs contrary to my experience. The more obscure a subject, the easier it is for me to write a decent article (referencing it heavily) on the subject- simply because it is feasible for me to read through and absorb a sizeable fraction of the English literature on it within a few weeks; for my [[Fujiwara no Teika]] and [[Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity]] articles, I've read at least a third of the recent English literature on them. Now, it would be utterly impossible for me to do so on a subject such as [[George W. Bush]]- I'd still be reading the work of a few years ago decades from now (to exaggerate a little bit).
~maru
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/18/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Nowadays you don't even have to go to a library to look up journal articles. Wikipedians must be getting the information they put into articles from somewhere, and I find it hard to believe that more than a miniscule portion of it is straight from their memory.
I know heaps of stuff that isn't in Wikipedia. And I didn't get it from reading "reliable sources". To take another example, [[Bouchon]]. Any person who has spent more than a couple of days in Lyon knows what a bouchon is (a typically Lyonnais restaurant). Yet Wikipedia had nothing on them. I didn't feel like I was going out on a limb creating a stub about a bouchon saying that they serve very meaty dishes that many foreigners wouldn't necessarily appreciate. Of course for the details on exactly what they do and don't serve, I went to a book.
That was a good beginning, even without sources. If the article had been written by a Lyonnais he would have been too obvious to him to need references. People have been able to build on it, and add references. .
I'm offering this account not as what should be done, but what I believe is current practice - but the use of a book is even more stringent than most, I suspect.
Yes, it's the current practice, but in most cases that's just fine. Your final comment there is a little difficult to follow. Nevertheless I tend to give more credence to paper-published sources than online sources.
The interpretation of WP:V that says that any information that is not accompanied by a citation should never enter Wikipedia is, IMHO, novel. I would have nothing against that becoming the official interpretation, but it's not even close to being the dominant one at the moment.
Insisting that every bit of information be accompanied by a reference is extremist. For some classes of information it is essential; in many others it should be added as a matter of habit but with no damage done if a person fails to include it. Someone else can add it later. Information can be challenged if someone feels it is important to do so, but lack of references by itself should not be reason enough to delete a statement.
The ad hoc system in place now is completely backwards. You're
supposed to get your sources first, *then* write the article. Believe it or not I'm completely in agreement with Jimbo that unsourced material should not be in Wikipedia articles. But just telling people to do a better job or "be kicked out of the project just for being lousy writers" is not a very productive way of achieving that.
If we don't want unsourced material, why have we tolerated it so long?
It's not practical.
It remains important for information about living persons to be documented.
I believe in the original idea that Wikipedia is a project that anyone can edit, even people with minimal education who have not received ivory tower indoctrination.
It's more important to remember our roots, rather than to put on airs and pretences about what we are.
Ec
On May 18, 2006, at 2:48 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
If we don't want unsourced material, why have we tolerated it so long?
This could be a change in what's considered acceptable rather than an eternal law. Early in Wikipedia's development, we took what we could get. Now that we have a crapload of content, we can set stricter rules.
Think of it like a basketball team. If you absolutely need to have a basketball team and no one wants to join, you'll take anyone. If everyone in the school wants to join the basketball team, you have to set rules and cut people. True, there's a limit to the roster of a basketball team and no limit to the amount of information Wikipedia could have, but more importantly there's a minimum in both cases, and when the minimum is met, you can be more discriminating.
On 5/19/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
Think of it like a basketball team. If you absolutely need to have a basketball team and no one wants to join, you'll take anyone. If everyone in the school wants to join the basketball team, you have to set rules and cut people. True, there's a limit to the roster of a basketball team and no limit to the amount of information Wikipedia could have, but more importantly there's a minimum in both cases, and when the minimum is met, you can be more discriminating.
Has the minimum officially been met yet? Are we now being more discriminating?
Steve
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett
On 5/19/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
Think of it like a basketball team. If you absolutely need
to have a
basketball team and no one wants to join, you'll take anyone. If everyone in the school wants to join the basketball team,
you have to
set rules and cut people. True, there's a limit to the roster of a basketball team and no limit to the amount of information Wikipedia could have, but more importantly there's a minimum in both
cases, and
when the minimum is met, you can be more discriminating.
Has the minimum officially been met yet? Are we now being more discriminating?
There's a few from the "we'll take anyone" days who could be re-examined.
Pete, not naming names, oh no
On May 18, 2006, at 11:22 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
Think of it like a basketball team. If you absolutely need to have a basketball team and no one wants to join, you'll take anyone. If everyone in the school wants to join the basketball team, you have to set rules and cut people. True, there's a limit to the roster of a basketball team and no limit to the amount of information Wikipedia could have, but more importantly there's a minimum in both cases, and when the minimum is met, you can be more discriminating.
Has the minimum officially been met yet? Are we now being more discriminating?
In terms of content, absolutely. In terms of users, not even close.
Philip Welch wrote:
On May 18, 2006, at 2:48 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
If we don't want unsourced material, why have we tolerated it so long?
This could be a change in what's considered acceptable rather than an eternal law. Early in Wikipedia's development, we took what we could get. Now that we have a crapload of content, we can set stricter rules.
Absolutely.
We have how many new articles a day? If people had the good sense to nuke 100 articles a day, just on the grounds of being BAD in the sense we are discussing (having unsourced claims about living people which would be libel if false), our growth rate would hardly suffer at all.
We are a massively powerful text generation engine. People have to drop the idea that every little tidbit is precious. Crap is crap. Yank it.
G'day Jimmy,
We are a massively powerful text generation engine. People have to drop the idea that every little tidbit is precious. Crap is crap. Yank it.
Do you think I could get a framed and autographed copy of that paragraph?
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Jimmy,
We are a massively powerful text generation engine. People have to drop the idea that every little tidbit is precious. Crap is crap. Yank it.
Do you think I could get a framed and autographed copy of that paragraph?
Signed (or even written) in his own blood, of course.
G'day Alphax,
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Jimmy,
We are a massively powerful text generation engine. People have to drop the idea that every little tidbit is precious. Crap is crap. Yank it.
Do you think I could get a framed and autographed copy of that paragraph?
Signed (or even written) in his own blood, of course.
A message in Jimbo Wales' blood? I'd make a fortune on Ebay!
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Alphax,
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Jimmy,
We are a massively powerful text generation engine. People have to drop the idea that every little tidbit is precious. Crap is crap. Yank it.
Do you think I could get a framed and autographed copy of that paragraph?
Signed (or even written) in his own blood, of course.
A message in Jimbo Wales' blood? I'd make a fortune on Ebay!
And then, of course, there's the cloning...
-- Neil
Philip Welch wrote:
On May 18, 2006, at 2:48 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
If we don't want unsourced material, why have we tolerated it so long?
This could be a change in what's considered acceptable rather than an eternal law. Early in Wikipedia's development, we took what we could get. Now that we have a crapload of content, we can set stricter rules.
Think of it like a basketball team. If you absolutely need to have a basketball team and no one wants to join, you'll take anyone. If everyone in the school wants to join the basketball team, you have to set rules and cut people. True, there's a limit to the roster of a basketball team and no limit to the amount of information Wikipedia could have, but more importantly there's a minimum in both cases, and when the minimum is met, you can be more discriminating.
There are other ways of accomplishing this than setting more rules. You want to build the very best team, and that will be established by looking at the players' activities on the basketball court. When you have a more artificial rule that an otherwise great player must achieve a certain level of academic results, instinct should point towards finding ways of improving his academics instead of cutting him from the team without question.
We want to build on the poor articles. This is usually much better than waiting for someone to submit the perfect article on the same subjec.
Ec
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
The ad hoc system in place now is completely backwards. You're supposed to get your sources first, *then* write the article.
Whaaaat!
Isn't this kind of the entire point of using a wiki in the first place?
On 5/17/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
or a "culture of image tagging" that has become fairly effective at searching out and destroying bad uploads.
I wish. We're managing to keep the worst of the worst out, but that basically means images where the uploader can't be bothered to find source information, or where nobody's gotten around to sticking a "fair use" tag on it. The new CSD criteria will help a little with the worst abuses of the {{fairuse}} and {{fairusein}} tags, but there's still no effective way of getting rid of things like the mess at [[Category:Fair use magazine covers]].
I think, in terms of where we are at with getting rid of things tagged "fair use" spuriously, that the following diff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABradPatrick&diff=5...
...really says a lot.
Jkelly
Quoting Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com:
On 5/17/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
or a "culture of image tagging" that has become fairly effective at searching out and destroying bad uploads.
I wish. We're managing to keep the worst of the worst out, but that basically means images where the uploader can't be bothered to find source information, or where nobody's gotten around to sticking a "fair use" tag on it. The new CSD criteria will help a little with the worst abuses of the {{fairuse}} and {{fairusein}} tags, but there's still no effective way of getting rid of things like the mess at [[Category:Fair use magazine covers]].
-- Mark [[User:Carnildo]] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/17/06, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
I think, in terms of where we are at with getting rid of things tagged "fair use" spuriously, that the following diff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABradPatrick&diff=5...
...really says a lot.
I agree, although I ask if there is actually a major argument for *deleting* a "fair use" image used incorrectly, as opposed to simply removing it from the webpage. I don't know what the legal status of hoarding "potential fair use" images is, of course.
Not that with the numbers of copyvios we have the luxury of really agonising over each deletion...
Steve
On 17/05/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I agree, although I ask if there is actually a major argument for *deleting* a "fair use" image used incorrectly, as opposed to simply removing it from the webpage. I don't know what the legal status of hoarding "potential fair use" images is, of course.
I'm not an expert, but I believe that since we'd still be making the image available (via the image page, etc.) then we'd have a potential legal battle later. Check with Brad on that one, though.
There's also the argument that hoarding the images could encourage laziness; who's going to bother looking for a free replacement* when there's a photo available right *now*?
Rob Church
* Discount those with their heads screwed on, who understand and endorse our policies and de facto attitudes towards such things
On 5/18/06, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not an expert, but I believe that since we'd still be making the image available (via the image page, etc.) then we'd have a potential legal battle later. Check with Brad on that one, though.
Yep, it's tricky. It seems to me that if a fair use case could possibly ever be made for an image that there would be some legitimacy in storing it in such a form (low res etc). Take the case of a map of some suburb. It's theoretically possibly that we would one day have an article about the construction of that map, for which we would be entitled to have a low res copy.
I think I should learn more about 'fair use' - it could be quite interesting. I've wondered, for example, whether it's legitimate to use the cover of an autobiography (incorporating the subject's face) as the main image of an article about the person, when the book itself is discussed in passing in the text. And lots of other borderline cases where the image serves two purposes simultaneously - one if which is criticism or identification of the object, and one of which is illustration of what the object itself illustrates.
Steve
On 18/05/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I think I should learn more about 'fair use' - it could be quite interesting. I've wondered, for example, whether it's legitimate to use the cover of an autobiography (incorporating the subject's face) as the main image of an article about the person
As far as I know, that isn't.
Rob Church
Steve Bennett wrote:
I think I should learn more about 'fair use' - it could be quite interesting. I've wondered, for example, whether it's legitimate to use the cover of an autobiography (incorporating the subject's face) as the main image of an article about the person, when the book itself is discussed in passing in the text.
The one I'd like to hear answered myself is whether the desires of the copyright holder have any bearing on whether an image can be fairly used - I ran into this issue on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Orly.jpg, wherein an image that (as far as I can tell) meets fair use criteria for the context in which it was being used was deleted because the copyright holder apparently complained about it.
On 5/18/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
I think I should learn more about 'fair use' - it could be quite interesting. I've wondered, for example, whether it's legitimate to use the cover of an autobiography (incorporating the subject's face) as the main image of an article about the person, when the book itself is discussed in passing in the text.
The one I'd like to hear answered myself is whether the desires of the copyright holder have any bearing on whether an image can be fairly used
- I ran into this issue on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Orly.jpg, wherein an image that (as far as I can tell) meets fair use criteria for the context in which it was being used was deleted because the copyright holder apparently complained about it.
If the copyright holder approves of the use, then fair use is unnecessary. In all fair use cases ever heard by a court, the copyright holder objects to the use.
IOW, no, the desires of the copyright holder have no bearing on whether an image can be fairly used, because the fair use defense presumes that the copyright holder objects to the use.
I'm not a lawyer, but this seems like pretty simple logic to me...
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
IOW, no, the desires of the copyright holder have no bearing on whether an image can be fairly used, because the fair use defense presumes that the copyright holder objects to the use.
I'm not a lawyer, but this seems like pretty simple logic to me...
I thought so too, and another editor who _is_ a lawyer (User:Bobak) looked at the situation in a fair bit of detail and agreed with my logic. But UninvitedCompany claimed at the end of the deletion review entry http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=50533958#Image:O_RLY.jpg that the Wikimedia Foundation lawyer had had a look at the situation and said it should be deleted. Unfortunately I wasn't able to find either a link to the Foundation lawyer's comments or the original copyright holder's complaint anywhere, so it still leaves me completely in the dark as to why this logic is apparently wrong in this case.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
IOW, no, the desires of the copyright holder have no bearing on whether an image can be fairly used, because the fair use defense presumes that the copyright holder objects to the use.
I'm not a lawyer, but this seems like pretty simple logic to me...
I thought so too, and another editor who _is_ a lawyer (User:Bobak) looked at the situation in a fair bit of detail and agreed with my logic. But UninvitedCompany claimed at the end of the deletion review entry http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=50533958#Image:O_RLY.jpg that the Wikimedia Foundation lawyer had had a look at the situation and said it should be deleted. Unfortunately I wasn't able to find either a link to the Foundation lawyer's comments or the original copyright holder's complaint anywhere, so it still leaves me completely in the dark as to why this logic is apparently wrong in this case.
It was a WP:OFFICE action. No further explanation is required.
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
It was a WP:OFFICE action. No further explanation is required.
I thought only Danny could do that and he wasn't involved in this. There's no indication on UninvitedCompany's userpage that he can do OFFICE actions.
The only reference to WP:OFFICE anywhere in the relevant talk pages was a suggestion that it should be contacted at one point right near the end, but there's no indication that this was actually done. Is there any way to check this?
IMO further explanation _is_ required because otherwise a lot of people are misunderstanding something about how fair use works here without any way to correct it.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
It was a WP:OFFICE action. No further explanation is required.
I thought only Danny could do that and he wasn't involved in this. There's no indication on UninvitedCompany's userpage that he can do OFFICE actions.
Ok, it was an OTRS action. Close enough.
The only reference to WP:OFFICE anywhere in the relevant talk pages was a suggestion that it should be contacted at one point right near the end, but there's no indication that this was actually done. Is there any way to check this?
Sure, just ask anyone listed on [[m:OTRS]].
IMO further explanation _is_ required because otherwise a lot of people are misunderstanding something about how fair use works here without any way to correct it.
I can't reveal the exact details, but "fair use" most definately did *not* apply. The image was a copyvio.
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
IMO further explanation _is_ required because otherwise a lot of people are misunderstanding something about how fair use works here without any way to correct it.
I can't reveal the exact details, but "fair use" most definately did *not* apply. The image was a copyvio.
But then I get right back to the problem that sparked my initial email. Evidently there's some detail of fair use policy that is not accurately described, since so many people are convinced that this was a fair use image - including at least one editor who's also a lawyer. I don't care about the specific details of _this_ case, but why can't the general principle that was violated be explained? How else can I and other new editors who come along avoid the same mistake?
On 5/19/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, it was an OTRS action. Close enough.
No it isn't.
I can't reveal the exact details, but "fair use" most definately did *not* apply. The image was a copyvio.
All fair use images are copyvios. That is irrelivant. the question is how good is the fair use case. In this case the answer is pretty good (remeber the author of the photo probably can't market the photo with the O RLY? on it because he is unlikely to own the copyright to that particular derivative work) thus the image has zero comercial value to anyone .
The large O RLY? printed acrosss the image makes it pretty much useless for it's original perpose in any case.
The way we are using it is informative.
I'm not totaly convinved by the original amount and substantiality claim but it would be trivial to reduce the image size to improve that one.
In short if you think that fair use claim is weak then the number of legit fair use claims on wikipedia could probably be counted on the fingers of one head.
geni wrote:
All fair use images are copyvios.
Geni, I have to ask you to please stop opining on matters outside your professional expertise.
On 5/20/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Geni, I have to ask you to please stop opining on matters outside your professional expertise.
Claiming fair use on a non copyright image strikes me as a tricky concept and one that is rather pointless in any case. Fair use images are copyvios. At best they are just copyvios that are allowed within the US. They are still however copyvios. If they were not you would not bother trying to claim fair use.
On 5/20/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/20/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Geni, I have to ask you to please stop opining on matters outside your professional expertise.
Claiming fair use on a non copyright image strikes me as a tricky concept and one that is rather pointless in any case. Fair use images are copyvios. At best they are just copyvios that are allowed within the US. They are still however copyvios. If they were not you would not bother trying to claim fair use.
I think what Jimbo was referring to is the fact that fair use, under US law, is *not* a violation of copyright.
Of course, speaking of talking out of your ass, according to Jimbo "simply having an image on the website, not used in an article, does not in any way justify fair use claims."
Anthony
geni wrote:
On 5/20/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Geni, I have to ask you to please stop opining on matters outside your professional expertise.
Claiming fair use on a non copyright image strikes me as a tricky concept and one that is rather pointless in any case. Fair use images are copyvios. At best they are just copyvios that are allowed within the US. They are still however copyvios. If they were not you would not bother trying to claim fair use.
You may be surprised to read where the copyright law says that fair use is not an infringement of copyright.
There may be disputes over just what fair use is, but that's a different, and very much fact driven matter.
Ec
On 19 May 2006, at 06:25, Bryan Derksen wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
IOW, no, the desires of the copyright holder have no bearing on whether an image can be fairly used, because the fair use defense presumes that the copyright holder objects to the use.
I'm not a lawyer, but this seems like pretty simple logic to me...
I thought so too, and another editor who _is_ a lawyer (User:Bobak) looked at the situation in a fair bit of detail and agreed with my logic. But UninvitedCompany claimed at the end of the deletion review entry <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=50533958#Image:O_RLY.jpg> that the Wikimedia Foundation lawyer had had a look at the situation and said it should be deleted. Unfortunately I wasn't able to find either a link to the Foundation lawyer's comments or the original copyright holder's complaint anywhere, so it still leaves me completely in the dark as to why this logic is apparently wrong in this case.
If the copyright holder objects then they might sue. Whether we win or not, its not worth our while wasting money on cases like this. We are trying to make a free encyclopaedia, so paying lawyers to defend our right to use non free stuff is against the aims of the Foundation.
Dont get attached to fair use. Its not part of our mission. It will all be gone in a few years at the latest. Dont bother defending it.
Justinc
On 5/19/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
Dont get attached to fair use. Its not part of our mission. It will all be gone in a few years at the latest. Dont bother defending it.
Justinc
Company logos Certian historic images Movie screenshot.
On 19 May 2006, at 11:54, geni wrote:
On 5/19/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
Dont get attached to fair use. Its not part of our mission. It will all be gone in a few years at the latest. Dont bother defending it.
Justinc
Company logos Certian historic images Movie screenshot.
company logos are fairly harmless, except where they are being used as decoration, when we can get rid of them.
I agree that a few of the historic images are worth keeping, the ones which have articles. Although we should make more effort to license them.
See no reason for movie screenshots in general.
We need an action plan: for example all pictures of living people that are not free should be deleted immediately, so we can start getting free ones. We should remove album, book, magazine and game covers, they are not necessary. And we should nuke all the pokemon, star wars, Simpsons and other similar pics.
Justinc
Justin Cormack wrote:
On 19 May 2006, at 11:54, geni wrote:
On 5/19/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
Dont get attached to fair use. Its not part of our mission. It will all be gone in a few years at the latest. Dont bother defending it.
Justinc
Company logos Certian historic images Movie screenshot.
company logos are fairly harmless, except where they are being used as decoration, when we can get rid of them.
I agree that a few of the historic images are worth keeping, the ones which have articles.
How is this consistent with your initial declaration that "it will all be gone in a few years"? Either fair use is sometimes acceptable or never acceptable - even one fair use image, no matter how much it is "worth keeping", makes en: non-free.
And of course if you admit the principle that some nonfree images are allowable, you've reduced it to a matter of personal opinion as to whether any class of nonfree image is worth including. Every class of image now accepted has a number of respected editors who support including that class.
Stan
On 19 May 2006, at 21:08, Stan Shebs wrote:
company logos are fairly harmless, except where they are being used as decoration, when we can get rid of them.
I agree that a few of the historic images are worth keeping, the ones which have articles.
How is this consistent with your initial declaration that "it will all be gone in a few years"? Either fair use is sometimes acceptable or never acceptable - even one fair use image, no matter how much it is "worth keeping", makes en: non-free.
And of course if you admit the principle that some nonfree images are allowable, you've reduced it to a matter of personal opinion as to whether any class of nonfree image is worth including. Every class of image now accepted has a number of respected editors who support including that class.
Personally I believe we should make a free encyclopaedia, and get rid of all of them. I dont think this will quite happen for a few years. We will get rid of the vast majority however. Expect the Jimbo decree this year.
Justinc
Justin Cormack wrote:
I agree that a few of the historic images are worth keeping, the ones which have articles. Although we should make more effort to license them.
Orly.jpg has an article about it. Might take a few more years for it to reach "historic" status, though. :)
On 5/19/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
If the copyright holder objects then they might sue. Whether we win or not, its not worth our while wasting money on cases like this. We are trying to make a free encyclopaedia, so paying lawyers to defend our right to use non free stuff is against the aims of the Foundation.
Dont get attached to fair use. Its not part of our mission. It will all be gone in a few years at the latest. Dont bother defending it.
Justinc
Unless you are speaking in the ridicoulously long-term sense in which everything (hopefully) passes into the public domain, fair use is inevitably part of our mission. There are entire sectors of articles where fair use is necessary, as the copyright holders will definitely not release the images under a decent license, and where recreation under a different license is not acceptable. From my own experience: the Star Wars article. We only accept canon depictions- and because canonicity policies say that only material authorized and licensed by the copyright holders is canon, and because the copyright holders will only do proprietary releases, we cannot, by definition, have free images relating to Star Wars. Indeed, the absolute best we could do is perhaps have some free images of fans, (though trademark and copyright issues are still problematic. If we have a picture of a bunch of fans dressed up in pitch-perfect Stormtrooper , tusken raider, Royal Guards etc. costumes, can that really be GFDL'ed or PD'ed?), or maybe of productions.
~maru
Maru,
So de: is off-mission? Someone should probably let the foundation know that de: is doing such a poor job.
Jkelly
Quoting maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com:
fair use is inevitably part of our mission. There are entire sectors of articles where fair use is necessary, as the copyright holders will definitely not release the images under a decent license,
On 5/20/06, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
Maru,
So de: is off-mission? Someone should probably let the foundation know that de: is doing such a poor job.
JkellyQuoting maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com:
fair use is inevitably part of our mission. There are entire sectors of articles where fair use is necessary, as the copyright holders will definitely not release the images under a decent license,
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
How do we know? Have we asked the copyright holders?
Quite often, it would be in the interests of the copyright holder to provide images given that Wikipedia articles on popular topics are widely read. Of course, it might depend on the fairness of our article on the relevant area.
The use of so-called fair use images is often done without either seeing if we can obtain images through the public domain, making images ourselves or contracting the copyright holder and seeing if they are willing to provide images. It is often adopted as the easy option by editors without consideration of the alternatives, the ramifications of that option or its legal basis although copyright law can be quite complex.
Regards
Keith Old
Keith Old User: Capitalistroadster
On 5/19/06, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
Maru,
So de: is off-mission? Someone should probably let the foundation know that de: is doing such a poor job.
Jkelly
I don't know enough about de to answer that. What I have heard is that they restrict the scope of possible articles beyond what I consider appropriate, and thus by my standards inevitably limit themselves from containing useful articles. This is, of course, pure hearsay as I cannot read German, and so have never visited.
~maru
On May 19, 2006, at 1:41 PM, maru dubshinki wrote:
From my own experience: the Star Wars article. We only accept canon depictions- and because canonicity policies say that only material authorized and licensed by the copyright holders is canon, and because the copyright holders will only do proprietary releases, we cannot, by definition, have free images relating to Star Wars.
It seems like the "only accept canon depictions" is the rule to go, since it seems silly and arbitrary, and in any case, far less important than "only use free content". Artist depictions would be appropriate in this case, just like almost any other case where we only have fair use images to use.
On 5/19/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
It seems like the "only accept canon depictions" is the rule to go, since it seems silly and arbitrary, and in any case, far less important than "only use free content". Artist depictions would be appropriate in this case, just like almost any other case where we only have fair use images to use.
WP:NOR supports the "only accept canon depictions".
On May 19, 2006, at 3:17 PM, geni wrote:
It seems like the "only accept canon depictions" is the rule to go, since it seems silly and arbitrary, and in any case, far less important than "only use free content". Artist depictions would be appropriate in this case, just like almost any other case where we only have fair use images to use.
WP:NOR supports the "only accept canon depictions".
We've had this discussion in the artistic depiction thread. Making an artistic depiction based on multiple images or real life is no different from writing a text description based on multiple sources. By your rationale, all Wikipedia could do would be to stitch together quotes from outside sources and claim fair use.
On 5/19/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
We've had this discussion in the artistic depiction thread. Making an artistic depiction based on multiple images or real life is no different from writing a text description based on multiple sources. By your rationale, all Wikipedia could do would be to stitch together quotes from outside sources and claim fair use.
-- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
The problem is there are a million bits of fan fiction out there so the cannon thing is important with starwars. You have to have it there unless you want pics of Han solo with 3 arms or something.
On May 19, 2006, at 3:37 PM, geni wrote:
The problem is there are a million bits of fan fiction out there so the cannon thing is important with starwars. You have to have it there unless you want pics of Han solo with 3 arms or something.
Well, of course an artist's rendition should resemble what Han Solo actually looks like in the movies instead of stupid shit like that. But there's no reason to stick with screen captures of the films themselves.
Philip Welch wrote:
On May 19, 2006, at 3:37 PM, geni wrote:
The problem is there are a million bits of fan fiction out there so the cannon thing is important with starwars. You have to have it there unless you want pics of Han solo with 3 arms or something.
Well, of course an artist's rendition should resemble what Han Solo actually looks like in the movies instead of stupid shit like that. But there's no reason to stick with screen captures of the films themselves.
How about a Free photo of Harrison Ford and some image manipulation?
On 5/19/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
How about a Free photo of Harrison Ford and some image manipulation?
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Heh. I'd like to see the caption for that: "This is an image of an 20-years older Harrison Ford digitally manipulated to resemble the image of the digitally manipulated Harrison Ford as the interstellar soundrel Han Solo from the original film print of ''A New Hope''."
~maru
maru dubshinki wrote:
On 5/19/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
How about a Free photo of Harrison Ford and some image manipulation?
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Heh. I'd like to see the caption for that: "This is an image of an 20-years older Harrison Ford digitally manipulated to resemble the image of the digitally manipulated Harrison Ford as the interstellar soundrel Han Solo from the original film print of ''A New Hope''."
And after all that, it would *still* be a derivative work and still not free!
People should stop and consider that half-billion-dollar grosses per film pays for quite a lot of lawyers to think through the IP loopholes that haven't even occurred to us amateurs yet.
Stan
On May 19, 2006, at 7:59 PM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
The problem is there are a million bits of fan fiction out there so the cannon thing is important with starwars. You have to have it there unless you want pics of Han solo with 3 arms or something.
Well, of course an artist's rendition should resemble what Han Solo actually looks like in the movies instead of stupid shit like that. But there's no reason to stick with screen captures of the films themselves.
How about a Free photo of Harrison Ford and some image manipulation?
If we can find a free photo of a young Harrison Ford, sure.If you can find a free photo of an old Harrison Ford, and photoshop it until he looks young, and then photoshop it until he's in costume, sure.
But artist's renditions would be easier :)
Philip Welch wrote:
On May 19, 2006, at 1:41 PM, maru dubshinki wrote:
From my own experience: the Star Wars article. We only accept canon depictions- and because canonicity policies say that only material authorized and licensed by the copyright holders is canon, and because the copyright holders will only do proprietary releases, we cannot, by definition, have free images relating to Star Wars.
It seems like the "only accept canon depictions" is the rule to go, since it seems silly and arbitrary, and in any case, far less important than "only use free content". Artist depictions would be appropriate in this case, just like almost any other case where we only have fair use images to use.
Doesn't get you off the hook though, since an artist's depiction is a derivative work. In fact, the more accurate the depiction, the more of a copyright infringement it is. So you end up making a choice between accuracy and freeness.
I have actually looked at de: Star Wars articles, and some play fast and loose with freeness. For instance, [[Chewbacca]] is illustrated with a picture of someone wearing a Chewbacca costume, but again, such a picture would be not be possible without some use of George's IP, so at least in that case de: is kidding themselves about freeness of the image (it's possible that they're exploiting Panoramafreiheit or some other German legal loophole not valid in the US).
Stan
On 5/21/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
I have actually looked at de: Star Wars articles, and some play fast and loose with freeness. For instance, [[Chewbacca]] is illustrated with a picture of someone wearing a Chewbacca costume
The situation is even worse. All the images in [[de:Figuren aus Star Wars]] are hosted on Commons, and for one a deletion request (with little participation) has failed. This is not free content and can not be until the copyright of Star Wars expires. These are situations where we can have either fair use pictures, or no pictures.
I'm re-nominating all of those for deletion.
Erik
On May 20, 2006, at 3:27 PM, Stan Shebs wrote:
It seems like the "only accept canon depictions" is the rule to go, since it seems silly and arbitrary, and in any case, far less important than "only use free content". Artist depictions would be appropriate in this case, just like almost any other case where we only have fair use images to use.
Doesn't get you off the hook though, since an artist's depiction is a derivative work. In fact, the more accurate the depiction, the more of a copyright infringement it is. So you end up making a choice between accuracy and freeness.
Only if the artist chooses to reproduce one photograph or still.
If the artists references multiple photographs and produces an image of Han Solo where Han is standing in a pose different from any of the photographs, or in a different or neutral setting, then it's not a derivative work of any one photograph.
On 5/20/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On May 20, 2006, at 3:27 PM, Stan Shebs wrote:
It seems like the "only accept canon depictions" is the rule to go, since it seems silly and arbitrary, and in any case, far less important than "only use free content". Artist depictions would be appropriate in this case, just like almost any other case where we only have fair use images to use.
Doesn't get you off the hook though, since an artist's depiction is a derivative work. In fact, the more accurate the depiction, the more of a copyright infringement it is. So you end up making a choice between accuracy and freeness.
Only if the artist chooses to reproduce one photograph or still.
If the artists references multiple photographs and produces an image of Han Solo where Han is standing in a pose different from any of the photographs, or in a different or neutral setting, then it's not a derivative work of any one photograph.
This is very true, and in that case I think an original drawing is preferable. After all, an original drawing only copies the essential facts which must be copied in order to have accuracy. Using a professional photo is only appropriate IMO when you are talking about the photo itself (which is not to say that using the photo is not fair use, but only that I don't think it's the kind of fair use that should be used in Wikipedia).
However, this still does require some fair use (or fair dealing or whatever) because you are copying the *character*, which is itself copyrighted.
Of course, a text description of the character would *also* require an argument of fair use (fair dealing, whatever).
Anthony
Philip Welch wrote:
On May 20, 2006, at 3:27 PM, Stan Shebs wrote:
It seems like the "only accept canon depictions" is the rule to go, since it seems silly and arbitrary, and in any case, far less important than "only use free content". Artist depictions would be appropriate in this case, just like almost any other case where we only have fair use images to use.
Doesn't get you off the hook though, since an artist's depiction is a derivative work. In fact, the more accurate the depiction, the more of a copyright infringement it is. So you end up making a choice between accuracy and freeness.
Only if the artist chooses to reproduce one photograph or still.
If the artists references multiple photographs and produces an image of Han Solo where Han is standing in a pose different from any of the photographs, or in a different or neutral setting, then it's not a derivative work of any one photograph.
*Still* not off the hook! The copyright covers any sort of depiction of the character, irrespective of the mechanics of production. For instance, a Han Solo action figure is not an exact reproduction of any screenshot from the movie, but it can only be legally sold under license from the moviemaker. Ditto for 3D meshes and textures ending up in a Star Wars-themed video game. As I said in another message, the pros at this are wise to all kinds of trickery, and there is case law for a remarkable variety of attempts to find loopholes.
Stan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Stan Shebs stated for the record:
*Still* not off the hook! The copyright covers any sort of depiction of the character, irrespective of the mechanics of production. For instance, a Han Solo action figure is not an exact reproduction of any screenshot from the movie, but it can only be legally sold under license from the moviemaker. Ditto for 3D meshes and textures ending up in a Star Wars-themed video game. As I said in another message, the pros at this are wise to all kinds of trickery, and there is case law for a remarkable variety of attempts to find loopholes.
Stan
Oh, Stan, you are such a pessimist! Surely you're not saying that five minutes of reasonably clever thought isn't enough to make corporations spending billions of dollars on thousands of lawyers smack themselves in the corporate forehead and shout "D'oh!"
- -- Sean Barrett | You know, boys, a nuclear reactor is a lot sean@epoptic.com | like women. You just have to read the manual | and press the right button. --Homer Simpson
On May 22, 2006, at 12:19 PM, Stan Shebs wrote:
If the artists references multiple photographs and produces an image of Han Solo where Han is standing in a pose different from any of the photographs, or in a different or neutral setting, then it's not a derivative work of any one photograph.
*Still* not off the hook! The copyright covers any sort of depiction of the character, irrespective of the mechanics of production. For instance, a Han Solo action figure is not an exact reproduction of any screenshot from the movie, but it can only be legally sold under license from the moviemaker. Ditto for 3D meshes and textures ending up in a Star Wars-themed video game. As I said in another message, the pros at this are wise to all kinds of trickery, and there is case law for a remarkable variety of attempts to find loopholes.
Well, I guess that's that then. No images of Han Solo. (But images of Harrison Ford are okay for [[Harrison Ford]]?)
On 5/23/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On May 22, 2006, at 12:19 PM, Stan Shebs wrote:
If the artists references multiple photographs and produces an image of Han Solo where Han is standing in a pose different from any of the photographs, or in a different or neutral setting, then it's not a derivative work of any one photograph.
*Still* not off the hook! The copyright covers any sort of depiction of the character, irrespective of the mechanics of production. For instance, a Han Solo action figure is not an exact reproduction of any screenshot from the movie, but it can only be legally sold under license from the moviemaker. Ditto for 3D meshes and textures ending up in a Star Wars-themed video game. As I said in another message, the pros at this are wise to all kinds of trickery, and there is case law for a remarkable variety of attempts to find loopholes.
Well, I guess that's that then. No images of Han Solo. (But images of Harrison Ford are okay for [[Harrison Ford]]?)
-- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Hi all,
Has anyone ever tried contacting Lucasfilm and seeing what they will allow us to use?
After all, we are a top 20 website and we probably have the most Star Wars related articles of any big site on the web. We are a non-profit organisation and we don't provide material that directly competes with them.
If they told us what they are happy with and what they are not happy with us, it would make life a whole lot easier for all concerned. Perhaps we should look at identifying the rights holders for much of the so-called fair use material we have and try contacting them.
Regards
Keith Old
Keith Old
On 5/22/06, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone ever tried contacting Lucasfilm and seeing what they will allow us to use?
Dear George, We understand that no one has ever been allowed to legally produce or sell an image of Han Solo without your permission. However, would it be ok if we copied such an image, and put it on our website with the proviso that anyone is allowed to download, modify, sell, distribute, or do anything they like to it?
Look forward to hearing from you, Wikipedia
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/22/06, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone ever tried contacting Lucasfilm and seeing what they will allow us to use?
Dear George, We understand that no one has ever been allowed to legally produce or sell an image of Han Solo without your permission. However, would it be ok if we copied such an image, and put it on our website with the proviso that anyone is allowed to download, modify, sell, distribute, or do anything they like to it?
Look forward to hearing from you, Wikipedia
It's at least remotely possible that an image or two of limited quality would be given a free license, sort of like a "free sample"; several professional photographers have done just this on commons for instance. But I don't see that Lucasfilm currently has any incentive to relinquish control, given that pretending not to be aware of our maybe-maybe-not fair use leaves them with all rights intact, and it would be available as a way to hassle WP if, say, our captions weren't sufficiently admiring or something. :-)
If en: scrubbed out all nonfree images top to bottom, and if it was clear that it was a choice between text-only and donated images, the donation might seem worthwhile. But we would have to be utterly ruthless - none of this making of exceptions for "historic photos" or whatever.
Stan
On 5/22/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
It's at least remotely possible that an image or two of limited quality would be given a free license, sort of like a "free sample"; several professional photographers have done just this on commons for instance. But I don't see that Lucasfilm currently has any incentive to relinquish control, given that pretending not to be aware of our maybe-maybe-not fair use leaves them with all rights intact, and it would be available as a way to hassle WP if, say, our captions weren't sufficiently admiring or something. :-)
If en: scrubbed out all nonfree images top to bottom, and if it was clear that it was a choice between text-only and donated images, the donation might seem worthwhile. But we would have to be utterly ruthless - none of this making of exceptions for "historic photos" or whatever.
Stan
A completely free license would give away the rights to produce derivative works. It's not going to happen. The most you could hope for is an ND license or maybe "free for use in an encyclopedia only".
Hey, prove me wrong. I'd be thrilled :).
Anthony
G'day Keither,
Has anyone ever tried contacting Lucasfilm and seeing what they will allow us to use?
After all, we are a top 20 website and we probably have the most Star Wars related articles of any big site on the web. We are a non-profit organisation and we don't provide material that directly competes with them.
Uhh, actually, we *do*. Have you seen the "Expanded Universe" section of the /Star Wars/ website? And the "Expanded Universe" section of Wikipedia? It's spooky. There's even the same overtone of worrying earnestness that you get from anoraks pervading both sites ...
<snip/>
Keith Old wrote:
On 5/23/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
Well, I guess that's that then. No images of Han Solo. (But images of Harrison Ford are okay for [[Harrison Ford]]?)
Hi all,
Has anyone ever tried contacting Lucasfilm and seeing what they will allow us to use?
After all, we are a top 20 website and we probably have the most Star Wars related articles of any big site on the web. We are a non-profit organisation and we don't provide material that directly competes with them.
If they told us what they are happy with and what they are not happy with us, it would make life a whole lot easier for all concerned. Perhaps we should look at identifying the rights holders for much of the so-called fair use material we have and try contacting them.
It's not in their best interests to answer such letters. That avoids getting caught by any conceivable trick question, ogetting tangled in legal loose ends.. If they say "yes" they establish a precedent that could be followed by others. If they say "no" there's a risk of bad publicity. To the extent that your use of the pictures is free advertising of their movie, they aren't likely to complain about you using it.
Ec
I have a fair use/copyright question for you all.
This template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_Safe_Sex
Contains this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Condoms_by_Morrhigan.jpg
with this copyright status: *This image appears to have come from the stock xchng http://sxc.hu/website. Although many uploaders to stock.xchng wish their work to be effectively public domain, many others believe their work is only available under terms similar to the cc-nc http://creativecommons.org/licenses/cc-nc/ or sampling+http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/licenses.The stock xchng boilerplace license included with every image contains terms which are unacceptable on Wikipedia.*
[image: Warning]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nuvola_apps_important.svg *Contact the copyright holder of this image and determine the actual copyright status of this work*. Add {{contacthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Contact|~~~~}} above the sxc-warning to prevent the copyright holder from being flooded with requests. It is preferred that you have them email their reply to a boilerplate request for permissionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Boilerplate_request_for_permissionto permissions@wikimedia.org. Alternatively you can include their reply on the image talk page. It would also be beneficial to invite them to contribute other artwork to Wikipedia. The reply must explicitly indicate that derivative works, and wholesale redistribution of the work for any purpose, commercial or otherwise is permitted to anyone. Once a clear grant under a free license is available, please move this image to the commons. *If the copyright holder is not contacted, this image will eventually be deleted.*
- *DO NOT* REMOVE THIS WARNING UNTIL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER IS CONTACTED. - *Do* remove this warning once they have been contacted and obtained a free license.
*The SXC license http://www.sxc.hu/txt/license.html is:* ------------------------------
All Images on the Website are copyrighted and they are the properties of SXC or its Image providers. All rights are reserved unless otherwise granted to You. Your rights to use the Image are subject to this agreement and the restrictions specified at each Image.
We hereby grant to You a non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use the Image on the terms and conditions explained in this Agreement and on the Image preview page FREE OF CHARGE.
*You may use the Image*
- In digital format on websites, multimedia presentations, broadcast film and video, cell phones. - In printed promotional materials, magazines, newspapers, books, brochures, flyers, CD/DVD covers, etc. - Along with your corporate identity on business cards, letterhead, etc. - To decorate your home, your office or any public place.
*You may not use the Image*
- For pornographic, unlawful or other immoral purposes, for spreading hate or discrimination, or to defame or victimise other people, sociteties, cultures. - To endorse products and services if it depicts a person. - In a way that can give a bad name to SXC or the person(s) depicted on the Image. - As part of a trademark, service mark or logo. - SELLING AND REDISTRIBUTION OF THE IMAGE (INDIVIDUALLY OR ALONG WITH OTHER IMAGES) IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN! DO NOT SHARE THE IMAGE WITH OTHERS!
*Always ask permission from the photographer if you want to use the Image*
- In website templates that You intend to sell or distribute. - For creating printed reproductions that You intend to sell. - On "print on demand" items such as t-shirts, postcards, mouse pads, mugs (e.g. on sites like Cafepress), or on any similar mass produced item that would contain the Image in a dominant way.
*Information on rights*
Since SXC does NOT require a written Model Release for each Image that has identifiable people on it, We cannot guarantee that you will be able to use the Image for any purpose You like. Also, if there is a model release for the Image, We do not represent or make warranties whatsoever as to the legality or validity of it.
Furthermore, certain Images may be subject to additional copyrights, property rights, trademarks etc. and may require the consent of a third party or the license of these rights. SXC does not represent or make any warranties that it owns or licenses any of the mentioned, nor does it grant them. It's your sole responsibility to make sure that You have all the necessary rights, consents and licenses for the use of the Image.
You acknowledge that by your download the ownership of Image does not get transferred to You and You must not claim that it is yours. Your license is non-transferable, which means that You are not allowed to sell, rent, give, sublicense, or otherwise transfer the Image or the right to use the Image to anyone else. The work You create with the Image must be used either by yourself or by your client. You warrant that You do your best to prevent third parties from duplicating the Image.
You also agree to take the time to comment on and rate the Image you downloaded and do your best to show the work you created with the Image to the photographer. This is a simple thing and means a lot to many of our contributors who simply would like to know how their work is used.
Is this acceptable to put on user pages within copyright laws?
G'day Dan,
I have a fair use/copyright question for you all.
This template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_Safe_Sex
Contains this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Condoms_by_Morrhigan.jpg
<snip stockxchng warning/>
The problem, AIUI, is that many people assume that any image on stockxchng is automatically under a licence compatible with ours, however, the photographers themselves may not agree. In the case of this particular image, however, the licence displayed *by the photographer* is: "There are no usage restrictions for this photo."
That said, a template that says "This user supports and encourages the practice of safe sex." is pretty damn useless. WP:NOT a webhost, people.
Well welch you are at it again with your accusations of anti semitism, and being an al qaida operative, and supporting 911 and anything else you can make up.
And all this when just a few posts ago you talked about how there is no place in wikipedia for personal attacks. I nearly fell on the ground laughing at that one.
So once again for the record. adding a section on the three oaths is not evidence of anti semitism neither is putting back the reference to harold shipmans geneolgy .
what is islamaphobic however and down right racist and bigoted is to accuse someone of being an alqaida operative, supporting the blowing up of 911, etc because their email address is abuhamza.
I am really, really shocked at the level of unprofessionalism you have shown phil. how on earth someone allowed you to act as an adminstrator for wikipedia is beyond me.
From: Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 14:21:39 -0700
On May 22, 2006, at 12:19 PM, Stan Shebs wrote:
If the artists references multiple photographs and produces an image of Han Solo where Han is standing in a pose different from any of the photographs, or in a different or neutral setting, then it's not a derivative work of any one photograph.
*Still* not off the hook! The copyright covers any sort of depiction of the character, irrespective of the mechanics of production. For instance, a Han Solo action figure is not an exact reproduction of any screenshot from the movie, but it can only be legally sold under license from the moviemaker. Ditto for 3D meshes and textures ending up in a Star Wars-themed video game. As I said in another message, the pros at this are wise to all kinds of trickery, and there is case law for a remarkable variety of attempts to find loopholes.
Well, I guess that's that then. No images of Han Solo. (But images of Harrison Ford are okay for [[Harrison Ford]]?)
-- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ The new MSN Search Toolbar now includes Desktop search! http://join.msn.com/toolbar/overview
abu hamza wrote:
Well welch you are at it again with your accusations of anti semitism, and being an al qaida operative, and supporting 911 and anything else you can make up.
And all this when just a few posts ago you talked about how there is no place in wikipedia for personal attacks. I nearly fell on the ground laughing at that one.
So once again for the record. adding a section on the three oaths is not evidence of anti semitism neither is putting back the reference to harold shipmans geneolgy .
what is islamaphobic however and down right racist and bigoted is to accuse someone of being an alqaida operative, supporting the blowing up of 911, etc because their email address is abuhamza.
I am really, really shocked at the level of unprofessionalism you have shown phil. how on earth someone allowed you to act as an adminstrator for wikipedia is beyond me.
Interesting, I didn't realise that discussing photographs of Harrison Ford equated to anti-semitism...
PS. Your ad-hominim attacks look /far/ more professional if you use the <SHIFT> key occaisonally...
On 19 May 2006, at 21:41, maru dubshinki wrote:
Unless you are speaking in the ridicoulously long-term sense in which everything (hopefully) passes into the public domain, fair use is inevitably part of our mission. There are entire sectors of articles where fair use is necessary, as the copyright holders will definitely not release the images under a decent license, and where recreation under a different license is not acceptable. From my own experience: the Star Wars article. We only accept canon depictions- and because canonicity policies say that only material authorized and licensed by the copyright holders is canon, and because the copyright holders will only do proprietary releases, we cannot, by definition, have free images relating to Star Wars. Indeed, the absolute best we could do is perhaps have some free images of fans, (though trademark and copyright issues are still problematic. If we have a picture of a bunch of fans dressed up in pitch-perfect Stormtrooper , tusken raider, Royal Guards etc. costumes, can that really be GFDL'ed or PD'ed?), or maybe of productions.
We do not need pictures in these articles.
We can link to external ones.
If you dont want to make a *free* encyclopaedia you can join another project.
I wouldnt mind a fork of wikipedia that has "fair use" and other copyvio images on top of the wikipedia text. Someone else can deal with the legal issues and the fact that distribution is a problem. Being free is a vital part of out mission. Reuse is vital. It is the reason many of us participate. I really do not care if we dont have pictures if we fulfil this mission.
I know other people just want to make the best encyclopedia and thats fine. Its just not our project. Our project can support that one because it is free. But these huge swathes of non free, non redistributable images are a huge threat to the project.
Justinc
Justin Cormack wrote:
If the copyright holder objects then they might sue. Whether we win or not, its not worth our while wasting money on cases like this. We are trying to make a free encyclopaedia, so paying lawyers to defend our right to use non free stuff is against the aims of the Foundation.
Anybody might sue anybody else about anything; paranoia thrives by ignoring remote possibilities. Before there is a legal suit there would be a DMCA takedown order. There are technical requirements about what such an order MUST contain. As long as Wikimedia is only an ISP it must take down the specified material, AND notify the person who uploaded it. Until that point there are no legal expenses. That's what a safe harbour is all about. If the uploader objects he then has an opportunity to object to the takedown, and go to court at his own expense if he so desires. The Foundation is not liable as long as it acts within the safe harbour.
There _may_ be other ways in which an offended party could begin a lawsuit, but none of them are realistic. Maybe you should make an effort to understand what you are talking about before dreaming up any more uninformed nightmare scenarios.
Dont get attached to fair use. Its not part of our mission. It will all be gone in a few years at the latest. Dont bother defending it.
The wonderful thing about the mailing list is that such wild pronouncements are not subject to our Verifiability rules.
Ec
On 5/19/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
IOW, no, the desires of the copyright holder have no bearing on whether an image can be fairly used, because the fair use defense presumes that the copyright holder objects to the use.
I'm not a lawyer, but this seems like pretty simple logic to me...
I thought so too, and another editor who _is_ a lawyer (User:Bobak) looked at the situation in a fair bit of detail and agreed with my logic. But UninvitedCompany claimed at the end of the deletion review entry http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=50533958#Image:O_RLY.jpg that the Wikimedia Foundation lawyer had had a look at the situation and said it should be deleted.
Please note that I never said it shouldn't be deleted, merely that fair use applies regardless of whether or not the copyright holder objects.
Also note that lawyers tend to take the safe route on these types of things - especially when the benefit of taking chances with the law is negligible.
Anthony
On 5/19/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/19/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
IOW, no, the desires of the copyright holder have no bearing on whether an image can be fairly used, because the fair use defense presumes that the copyright holder objects to the use.
I'm not a lawyer, but this seems like pretty simple logic to me...
I thought so too, and another editor who _is_ a lawyer (User:Bobak) looked at the situation in a fair bit of detail and agreed with my logic. But UninvitedCompany claimed at the end of the deletion review entry http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=50533958#Image:O_RLY.jpg that the Wikimedia Foundation lawyer had had a look at the situation and said it should be deleted.
Please note that I never said it shouldn't be deleted, merely that fair use applies regardless of whether or not the copyright holder objects.
Also note that lawyers tend to take the safe route on these types of things - especially when the benefit of taking chances with the law is negligible.
Yes, but fair use is a defense, not a right. And our policy can only hope to make sure we would have a good defense. But in reality, we don't really want to fight at all -- we've got better things to spend our donations on, and the lack of one image will not sink an encyclopedia (whereas a lawsuit could).
So yes -- you are right on the law, assuming of course that we ended up in court AND won AND the judge agreed with our fair use assertions. But our fair use policy is really trying to be a few rungs above that on the causality chain.
I tried to write up something on this at one point, at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fair_use/Preemptive_fair_use]]. It's woefully out of date now, perhaps for the better (policy has changed a lot since August 2005). But I still think it is a generally good way for thinking about the policy in this case.
FF
Fastfission wrote:
Yes, but fair use is a defense, not a right.
It is both a defence and a right. How are they mutually exclusive.
And our policy can only hope to make sure we would have a good defense. But in reality, we don't really want to fight at all -- we've got better things to spend our donations on, and the lack of one image will not sink an encyclopedia (whereas a lawsuit could).
So yes -- you are right on the law, assuming of course that we ended up in court AND won AND the judge agreed with our fair use assertions. But our fair use policy is really trying to be a few rungs above that on the causality chain.
Maybe some individuals don't mind getting into the fight on their own, or they are far from believing that there ever will be such a fight. It's hard to believe that any judge will ever have the opportunity to decide on cases that are based solely on imagination.
Ec
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/19/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
IOW, no, the desires of the copyright holder have no bearing on whether an image can be fairly used, because the fair use defense presumes that the copyright holder objects to the use.
I'm not a lawyer, but this seems like pretty simple logic to me...
I thought so too, and another editor who _is_ a lawyer (User:Bobak) looked at the situation in a fair bit of detail and agreed with my logic. But UninvitedCompany claimed at the end of the deletion review entry http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=50533958#Image:O_RLY.jpg that the Wikimedia Foundation lawyer had had a look at the situation and said it should be deleted.
Please note that I never said it shouldn't be deleted, merely that fair use applies regardless of whether or not the copyright holder objects.
Absolutely. Sometimes the rights holder's grant may be poorly worded, or even ambiguous. At that point a fair use claim is often still available as a fallback position. One hurdle that we have created for ourselves is that the material must be usable by a downstream user. If the rights owner has given us the right to use the material, he is often silent about how far he extends that licence.
Also note that lawyers tend to take the safe route on these types of things - especially when the benefit of taking chances with the law is negligible.
Alas yes. Often to the point of preventing even cost free strategies.
Ec
On 5/19/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
The one I'd like to hear answered myself is whether the desires of the copyright holder have any bearing on whether an image can be fairly used
- I ran into this issue on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Orly.jpg, wherein an image that (as far as I can tell) meets fair use criteria for the context in which it was being used was deleted because the copyright holder apparently complained about it.
It's a matter of cost/benefit. Is the inclusion of this picture worth defending in court because of its encyclopedic value? In the case of illustrating the "O RLY?" Internet phenomenon, I think it is not. In fact, one could argue that anything that contributes to existinguishing all knowledge that such a thing has ever existed is a valuable service to humanity (j/k).
While I respect Brad's opinion very much, we need to be very careful that "because I've spoken to Wikimedia's lawyer about it" does not become equivalent to "end of discussion". The only question is where, and with whom, such discussion should take place. I think wikien-l or DRV are good places to start in most cases.
Ultimately, it is the Wikimedia Foundation that has to carry the risk of losing a lawsuit. However, we should also not forget that this is not just a for-profit corporation, but a non-profit organization funded primarily through small scale donations, so the opinion of the community should have considerable weight.
An example of a fair use photo which I consider worth defending in court is the one at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Phuc_Phan_Thi
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
While I respect Brad's opinion very much, we need to be very careful that "because I've spoken to Wikimedia's lawyer about it" does not become equivalent to "end of discussion". The only question is where, and with whom, such discussion should take place. I think wikien-l or DRV are good places to start in most cases.
This is the situation I'm getting concerned about here. I don't really care about the specific image or its subject myself, I stumbled into this completely by chance, but I am a little disturbed by how much careful and detailed work went into justifying its inclusion only to be trumped with completely unsupported "the artist doesn't like it" and "the Foundation lawyer doesn't like it" assertions. How am I supposed to know what's valid fair use under these circumstances?
On 5/19/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
While I respect Brad's opinion very much, we need to be very careful that "because I've spoken to Wikimedia's lawyer about it" does not become equivalent to "end of discussion". The only question is where, and with whom, such discussion should take place. I think wikien-l or DRV are good places to start in most cases.
This is the situation I'm getting concerned about here. I don't really care about the specific image or its subject myself, I stumbled into this completely by chance, but I am a little disturbed by how much careful and detailed work went into justifying its inclusion only to be trumped with completely unsupported "the artist doesn't like it" and "the Foundation lawyer doesn't like it" assertions. How am I supposed to know what's valid fair use under these circumstances?
I think the lack of transparency -- which is likely for legal reasons -- is an unpleasant aspect of the legal end of these sorts of decisions. In the end, the question is not "is it fair use under US law" but "is it worth our invoking the fair use clause in the face of an unhappy owner." I think most lawyers are going to go with "no" in almost every case, because 99% of a lawyer's job is to keep you out of court in the first place.
I'm not necessarily opposed to this. I think though that we should fully articulate that our "fair use policy" is *not* just about being within the law, but about avoiding court in the first place. It does this *by means of the law* (if we comply with the law, then the copyright holder will probably NOT risk sueing us), but at the same time this approach makes it clear that there are non-legal aspects (i.e. an angry copyright holder) which would dictate policy actions. It also would dictate a very conservative approach to "fair use" -- one which would guarantee all of our "fair uses" are so far within the law that even thinking of a lawsuit would be pointless. But I understand that a lot of people feel differently on this.
(Though, you have to admit, O RLY? v. Wikimedia Foundation would be a really funny case citation.)
FF
Fastfission wrote:
On 5/19/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
While I respect Brad's opinion very much, we need to be very careful that "because I've spoken to Wikimedia's lawyer about it" does not become equivalent to "end of discussion". The only question is where, and with whom, such discussion should take place. I think wikien-l or DRV are good places to start in most cases.
This is the situation I'm getting concerned about here. I don't really care about the specific image or its subject myself, I stumbled into this completely by chance, but I am a little disturbed by how much careful and detailed work went into justifying its inclusion only to be trumped with completely unsupported "the artist doesn't like it" and "the Foundation lawyer doesn't like it" assertions. How am I supposed to know what's valid fair use under these circumstances?
I think the lack of transparency -- which is likely for legal reasons -- is an unpleasant aspect of the legal end of these sorts of decisions. In the end, the question is not "is it fair use under US law" but "is it worth our invoking the fair use clause in the face of an unhappy owner." I think most lawyers are going to go with "no" in almost every case, because 99% of a lawyer's job is to keep you out of court in the first place.
I'm not necessarily opposed to this. I think though that we should fully articulate that our "fair use policy" is *not* just about being within the law, but about avoiding court in the first place. It does this *by means of the law* (if we comply with the law, then the copyright holder will probably NOT risk sueing us), but at the same time this approach makes it clear that there are non-legal aspects (i.e. an angry copyright holder) which would dictate policy actions. It also would dictate a very conservative approach to "fair use" -- one which would guarantee all of our "fair uses" are so far within the law that even thinking of a lawsuit would be pointless. But I understand that a lot of people feel differently on this.
(Though, you have to admit, O RLY? v. Wikimedia Foundation would be a really funny case citation.)
O RLY? is a copyvio, which weakend our fair use case even further.
On 5/19/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
O RLY? is a copyvio, which weakend our fair use case even further.
Umm how?
I'm speaking here as someone who works on OTRS, so has to looks at cases like this all the time (I'm not claiming extra authority from that, just extra insight).
What it comes down to is that fair use is not a right, it is a defense. The only way to fully show that any image is used legitimately under "fair use" is to go to court and win a case where you use this as your defense.
In this particular incident, a person with an apparently legitimate claim to the image asked us to remove the image, with the understanding that he was willing to defend his rights and test our defense in court.
Now you may believe, and you may be right, that we would win that case... but it would be at a significant financial cost (and possibly significant other costs, but lets stick with the financial for now).
The advice the OTRS team were given was to remove the image. Quite sensibly, the foundation doesn't want to pay that cost out of our donations, for the sake of an image that can be linked to without /any/ risks of costs and no significant loss of content.
However, if anyone wants to agree to pay all legal costs in defending the use of this image - and it is /highly/ likely that there will be some if this image is used - then I say go ahead! I'm sure Danny can arrange for a contract to be drawn up with that agreed. I'm not sure of costs in the US - but I guess a few thousand as a down-payment for initial legal advice would be sensible too.
--sannse
geni wrote:
On 5/19/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
O RLY? is a copyvio, which weakend our fair use case even further.
Umm how?
On 5/19/06, sannse sannse@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
I'm speaking here as someone who works on OTRS, so has to looks at cases like this all the time (I'm not claiming extra authority from that, just extra insight).
What it comes down to is that fair use is not a right, it is a defense.
Why do people keep saying this? Fair use is a defense. It's also a right.
The only way to fully show that any image is used legitimately under "fair use" is to go to court and win a case where you use this as your defense.
You could also get a declaratory judgement or win a case against someone abusing the DMCA. But yeah, you'd have to go to court, because fair use is not black and white, it's a matter of interpretation.
In this particular incident, a person with an apparently legitimate claim to the image asked us to remove the image, with the understanding that he was willing to defend his rights and test our defense in court.
It would have been nice if he had sent in a DMCA takedown notice and the Foundation then forwarded it to the original uploader, who would then have the opportunity to send the Foundation a DMCA putback notice if ey chose.
Now you may believe, and you may be right, that we would win that case... but it would be at a significant financial cost (and possibly significant other costs, but lets stick with the financial for now).
That's one advantage of insisting upon a DMCA takedown notice - now the ball is in the court of the uploader, who can choose whether or not it's worth the financial cost to fight.
However, if anyone wants to agree to pay all legal costs in defending the use of this image - and it is /highly/ likely that there will be some if this image is used - then I say go ahead! I'm sure Danny can arrange for a contract to be drawn up with that agreed. I'm not sure of costs in the US - but I guess a few thousand as a down-payment for initial legal advice would be sensible too.
--sannse
I won't make any down payment, but I'd most likely be willing to sign such a contract. Have Danny send me the details.
Anthony
On 5/19/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/19/06, sannse sannse@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
The only way to fully show that any image is used legitimately under "fair use" is to go to court and win a case where you use this as your defense.
You could also get a declaratory judgement or win a case against someone abusing the DMCA. But yeah, you'd have to go to court, because fair use is not black and white, it's a matter of interpretation.
I should also point out that someone abusing the DMCA can be held responsible for the legal costs of the plaintiff.
Anthony
On 5/19/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
That's one advantage of insisting upon a DMCA takedown notice - now the ball is in the court of the uploader, who can choose whether or not it's worth the financial cost to fight.
We can't always contact the uploader.
On 5/19/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/19/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
That's one advantage of insisting upon a DMCA takedown notice - now the ball is in the court of the uploader, who can choose whether or not it's worth the financial cost to fight.
We can't always contact the uploader.
You can always drop a note on the talk page of the uploader. If they don't receive the message, then they obviously won't send a DMCA putback notice, and the image won't be put back up, unless someone else uploads it.
Anthony
geni wrote:
On 5/19/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
That's one advantage of insisting upon a DMCA takedown notice - now the ball is in the court of the uploader, who can choose whether or not it's worth the financial cost to fight.
We can't always contact the uploader.
Fair enough. Leave a copy of the takedown notice on his user page. As much as I'm in favour of a more aggressive policy in relation to these alleged copyvios, I admit that we can do much less with those who don't want to help themselves.
Ec
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
I won't make any down payment, but I'd most likely be willing to sign such a contract. Have Danny send me the details.
The down payment would be needed for the costs in making sure the contract is done right it would be a right mess if you backed out at the last minute. I can't really believe in your offer if you aren't prepared to send a few thousand for the initial costs, not considering how much this /could/ cost.
But anyway, that's between you and the foundation. I suggest you write to them and see if they have enough faith in your offer to take you up on it.
-- sannse
On 5/19/06, sannse sannse@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
I won't make any down payment, but I'd most likely be willing to sign such a contract. Have Danny send me the details.
The down payment would be needed for the costs in making sure the contract is done right it would be a right mess if you backed out at the last minute. I can't really believe in your offer if you aren't prepared to send a few thousand for the initial costs, not considering how much this /could/ cost.
It *could* cost a lot, however my guess is that it *would* cost nothing. I guess I'd put up a few thousand if it could go into an interest bearing money market account for a couple years while we see that this guy's bluff is just that - a bluff.
But anyway, that's between you and the foundation. I suggest you write to them and see if they have enough faith in your offer to take you up on it.
It's your idea, why don't you set it up?
If Wikimedia really did want indemnification then they'd get the guy to send a DMCA takedown notice and pass it on. Indemnification is part of the DMCA putback procedure.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/19/06, sannse sannse@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
It's your idea, why don't you set it up?
No. The ball is firmly in your court. Put up or shut up.
--sannse
On 5/19/06, sannse sannse@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/19/06, sannse sannse@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
It's your idea, why don't you set it up?
No. The ball is firmly in your court. Put up or shut up.
--sannse
LOL, OK, you make up some hypothetical offer on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, and it's my responsibility to contact them to find out that your offer was complete nonsense.
I notice you haven't addressed the part of my post where I said that fair use *is* a right. Probably because you now realize that there have been Supreme Court cases which have explicitly stated that it is.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/19/06, sannse sannse@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/19/06, sannse sannse@tiscali.co.uk wrote: It's your idea, why don't you set it up?
No. The ball is firmly in your court. Put up or shut up.
--sannse
LOL, OK, you make up some hypothetical offer on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, and it's my responsibility to contact them to find out that your offer was complete nonsense.
Why on earth do you think I made a offer on behalf of the Foundation? I don't have the authority to do that. I said that /I/ felt it was a good idea, and that I'm sure Danny would be able to arrange anything necessary... obviously that would be /if/ the Board agreed. I don't see any reason why they wouldn't - you'll have to ask and find out.
I notice you haven't addressed the part of my post where I said that fair use *is* a right. Probably because you now realize that there have been Supreme Court cases which have explicitly stated that it is.
I won't argue particular points of law, because I am not a lawyer or an expert in law. Perhaps a position you should consider taking yourself. I simply repeat what I've been told, and I chose carefully who I decide to take clarification from
--sannse
On 5/19/06, sannse sannse@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
I won't argue particular points of law, because I am not a lawyer or an expert in law. Perhaps a position you should consider taking yourself. I simply repeat what I've been told, and I chose carefully who I decide to take clarification from
Sorry, I'd rather understand what it is I'm saying than just repeat whatever it is I'm told. Whoever is informing you is incorrect.
Anthony
sannse wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/19/06, sannse sannse@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/19/06, sannse sannse@tiscali.co.uk wrote: It's your idea, why don't you set it up?
No. The ball is firmly in your court. Put up or shut up.
--sannse
LOL, OK, you make up some hypothetical offer on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, and it's my responsibility to contact them to find out that your offer was complete nonsense.
Why on earth do you think I made a offer on behalf of the Foundation? I don't have the authority to do that. I said that /I/ felt it was a good idea, and that I'm sure Danny would be able to arrange anything necessary... obviously that would be /if/ the Board agreed. I don't see any reason why they wouldn't - you'll have to ask and find out.
Sounds like you were baiting your trolling rod with a red herring.
I notice you haven't addressed the part of my post where I said that fair use *is* a right. Probably because you now realize that there have been Supreme Court cases which have explicitly stated that it is.
I won't argue particular points of law, because I am not a lawyer or an expert in law. Perhaps a position you should consider taking yourself.
Maybe his view of the law is not founded in idolatry.
I simply repeat what I've been told, and I chose carefully who I decide to take clarification from
ROTFL
Ec
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/19/06, sannse sannse@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/19/06, sannse sannse@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
It's your idea, why don't you set it up?
No. The ball is firmly in your court. Put up or shut up.
--sannse
LOL, OK, you make up some hypothetical offer on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, and it's my responsibility to contact them to find out that your offer was complete nonsense.
The contract idea was evidently a bluff, and you called it. :-)
Ec
On 5/19/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Why do people keep saying this? Fair use is a defense. It's also a right.
They keep saying it because that's the legal mantra about fair use (just like "you can't patent a fact" is one for patents), which is repeated in law books and by law professors and by lawyers on television. (I think I first heard it from a lawyer in a class I took. It's catchy -- catchier than "free as in speech, not as in beer" by a mile!)
As I understand it, the real difference between a defense and a right is that you can sue somebody for violating a right, but a defense can only be used if you yourself are sued. You can't sue somebody for violating your "fair use" rights -- though I do wish that you could (it would revolutionize copyright legislation and really make it dangerous for a the mega-corporations to put the legal squeeze on small-timers).
FF
On 5/19/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/19/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Why do people keep saying this? Fair use is a defense. It's also a right.
They keep saying it because that's the legal mantra about fair use (just like "you can't patent a fact" is one for patents), which is repeated in law books and by law professors and by lawyers on television. (I think I first heard it from a lawyer in a class I took. It's catchy -- catchier than "free as in speech, not as in beer" by a mile!)
Interesting. I tried looking this up, because hey, if it's repeated over and over it shouldn't be hard to find. The first Google hit I found was http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html - Understanding Your Rights: The Public's Right of Fair Use. But I guess the EFF has no clue what they're talking about.
Anyway, actual written publications are a better search. But books.google gives me "Fair use is the right to use copyrighted material..." "Under the right of fair use..." "But the precious fair use right is under attack today..."
As I understand it, the real difference between a defense and a right is that you can sue somebody for violating a right, but a defense can only be used if you yourself are sued.
You have the right to bear arms. Who can you sue for violation that right? Perhaps we're talking about different definitions of the word "right". I tried looking for a legal dictionary with your definition in it though, and I couldn't find it.
You can't sue somebody for violating your "fair use" rights -- though I do wish that you could (it would revolutionize copyright legislation and really make it dangerous for a the mega-corporations to put the legal squeeze on small-timers).
What would it mean to sue somebody for violating your fair use rights? Moreover, what does it mean to violate someone's fair use rights in the first place?
Anthony
On 5/19/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Interesting. I tried looking this up, because hey, if it's repeated over and over it shouldn't be hard to find. The first Google hit I found was http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html - Understanding Your Rights: The Public's Right of Fair Use. But I guess the EFF has no clue what they're talking about.
If you want to play "find the source", we can do that, but I don't see the value in it.
"Fair Use is not a right...it is a defense to an infringement claim" http://library.case.edu/copyright/fairuse.html "Another way of putting this is that fair use is a defense against infringement." http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-a.htm...
Anyway, I was just trying to explain the origin of the terminology and what was meant by it. Yes, some groups consider it a "right", but since you cannot sue somebody for infringing upon your "fair use rights", it is a pretty empty designation, IMO.
Anyway, actual written publications are a better search. But books.google gives me "Fair use is the right to use copyrighted material..." "Under the right of fair use..." "But the precious fair use right is under attack today..."
Yes, and a search for "fair use is a defense" will come up with a number of law textbooks too, i.e.:
"It's important to understand that fair use is a defense rather than an affirmative right." "...fair use is a defense against charges of infringement, not an affirmative right possessed by members of the public."
You have the right to bear arms. Who can you sue for violation that right? Perhaps we're talking about different definitions of the word "right". I tried looking for a legal dictionary with your definition in it though, and I couldn't find it.
Apparently you can sue, depending on the legal framework which you think is violating the second amendment. There are a few cases mentioned in our article on a second amendment rights group, [[Second Amendment Foundation]].
Anyway -- it's not "my" definition. Legal scholars apparently hash over whether or not fair use should be an affirmative right, but to my knowledge nobody argues that it IS an affirmative right under current copyright law.
What would it mean to sue somebody for violating your fair use rights? Moreover, what does it mean to violate someone's fair use rights in the first place?
Among the lawyers and law students I chatted with about the idea, the basic idea was that if any big company threatened to sue you for what was obviously fair use, you could sue them instead. I don't know how the details would work -- I'm not a lawyer or a law student -- but the goal was to prevent the threat of lawsuit itself to prevent fair use from functioning effectively. As it is, it is easy for a company with a huge legal staff to shut down small "fair users" with the threat of endless, if futile, litigation. Lessig talks about a number of instances where this happened in his book, _Free Culture_.
FF
On 5/19/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/19/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Interesting. I tried looking this up, because hey, if it's repeated over and over it shouldn't be hard to find. The first Google hit I found was http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html - Understanding Your Rights: The Public's Right of Fair Use. But I guess the EFF has no clue what they're talking about.
If you want to play "find the source", we can do that, but I don't see the value in it.
Nor do I. You find a source, I'll find two. We could keep it up for a long time, but suffice it to say it seems like there's not a consensus, among lawyers or among the general public, on whether or not fair use is a right.
"Fair Use is not a right...it is a defense to an infringement claim" http://library.case.edu/copyright/fairuse.html
Searching google for "fair use is a right" I get 200 hits. Searching for "fair use is not a right" I get 99. Do we need to start going through and evaluating the credibility of the sources? Maybe see which ones are more impartial?
"Another way of putting this is that fair use is a defense against infringement." http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-a.htm...
I totally agree that fair use is a defense against infringement.
Anyway, I was just trying to explain the origin of the terminology and what was meant by it. Yes, some groups consider it a "right", but since you cannot sue somebody for infringing upon your "fair use rights", it is a pretty empty designation, IMO.
Again, I don't understand what it would even mean to sue somebody for infringing upon your "fair use rights". It doesn't make any sense to me any more than suing for infringing upon your "right to bear arms" or your "right to free speech" or your "right to remain silent". Looking at [[fundamental right]] I'd add "right to marry", "right to procreate", "right to freedom of thought", "right to religious belief", "right to vote", etc.
Anyway, actual written publications are a better search. But books.google gives me "Fair use is the right to use copyrighted material..." "Under the right of fair use..." "But the precious fair use right is under attack today..."
Yes, and a search for "fair use is a defense" will come up with a number of law textbooks too, i.e.:
Again, I don't disagree that fair use is a defense. I'm just saying it's also a right.
"It's important to understand that fair use is a defense rather than an affirmative right." "...fair use is a defense against charges of infringement, not an affirmative right possessed by members of the public."
Chalk it up to terminology then. These sentences both use the term "affirmative right". Going back to "right to vote", and looking at the [[Voting Rights Act]] article, I see "U.S. citizens commonly hear of a "right to vote," yet there is no such federal right. However, the Voting Rights Act and three constitutional amendments that prevent discrimination in granting the franchise have established in United States Supreme Court jurisprudence that there is a "fundamental right" in the franchise, even though voting remains a state-granted privilege." So clearly something can be a "fundamental right" but not be an "affirmative right".
You have the right to bear arms. Who can you sue for violation that right? Perhaps we're talking about different definitions of the word "right". I tried looking for a legal dictionary with your definition in it though, and I couldn't find it.
Apparently you can sue, depending on the legal framework which you think is violating the second amendment. There are a few cases mentioned in our article on a second amendment rights group, [[Second Amendment Foundation]].
I'm sure if the mayor of New Orleans came and confiscated copies of Wikipedia you could sue for that too. I'm not sure either of those qualify, though.
Anyway -- it's not "my" definition.
By "your definition" I simply meant the definition you were using at the time.
Legal scholars apparently hash over whether or not fair use should be an affirmative right, but to my knowledge nobody argues that it IS an affirmative right under current copyright law.
You've once against added the term "affirmative". I agree that fair use is not currently recognized under US statutory law as an *affirmative right*. Although even that isn't the same as saying it *isn't* an "affirmative right". The latter is really a philosophical question.
What would it mean to sue somebody for violating your fair use rights? Moreover, what does it mean to violate someone's fair use rights in the first place?
Among the lawyers and law students I chatted with about the idea, the basic idea was that if any big company threatened to sue you for what was obviously fair use, you could sue them instead. I don't know how the details would work -- I'm not a lawyer or a law student -- but the goal was to prevent the threat of lawsuit itself to prevent fair use from functioning effectively.
You mean like Online Policy Group successfully did in Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc?
There are also cases, like JibJab vs. Ludlow, which were settled out of court (in favor of the fair user) before a court ever ruled.
Or cases like Felten v. RIAA, where the case was mooted when the copyright holder backed down and agreed not to sue.
As it is, it is easy for a company with a huge legal staff to shut down small "fair users" with the threat of endless, if futile, litigation. Lessig talks about a number of instances where this happened in his book, _Free Culture_.
Only if the fair users roll over and die, like Wikimedia is doing.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/19/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/19/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Interesting. I tried looking this up, because hey, if it's repeated over and over it shouldn't be hard to find. The first Google hit I found was http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html - Understanding Your Rights: The Public's Right of Fair Use. But I guess the EFF has no clue what they're talking about.
If you want to play "find the source", we can do that, but I don't see the value in it.
Nor do I. You find a source, I'll find two. We could keep it up for a long time, but suffice it to say it seems like there's not a consensus, among lawyers or among the general public, on whether or not fair use is a right.
"Fair Use is not a right...it is a defense to an infringement claim" http://library.case.edu/copyright/fairuse.html
Searching google for "fair use is a right" I get 200 hits. Searching for "fair use is not a right" I get 99. Do we need to start going through and evaluating the credibility of the sources? Maybe see which ones are more impartial?
Google is not a reliable source.
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
"Fair Use is not a right...it is a defense to an infringement claim" http://library.case.edu/copyright/fairuse.html
Searching google for "fair use is a right" I get 200 hits. Searching for "fair use is not a right" I get 99. Do we need to start going through and evaluating the credibility of the sources? Maybe see which ones are more impartial?
Google is not a reliable source.
True enough, but neither is the index of a book. Google is just one big index whose elements need to be pursued and evaluated individually.
Ec
On 5/19/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Nor do I. You find a source, I'll find two. We could keep it up for a long time, but suffice it to say it seems like there's not a consensus, among lawyers or among the general public, on whether or not fair use is a right.
Regardless, the meaning of the statement, whether or not you agree with the diction, still stands.
Searching google for "fair use is a right" I get 200 hits. Searching for "fair use is not a right" I get 99. Do we need to start going through and evaluating the credibility of the sources? Maybe see which ones are more impartial?
Hey, you're the one who cited the EFF. And yeah, if you search for something which is not in "the mantra", you won't find much of it. "Fair use is a banana" gets 0 hits, though "fair use is a mess" gets at least one.
Here's one from a publisher who wrote a popular book on copyright law as it applies to publishing: "Remember that fair use is a "defense" to copyright infringement, not a right." (http://copylaw.com/new_articles/fairuse.html)
Apparently you can sue, depending on the legal framework which you think is violating the second amendment. There are a few cases mentioned in our article on a second amendment rights group, [[Second Amendment Foundation]].
I'm sure if the mayor of New Orleans came and confiscated copies of Wikipedia you could sue for that too. I'm not sure either of those qualify, though.
Riiight... do you have a point in this argument anymore, or are you just doing it for sport?
Listen, I think it's a great idea to claim that we should all stand up and assert our fair use. Sounds great. But I'm not sure that's what WMF should do with its donations, and I'm not sure the O RLY? owl is the place to shed legal blood. There are copyright watchdogs out there, let them do that sort of work. We're trying to build a free encyclopedia here, last I checked, not serve as an anti-copyright activist network.
FF
Fastfission wrote: <snip>
Listen, I think it's a great idea to claim that we should all stand up and assert our fair use. Sounds great. But I'm not sure that's what WMF should do with its donations, and I'm not sure the O RLY? owl is the place to shed legal blood. There are copyright watchdogs out there, let them do that sort of work. We're trying to build a free encyclopedia here, last I checked, not serve as an anti-copyright activist network.
/me considers adding that to [[WP:NOT]]...
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Fastfission wrote:
<snip> > We're trying to build a free > encyclopedia here, last I checked, not serve as an anti-copyright > activist network. >
/me considers adding that to [[WP:NOT]]...
Only if I get to add "Wikipedia is not Mao" as well. :)
On 5/20/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Riiight... do you have a point in this argument anymore, or are you just doing it for sport?
I'll summarize my stance in this particular argument in case you can't follow: The statement that "fair use is a defense and not a right" is the kind of confusing mumbo jumbo I'd expect to be spouted out by the RIAA, not a Wikipedian. Fair use is a fundamental right which is part of the fundamental rights to free speech, free expression, free press, etc. While it is difficult for a person to get an advance court ruling guaranteeing her right to fair use in a particular case, it is often possible - in fact the recent passage of 17 USC 512(f) as part of OCILLA provides a promising new avenue for fighting the chilling effects of copyright threat over materials distributed online.
Listen, I think it's a great idea to claim that we should all stand up and assert our fair use. Sounds great. But I'm not sure that's what WMF should do with its donations, and I'm not sure the O RLY? owl is the place to shed legal blood. There are copyright watchdogs out there, let them do that sort of work. We're trying to build a free encyclopedia here, last I checked, not serve as an anti-copyright activist network.
FF
The other half of my argument is that Wikimedia should take advantage of the OCILLA provisions when dealing with threats of lawsuits. Ray Saintonge expressed this view better than I have, and we seem to be in agreement. Refer to his recent emails in this thread for the details.
Anthony
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony DiPierro
On 5/20/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Riiight... do you have a point in this argument anymore, or are you just doing it for sport?
I'll summarize my stance in this particular argument in case you can't follow: The statement that "fair use is a defense and not a right" is the kind of confusing mumbo jumbo I'd expect to be spouted out by the RIAA, not a Wikipedian. Fair use is a fundamental right which is part of the fundamental rights to free speech, free expression, free press, etc. While it is difficult for a person to get an advance court ruling guaranteeing her right to fair use in a particular case, it is often possible - in fact the recent passage of 17 USC 512(f) as part of OCILLA provides a promising new avenue for fighting the chilling effects of copyright threat over materials distributed online.
Free speech is not an absolute right, even in the USA, and freedom of expression does not extend to taking somebody else's work and presenting it as your own. However, if you do this and are challenged, then you may be able to use fair use as a valid defence for your actions. It is up to a court to determine whether your usage of someone else's work is fair use or not; you cannot make a definitive and inviolable ruling on your own say so, otherwise copyright would cease to exist, because all anybody appropriating another's work would need to do is claim the right of fair use, whether it was or not.
It is up to a court to make a ruling, not you. Of course, you may make sure that yourusage of somebody else's work is done in such a fashion that a court would rule in your favour, but again, this is a defence, not a right.
--Peter in Canberra
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
The statement that "fair use is a defense and not a right" is the kind of confusing mumbo jumbo I'd expect to be spouted out by the RIAA, not a Wikipedian. Fair use is a fundamental right which is part of the fundamental rights to free speech, free expression, free press, etc.
Is it? I don't see it that way. If you have evidence to cite in support of that claim, I'd be curious to see it.
"Fundamental rights" aren't always quite as fundamental as we'd like them to be. Free speech is (at least under U.S.-style democracies) a fundamental right. But it's not universal, even in the West: it's not an absolute right in Germany, for example.
Lots of things which feel like they ought to be fundamental rights, aren't. For example, there's no fundamental right to privacy in the U.S., much though many of us wish there were. But it's not mentioned anywhere in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights.
Copyright is not a fundamental right; it's an artificial construction of government, usually with the expressed goal of promoting creative expression.
Me, I'd say that "fair use" isn't a fundamental right, either; rather, it is an exception to copyright, a further legal construction on top of an already legal construction.
Arguments over fair use are often something else, in disguise. A lot of people, especially on the net, believe that the legal construction called "copyright" is wrong and invalid; they've heard only half of Stuart Brand's quote about "information wants to be free" and have amplified it into "all information must be free". They believe that copyright law and its beneficiaries are to be variously ignored, taunted, teased, or hunted down and shot. If the copyright holders seem to be gaining the upper hand, the information-must-be-free activists believe that (as in love and war) all is fair: defiance, guerilla action, perjury, obfuscation, or hiding behind specious fair use claims as a diversionary tactic.
Now, despite my seeming rhetoric, I am not trying to claim that the copyright-is-wrong activists are wrong, nor am I suggesting that Anthony DiPierro is a "copyright-is-wrong" activist. (I have no idea how Anthony DiPierro feels about copyright, but some of his arguments *sound* like the arguments of those activists, which is why I bring all this up.)
If someone wants to believe that copyright is wrong and that all information must be free, that's fine. (As Thomas Jefferson famously said, a little revolution every once in a while is a good thing.) But, two things: (1) please don't use "fair use" to justify your abandonment of copyright law, because "fair use" is part of the very same copyright law you're trying to abandon. Also, (2) please carry out your activism somewhere other than Wikipedia, because Wikipedia, whether you like it or not, is a U.S. entity which is bound to honor U.S. copyright law.
On 5/20/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
The statement that "fair use is a defense and not a right" is the kind of confusing mumbo jumbo I'd expect to be spouted out by the RIAA, not a Wikipedian. Fair use is a fundamental right which is part of the fundamental rights to free speech, free expression, free press, etc.
Is it? I don't see it that way. If you have evidence to cite in support of that claim, I'd be curious to see it.
That fair use is a fundamental right is really a philosophical statement, and essentially an opinion. That said, there is a long history of the *recognition* of the right to fair use, in statutory law, in common law, and in court precedent.
A more interesting question is whether or not fair use is Constitutionally required. From my research on this it seems to be that it is, but this doesn't seem to have been explicitly stated in any US Supreme Court rulings. See http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2002dltr0003.html
"Fundamental rights" aren't always quite as fundamental as we'd like them to be. Free speech is (at least under U.S.-style democracies) a fundamental right. But it's not universal, even in the West: it's not an absolute right in Germany, for example.
I'd say that free speech is a universal fundamental right, even though the governments of some countries don't recognize it.
Lots of things which feel like they ought to be fundamental rights, aren't. For example, there's no fundamental right to privacy in the U.S., much though many of us wish there were. But it's not mentioned anywhere in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights.
While it's not *explicitly* mentioned in those documents, both the US congress and the US courts have recognized the right to privacy.
Copyright is not a fundamental right; it's an artificial construction of government, usually with the expressed goal of promoting creative expression.
Me, I'd say that "fair use" isn't a fundamental right, either; rather, it is an exception to copyright, a further legal construction on top of an already legal construction.
Arguments over fair use are often something else, in disguise. A lot of people, especially on the net, believe that the legal construction called "copyright" is wrong and invalid; they've heard only half of Stuart Brand's quote about "information wants to be free" and have amplified it into "all information must be free". They believe that copyright law and its beneficiaries are to be variously ignored, taunted, teased, or hunted down and shot. If the copyright holders seem to be gaining the upper hand, the information-must-be-free activists believe that (as in love and war) all is fair: defiance, guerilla action, perjury, obfuscation, or hiding behind specious fair use claims as a diversionary tactic.
Now, despite my seeming rhetoric, I am not trying to claim that the copyright-is-wrong activists are wrong, nor am I suggesting that Anthony DiPierro is a "copyright-is-wrong" activist. (I have no idea how Anthony DiPierro feels about copyright, but some of his arguments *sound* like the arguments of those activists, which is why I bring all this up.)
FWIW, I *am* a "copyright-is-wrong" activist, though I don't believe that my arguments I've been making in this thread rely on that.
I'm also a big believer that there are many instances in Wikipedia where the doctrine of fair use is abused in a way which is unhelpful. It is my opinion that explicitly licensed (to everyone) and/or undisputably public domain content should be preferred, not for the sake of the legal principles themselves but so that the content can be distributed in as many jurisdictions as possible without any fear of legal reprecussions. However, I have come to recognize the fact that it is impossible to create a quality encyclopedia which is legal to distribute in all jurisdictions of the world. In terms of images and copyright law I believe this comes into play when it is the very image itself which is being discussed in the encyclopedia article.
If someone wants to believe that copyright is wrong and that all information must be free, that's fine. (As Thomas Jefferson famously said, a little revolution every once in a while is a good thing.) But, two things: (1) please don't use "fair use" to justify your abandonment of copyright law, because "fair use" is part of the very same copyright law you're trying to abandon. Also, (2) please carry out your activism somewhere other than Wikipedia, because Wikipedia, whether you like it or not, is a U.S. entity which is bound to honor U.S. copyright law.
Regarding 1), I think the whole principle of copyleft relies on the fact that it *is* OK to use copyright law against itself. Regarding 2), US copyright law includes fair use, and it includes OCILLA.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/20/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
A more interesting question is whether or not fair use is Constitutionally required. From my research on this it seems to be that it is, but this doesn't seem to have been explicitly stated in any US Supreme Court rulings. See http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2002dltr0003.html
This case becomes all the more interesting because the people with the fair use argument lost, and yet it will help establish a firmer footing for fair use. The argument was only about fair use in an indirect manner; it dealt with the legality of devices designed to circumvent copy-protection devices on CDs. In other words it was not about fair use, but about devices that would facilitate fair use.
The ruling was at the District Appeals Court level, and is thus not binding in other districts. A different outcome for a similar case in a different district is conceivable.
Now, despite my seeming rhetoric, I am not trying to claim that the copyright-is-wrong activists are wrong, nor am I suggesting that Anthony DiPierro is a "copyright-is-wrong" activist. (I have no idea how Anthony DiPierro feels about copyright, but some of his arguments *sound* like the arguments of those activists, which is why I bring all this up.)
FWIW, I *am* a "copyright-is-wrong" activist, though I don't believe that my arguments I've been making in this thread rely on that.
I'm also a big believer that there are many instances in Wikipedia where the doctrine of fair use is abused in a way which is unhelpful. It is my opinion that explicitly licensed (to everyone) and/or undisputably public domain content should be preferred, not for the sake of the legal principles themselves but so that the content can be distributed in as many jurisdictions as possible without any fear of legal reprecussions. However, I have come to recognize the fact that it is impossible to create a quality encyclopedia which is legal to distribute in all jurisdictions of the world.
That seems like a fair analysis, and I will be the first to say that fair use claims should be done prudently. I think too that at some point The Foundation will need to resolve the ambiguity of whether it's a publisher or an ISP. These different models carry different implications.
Ec
Steve Summit wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
The statement that "fair use is a defense and not a right" is the kind of confusing mumbo jumbo I'd expect to be spouted out by the RIAA, not a Wikipedian. Fair use is a fundamental right which is part of the fundamental rights to free speech, free expression, free press, etc.
Is it? I don't see it that way. If you have evidence to cite in support of that claim, I'd be curious to see it.
I too believe fair use to be a right. So far in this thread we have seen that there are lawyers on both sides of the issue. In such circumstances convincing evidence may not be effective. It's still a good lesson on the reliability of lawyers' opinions.
"Fundamental rights" aren't always quite as fundamental as we'd like them to be. Free speech is (at least under U.S.-style democracies) a fundamental right. But it's not universal, even in the West: it's not an absolute right in Germany, for example.
Lots of things which feel like they ought to be fundamental rights, aren't. For example, there's no fundamental right to privacy in the U.S., much though many of us wish there were. But it's not mentioned anywhere in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights.
Copyright is not a fundamental right; it's an artificial construction of government, usually with the expressed goal of promoting creative expression.
I would not use the term "fundamental" myself; I see copyright and fair use as derivative rights based in the faundamental right of free speech. But that distinction does not materially affect my views.
Me, I'd say that "fair use" isn't a fundamental right, either; rather, it is an exception to copyright, a further legal construction on top of an already legal construction.
Arguments over fair use are often something else, in disguise. A lot of people, especially on the net, believe that the legal construction called "copyright" is wrong and invalid; they've heard only half of Stuart Brand's quote about "information wants to be free" and have amplified it into "all information must be free". They believe that copyright law and its beneficiaries are to be variously ignored, taunted, teased, or hunted down and shot. If the copyright holders seem to be gaining the upper hand, the information-must-be-free activists believe that (as in love and war) all is fair: defiance, guerilla action, perjury, obfuscation, or hiding behind specious fair use claims as a diversionary tactic.
I'll be the first to admit that many of the arguments we see supporting a specific fair use are more in the nature of an excuse than a reason. Copyright need not be inconsistent with information being free. The information is free; only the form of its expression is copyright. Fair use is a part of the copyright law, and as such should be given as much weight as any other section of the law. The application of fair use does not imply perjury, obfuscation or any of the other tactical sallies that you impute to free information advocates.
Now, despite my seeming rhetoric, I am not trying to claim that the copyright-is-wrong activists are wrong, nor am I suggesting that Anthony DiPierro is a "copyright-is-wrong" activist. (I have no idea how Anthony DiPierro feels about copyright, but some of his arguments *sound* like the arguments of those activists, which is why I bring all this up.)
Sometimes arguments do resemble each other. Both the honest person and the liar will say, "I didn't do it." but clearly for different reasons. Before we can seriously consider any copyright-is-wrong argument, we really need to look at the rights that are already available to us under the law. There are enough there to obviate the need to make up any new ones of our own. I don't think that either Anthony or I would allow ourselves to be backed into a position where we are caught defending a completely meritless fair use claim. What we are saying is that people who want to go to court to defend their fair use claim, at their own expense should be entitled to do so. The outcome of such a suit should not be secretly prejudged by someone who would not be a party to that suit.
That being said, and only speaking for mysaelf, there are conditions that I would impose to prevent the sillier claims. 1. The real name and address of the person responsible must be known to Wikimedia (though not necessarily publicly). 2. The person must make a statement of intent to defend his fair use claims. 3. The person must provide a proper fair use analysis to be put on the relevant talk page. 4. The person must understand that Wikimedia is required to comply with any take down order received. 5. The person must is entitled to receive a copy of any relevant takedown order.
If someone wants to believe that copyright is wrong and that all information must be free, that's fine. (As Thomas Jefferson famously said, a little revolution every once in a while is a good thing.) But, two things: (1) please don't use "fair use" to justify your abandonment of copyright law, because "fair use" is part of the very same copyright law you're trying to abandon. Also, (2) please carry out your activism somewhere other than Wikipedia, because Wikipedia, whether you like it or not, is a U.S. entity which is bound to honor U.S. copyright law.
Jefferson was not a strong advocate of copyright laws. In his day copyright was for 14 years plus a further 14 year renewal. From to-day's perspective that was very reasonable. There is no dispute about this being a U.S. law issue, and having it settled there would go a long way towards having it settled elsewhere.
Whatever the outcome, there will still be issues about downstream usability, but that's a different battle.
Ec.
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
The statement that "fair use is a defense and not a right" is the kind of confusing mumbo jumbo I'd expect to be spouted out by the RIAA, not a Wikipedian. Fair use is a fundamental right which is part of the fundamental rights to free speech, free expression, free press, etc.
Is it? I don't see it that way. If you have evidence to cite in support of that claim, I'd be curious to see it.
"Fundamental rights" aren't always quite as fundamental as we'd like them to be. Free speech is (at least under U.S.-style democracies) a fundamental right. But it's not universal, even in the West: it's not an absolute right in Germany, for example.
Lots of things which feel like they ought to be fundamental rights, aren't. For example, there's no fundamental right to privacy in the U.S., much though many of us wish there were. But it's not mentioned anywhere in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights.
Copyright is not a fundamental right; it's an artificial construction of government, usually with the expressed goal of promoting creative expression.
Me, I'd say that "fair use" isn't a fundamental right, either; rather, it is an exception to copyright, a further legal construction on top of an already legal construction.
Arguments over fair use are often something else, in disguise. A lot of people, especially on the net, believe that the legal construction called "copyright" is wrong and invalid; they've heard only half of Stuart Brand's quote about "information wants to be free" and have amplified it into "all information must be free". They believe that copyright law and its beneficiaries are to be variously ignored, taunted, teased, or hunted down and shot. If the copyright holders seem to be gaining the upper hand, the information-must-be-free activists believe that (as in love and war) all is fair: defiance, guerilla action, perjury, obfuscation, or hiding behind specious fair use claims as a diversionary tactic.
Now, despite my seeming rhetoric, I am not trying to claim that the copyright-is-wrong activists are wrong, nor am I suggesting that Anthony DiPierro is a "copyright-is-wrong" activist. (I have no idea how Anthony DiPierro feels about copyright, but some of his arguments *sound* like the arguments of those activists, which is why I bring all this up.)
If someone wants to believe that copyright is wrong and that all information must be free, that's fine. (As Thomas Jefferson famously said, a little revolution every once in a while is a good thing.) But, two things: (1) please don't use "fair use" to justify your abandonment of copyright law, because "fair use" is part of the very same copyright law you're trying to abandon. Also, (2) please carry out your activism somewhere other than Wikipedia, because Wikipedia, whether you like it or not, is a U.S. entity which is bound to honor U.S. copyright law.
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/20/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Riiight... do you have a point in this argument anymore, or are you just doing it for sport?
I'll summarize my stance in this particular argument in case you can't follow: The statement that "fair use is a defense and not a right" is the kind of confusing mumbo jumbo I'd expect to be spouted out by the RIAA, not a Wikipedian. Fair use is a fundamental right which is part of the fundamental rights to free speech, free expression, free press, etc. While it is difficult for a person to get an advance court ruling guaranteeing her right to fair use in a particular case, it is often possible - in fact the recent passage of 17 USC 512(f) as part of OCILLA provides a promising new avenue for fighting the chilling effects of copyright threat over materials distributed online.
The difficulty with that one may be with the word "knowingly" It will probably require a pattern of repeated takedown orders over the same material and with no real effort to respond to a putback order with a court case.
Ec
Fastfission wrote:
On 5/19/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Interesting. I tried looking this up, because hey, if it's repeated over and over it shouldn't be hard to find. The first Google hit I found was http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html - Understanding Your Rights: The Public's Right of Fair Use. But I guess the EFF has no clue what they're talking about.
If you want to play "find the source", we can do that, but I don't see the value in it.
WP:V is not binding on the mailing list, but it sure helps.
"Fair Use is not a right...it is a defense to an infringement claim" http://library.case.edu/copyright/fairuse.html "Another way of putting this is that fair use is a defense against infringement." http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-a.htm...
Anyway, I was just trying to explain the origin of the terminology and what was meant by it. Yes, some groups consider it a "right", but since you cannot sue somebody for infringing upon your "fair use rights", it is a pretty empty designation, IMO.
The first of those references does indeed say that fair use is not a right, but not the second. Nobody is disputing that it is a defence.
Your argument that a right depends on being able to institute a court action as plaintiff seems very weak. For me what supports a right is its statutory expression. I think you are confusing between a right and the enforcement of that right. For many rights a survey of the cases is likely to determine that the person proclaiming the right is the defendant. We exercise free speech by saying what we want to say until someone objects and hauls us into court. We don't go to the national censor asking for permission to publish. (In countries where that permission is needed free speech may not be a right after all.) Can you cite cases where the claimant to free speech was the plaintiff?
Anyway, actual written publications are a better search. But books.google gives me "Fair use is the right to use copyrighted material..." "Under the right of fair use..." "But the precious fair use right is under attack today..."
Yes, and a search for "fair use is a defense" will come up with a number of law textbooks too, i.e.:
"It's important to understand that fair use is a defense rather than an affirmative right." "...fair use is a defense against charges of infringement, not an affirmative right possessed by members of the public."
OK. So it's a defensive right, but a right nonetheless.
What would it mean to sue somebody for violating your fair use rights? Moreover, what does it mean to violate someone's fair use rights in the first place?
Among the lawyers and law students I chatted with about the idea, the basic idea was that if any big company threatened to sue you for what was obviously fair use, you could sue them instead. I don't know how the details would work -- I'm not a lawyer or a law student -- but the goal was to prevent the threat of lawsuit itself to prevent fair use from functioning effectively. As it is, it is easy for a company with a huge legal staff to shut down small "fair users" with the threat of endless, if futile, litigation. Lessig talks about a number of instances where this happened in his book, _Free Culture_.
A lawsuit and a threat of a lawsuit are two different things. Depending on the circumstances a threat of a lawsuit could itself be criminally illegal as abuse of process, extortion or intimidation. The threat works more often than not because people are so deathly afraid of going to court.
Ec
On May 19, 2006, at 1:05 PM, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Why do people keep saying this? Fair use is a defense. It's also a right.
They keep saying it because that's the legal mantra about fair use (just like "you can't patent a fact" is one for patents), which is repeated in law books and by law professors and by lawyers on television. (I think I first heard it from a lawyer in a class I took. It's catchy -- catchier than "free as in speech, not as in beer" by a mile!)
Interesting. I tried looking this up, because hey, if it's repeated over and over it shouldn't be hard to find. The first Google hit I found was http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html - Understanding Your Rights: The Public's Right of Fair Use. But I guess the EFF has no clue what they're talking about.
Clearly, the EFF is an impartial source.
As I understand it, the real difference between a defense and a right is that you can sue somebody for violating a right, but a defense can only be used if you yourself are sued.
You have the right to bear arms. Who can you sue for violation that right?
If some police department confiscated all your firearms, and you weren't insane or a convicted felon, you could most likely sue that police department for violating your right to keep and bear arms (as well as violating your property rights).
On 5/19/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On May 19, 2006, at 1:05 PM, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Why do people keep saying this? Fair use is a defense. It's also a right.
They keep saying it because that's the legal mantra about fair use (just like "you can't patent a fact" is one for patents), which is repeated in law books and by law professors and by lawyers on television. (I think I first heard it from a lawyer in a class I took. It's catchy -- catchier than "free as in speech, not as in beer" by a mile!)
Interesting. I tried looking this up, because hey, if it's repeated over and over it shouldn't be hard to find. The first Google hit I found was http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html - Understanding Your Rights: The Public's Right of Fair Use. But I guess the EFF has no clue what they're talking about.
Clearly, the EFF is an impartial source.
So the EFF is wrong? Or whether or not fair use is a right is an opinion?
As I understand it, the real difference between a defense and a right is that you can sue somebody for violating a right, but a defense can only be used if you yourself are sued.
You have the right to bear arms. Who can you sue for violation that right?
If some police department confiscated all your firearms, and you weren't insane or a convicted felon, you could most likely sue that police department for violating your right to keep and bear arms (as well as violating your property rights).
I've never heard of someone suing f(and winning) or violating your right to keep and bear arms. That'd be like me suing for my right to fair use when the police confiscate my computers.
Anthony
On May 19, 2006, at 5:45 PM, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Interesting. I tried looking this up, because hey, if it's repeated over and over it shouldn't be hard to find. The first Google hit I found was http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html - Understanding Your Rights: The Public's Right of Fair Use. But I guess the EFF has no clue what they're talking about.
Clearly, the EFF is an impartial source.
So the EFF is wrong? Or whether or not fair use is a right is an opinion?
It is an opinion, or at least, it is something that is under dispute. Citing the EFF in a dispute about fair use is like citing the NRA in a dispute about the Second Amendment--it won't convince the other side so why bother?
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
However, if anyone wants to agree to pay all legal costs in defending the use of this image - and it is /highly/ likely that there will be some if this image is used - then I say go ahead! I'm sure Danny can arrange for a contract to be drawn up with that agreed. I'm not sure of costs in the US - but I guess a few thousand as a down-payment for initial legal advice would be sensible too.
I won't make any down payment, but I'd most likely be willing to sign such a contract. Have Danny send me the details.
If I had read further in this long thread I would have seen this and could have avoided my own comments which were very similar. I don't know about this contract; perhaps some kind of indemnity bond?
I don't always agree with you on these copyright law issues, but at least I need to give you credit for looking up the laws that you talk about. I can't do that with everybody who makes comments on this subject.
Ec
sannse wrote:
I'm speaking here as someone who works on OTRS, so has to looks at cases like this all the time (I'm not claiming extra authority from that, just extra insight).
What it comes down to is that fair use is not a right, it is a defense.
Wrong! It is both.
The only way to fully show that any image is used legitimately under "fair use" is to go to court and win a case where you use this as your defense..
In theory, yes. But is is unrealistic to expect that anything but a very small fraction of fair use claims will ever be tested in the courts. If it ever gets that far each instance will be decided on the basis of its own facts.
In this particular incident, a person with an apparently legitimate claim to the image asked us to remove the image, with the understanding that he was willing to defend his rights and test our defense in court.
How do you recognize a bluff? What's wrong with saying that you are willing to comply with a proper takedown order when he issues it?
Now you may believe, and you may be right, that we would win that case... but it would be at a significant financial cost (and possibly significant other costs, but lets stick with the financial for now).
The advice the OTRS team were given was to remove the image. Quite sensibly, the foundation doesn't want to pay that cost out of our donations, for the sake of an image that can be linked to without /any/ risks of costs and no significant loss of content.
There are no costs to Wikimedia unless it refuses to comply with the takedown order.
However, if anyone wants to agree to pay all legal costs in defending the use of this image - and it is /highly/ likely that there will be some if this image is used - then I say go ahead! I'm sure Danny can arrange for a contract to be drawn up with that agreed. I'm not sure of costs in the US - but I guess a few thousand as a down-payment for initial legal advice would be sensible too.
Good! There is no need for contracts or anything of the sort. Once you have supplied the uploader with a copy of the takedown order the ball's in his court. I can't speculate what his legal costs would be; they would certainly be less than what you suggest if he argues his own case.
My whole point is that there are established legal procedures for dealing with allegations of copyvio. They should not be shortcut by your prematurely judging the outcome.
Ec
On 5/19/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/19/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
O RLY? is a copyvio, which weakend our fair use case even further.
Umm how?
I think what is meant is that the O RLY owl (O RLY stamped over a picture of an owl taken by someone else) infringed on the copyright of the original owl photographer. And since we weren't doing anything fair-use-wise with respect to that original photo, we were infringing on their copyright as well.
Which seems logical - otherwise there would be a massive loophole. We could write O RLY on a non-free map of France, and use it in the France article to discuss O RLY or whatever...
Steve
On 5/19/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I think what is meant is that the O RLY owl (O RLY stamped over a picture of an owl taken by someone else) infringed on the copyright of the original owl photographer. And since we weren't doing anything fair-use-wise with respect to that original photo, we were infringing on their copyright as well.
Sure we are not useing it for critical comment of the original image but there are other posible fair use rationals around for example:
http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=O%20RLY&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&sa...
Is generaly considered to be fair use.
geni wrote:
On 5/19/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I think what is meant is that the O RLY owl (O RLY stamped over a picture of an owl taken by someone else) infringed on the copyright of the original owl photographer. And since we weren't doing anything fair-use-wise with respect to that original photo, we were infringing on their copyright as well.
Sure we are not useing it for critical comment of the original image but there are other posible fair use rationals around for example:
http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=O%20RLY&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&sa...
Is generaly considered to be fair use.
What would you say if I told you that I had located the *original* high-res version of the "O RLY owl", sans the text, and that it had a clear copyright notice? The "O RLY" version is a copvio - so, our "fair use" claim was in error.
On 5/19/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
What would you say if I told you that I had located the *original* high-res version of the "O RLY owl", sans the text, and that it had a clear copyright notice? The "O RLY" version is a copvio - so, our "fair use" claim was in error.
Everything claimed under fair use is a copyvio.
In any case we have located the original high res version:
http://animalpicturesarchive.com/animal/ViewImg.cgi?img=a7/Snowy_Owl_Nyctea_...
We link to it in the article.
geni wrote:
In any case we have located the original high res version:
http://animalpicturesarchive.com/animal/ViewImg.cgi?img=a7/Snowy_Owl_Nyctea_...
We link to it in the article.
It's an ugly picture. I'm sure we could find better.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
geni wrote:
In any case we have located the original high res version:
http://animalpicturesarchive.com/animal/ViewImg.cgi?img=a7/Snowy_Owl_Nyctea_...
We link to it in the article.
It's an ugly picture. I'm sure we could find better.
A cropped, low-res version of this with text over the top and a wrongful copyright claim was removed from the article, because that very picture happens to be the basis of an internet meme.
Ray Saintonge wrote:
geni wrote:
In any case we have located the original high res version:
http://animalpicturesarchive.com/animal/ViewImg.cgi?img=a7/Snowy_Owl_Nyctea_...
We link to it in the article.
It's an ugly picture. I'm sure we could find better.
It wouldn't be useful in the [[O RLY?]] article, though, because O RLY was based on that specific image and not any other. Someone else already tried making a replacement using a public domain owl image and I removed it from the article because IMO it was downright deceptive to include it there. Better to have nothing.
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
What would you say if I told you that I had located the *original* high-res version of the "O RLY owl", sans the text, and that it had a clear copyright notice? The "O RLY" version is a copvio - so, our "fair use" claim was in error.
This argument came up in the image talk page and I don't see how it works. My understanding of copyright law on this matter:
The photographer created the photo and held copyright to it, and then someone else came along and created a derivative work out of it. As a derivative work, the copyright is jointly owned - both the photographer and the ORLY-writer hold copyright over the resulting image and so the permission of both is needed for it to be copied (unless such an addition is too trivial to warrant a copyright in the first place, in which case the photographer's the sole copyright holder to Orly.jpg. I don't think this changes anything as far we're concerned, though).
The photographer didn't grant permission for this derivative work to be published anywhere, so people who print posters or whatever of O RLY are violating his copyright on it. But there's no indelible taint of illegality on the image itself; it's only the act of copying it without permission of both copyright holders that's illegal. It would be perfectly legal for me to create my own personal O RLY owl for my own personal use by downloading the original from an authorized distributor and stamping the words on it myself, I just can't send copies of the result to anyone else.
Fair use grants exemptions whereby a copyrighted work can be distributed _without_ permission under certain circumstances, though. And it looks to me like this Wikipedia article fits those circumstances. The fact that the image also is being distributed illegally on web fora unrelated to Wikipedia doesn't seem relevant.
As I've said before I'm not too interested one way or the other in this specific image or article, but I am interested in making sure that Wikipedia's fair use policy is clear and accurate. If the Wikimedia Foundation lawyer has specific reasoning for why this image isn't really fair use after all I want to hear it so I can correct my own misunderstanding and hopefully clarify the policy page so others won't fall for it either. Alternately, if it _is_ valid fair use and the lawyer's response was simply "we're in the right but it'll cost more than it's worth to defend ourselves" then I'm still fine with removing the image - I just want to know what the actual reason is. I don't think it's a good idea for Wikipedia to become a game of [[Mao (game)|Mao]] where the only way to figure out what the rules are is to keep track of what actions result in getting penalty cards.
Might it perhaps be possible to create a public archive somewhere of statements from the Foundation about what's allowed and what isn't, and why? I can't imagine there'd be many situations where secrecy is necessary, at least not in the long term.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
What would you say if I told you that I had located the *original* high-res version of the "O RLY owl", sans the text, and that it had a clear copyright notice? The "O RLY" version is a copvio - so, our "fair use" claim was in error.
This argument came up in the image talk page and I don't see how it works. My understanding of copyright law on this matter:
The photographer created the photo and held copyright to it, and then someone else came along and created a derivative work out of it. As a derivative work, the copyright is jointly owned - both the photographer and the ORLY-writer hold copyright over the resulting image and so the permission of both is needed for it to be copied (unless such an addition is too trivial to warrant a copyright in the first place, in which case the photographer's the sole copyright holder to Orly.jpg. I don't think this changes anything as far we're concerned, though).
The problem here is that the O RLY website was claiming copyright over their image and not acknowleding the original author - kind of like what Baidupedia are doing.
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
The photographer created the photo and held copyright to it, and then someone else came along and created a derivative work out of it. As a derivative work, the copyright is jointly owned - both the photographer and the ORLY-writer hold copyright over the resulting image and so the permission of both is needed for it to be copied (unless such an addition is too trivial to warrant a copyright in the first place, in which case the photographer's the sole copyright holder to Orly.jpg. I don't think this changes anything as far we're concerned, though).
The problem here is that the O RLY website was claiming copyright over their image and not acknowleding the original author - kind of like what Baidupedia are doing.
Sorry for intruding on the conversation, but I fail to see how that is relevant to anything. We know their claim is bogus. Surely they could just as well claim they were the King of the United States and that the image was beamed down by space aliens, and it would have just as much effect on what the _real_ copyright status of the image is.
Similarly, if someone downloads Wikipedia content from Baidupedia, that doesn't give him any more _or_ any less rights to it than if he had got it straight from us, regardless of what Baidu may claim.
So the question is: Do we, under fair use, have the right to distribute, without permission from the copyright holder, a (low-resolution, defaced) copy of the original owl photo in an article describing the (illegal) use of said photo on internet fora?
On 5/19/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/19/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I think what is meant is that the O RLY owl (O RLY stamped over a picture of an owl taken by someone else) infringed on the copyright of the original owl photographer. And since we weren't doing anything fair-use-wise with respect to that original photo, we were infringing on their copyright as well.
Sure we are not useing it for critical comment of the original image but there are other posible fair use rationals around for example:
http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=O%20RLY&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&sa...
Is generaly considered to be fair use.
Yes, but Google feels safe in this because there is a specific case which says that tiny tiny thumbnails for the purposes of search engines is definitely fair use. (Kelly v. Arriba Soft) Which can give some guideline about other potential fair use claims, but it not necessarily analogous to our usage of it (it is just as easy to find claims to difference in this case as it is to claims of similarity).
FF
On 5/19/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but Google feels safe in this because there is a specific case which says that tiny tiny thumbnails for the purposes of search engines is definitely fair use. (Kelly v. Arriba Soft) Which can give some guideline about other potential fair use claims, but it not necessarily analogous to our usage of it (it is just as easy to find claims to difference in this case as it is to claims of similarity).
I know our use isn't equiverlent. I was just pointing out critical comentry is not the only posible way to make a fair use claim.
Steve Bennett wrote:
I think what is meant is that the O RLY owl (O RLY stamped over a picture of an owl taken by someone else) infringed on the copyright of the original owl photographer. And since we weren't doing anything fair-use-wise with respect to that original photo, we were infringing on their copyright as well.
Which seems logical - otherwise there would be a massive loophole. We could write O RLY on a non-free map of France, and use it in the France article to discuss O RLY or whatever...
Better still in an article on Orly Airport. :-)
Ec
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge
Steve Bennett wrote:
Which seems logical - otherwise there would be a massive
loophole. We
could write O RLY on a non-free map of France, and use it in
the France
article to discuss O RLY or whatever...
Better still in an article on Orly Airport. :-)
I was going to say something like that, but it looks like the orly bird catches the worm.
Pete, late as usual
On 5/20/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
I think what is meant is that the O RLY owl (O RLY stamped over a picture of an owl taken by someone else) infringed on the copyright of the original owl photographer. And since we weren't doing anything fair-use-wise with respect to that original photo, we were infringing on their copyright as well.
Which seems logical - otherwise there would be a massive loophole. We could write O RLY on a non-free map of France, and use it in the France article to discuss O RLY or whatever...
Better still in an article on Orly Airport. :-)
Ec
YA RLY
~maru
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
O RLY? is a copyvio, which weakend our fair use case even further.
That's illogical. When something is determined to be fair use it is by definition no longer a copyright violation. Read the law.
Read further down the thread.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
...I am a little disturbed by how much careful and detailed work went into justifying its inclusion only to be trumped with completely unsupported "the artist doesn't like it" and "the Foundation lawyer doesn't like it" assertions.
This might be a decent illustration of the unfortunate general principle that "hard work" on something does not necessarily mean that the something was the right thing to do.
It's also a decent illustration of why our policy is (properly) to give a very high preference to truly free and GFDL images, and to use images under fair use or with permission only as a last resort, and under duress. Really, the work required to determine and then to defend fair use rights in an environment like ours usually isn't worth it.
Steve Summit wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
...I am a little disturbed by how much careful and detailed work went into justifying its inclusion only to be trumped with completely unsupported "the artist doesn't like it" and "the Foundation lawyer doesn't like it" assertions.
This might be a decent illustration of the unfortunate general principle that "hard work" on something does not necessarily mean that the something was the right thing to do.
It's not that it was "hard", just that it was very convincing - I still don't see what was wrong with it. So I'd like to find out where it was in error, assuming it actually was.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
While I respect Brad's opinion very much, we need to be very careful that "because I've spoken to Wikimedia's lawyer about it" does not become equivalent to "end of discussion". The only question is where, and with whom, such discussion should take place. I think wikien-l or DRV are good places to start in most cases.
This is the situation I'm getting concerned about here. I don't really care about the specific image or its subject myself, I stumbled into this completely by chance, but I am a little disturbed by how much careful and detailed work went into justifying its inclusion only to be trumped with completely unsupported "the artist doesn't like it" and "the Foundation lawyer doesn't like it" assertions. How am I supposed to know what's valid fair use under these circumstances?
I have nothing vested in that image either; I've never even seen it. I very much agree with your analysis. While we obviously should not be allowing every claim of fair use just because the uploader finds it convenient. When an uploader goes to the extent of making a fair use analysis, and shows some willingness to accept the consequences of his actions that should be worth something. At least he should have a chance to receive a formal takedown order. There are very very few circumstances where these extreme unilateral actions are justifiable. Letting them continue without accountability only builds mistrust.
Ec
Erik Moeller wrote:
An example of a fair use photo which I consider worth defending in court is the one at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Phuc_Phan_Thi
Yes, absolutely right.
On 5/19/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
The one I'd like to hear answered myself is whether the desires of the copyright holder have any bearing on whether an image can be fairly used
If that was the case, certain forms of parody could not really exist.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
I agree, although I ask if there is actually a major argument for *deleting* a "fair use" image used incorrectly, as opposed to simply removing it from the webpage. I don't know what the legal status of hoarding "potential fair use" images is, of course.
The legal status is that it is completely unjustified. Fair use is inextricably tied up with *use* and simply having an image on the website, not used in an article, does not in any way justify fair use claims.
Not that with the numbers of copyvios we have the luxury of really agonising over each deletion...
I support serious action to ban people who commit copyvios. We are supposed to be using fair use only in certain very limited circumstances and people who do not realize that should be banned from the project.
--Jimbo
On May 19, 2006, at 4:33 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I support serious action to ban people who commit copyvios. We are supposed to be using fair use only in certain very limited circumstances and people who do not realize that should be banned from the project.
This seems overly aggressive to me. It's better to re-educate than to ban whenever possible.
Philip Welch wrote:
On May 19, 2006, at 4:33 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I support serious action to ban people who commit copyvios. We are supposed to be using fair use only in certain very limited circumstances and people who do not realize that should be banned from the project.
This seems overly aggressive to me. It's better to re-educate than to ban whenever possible.
50kV throught the chair won't be available until MediaWiki 1.7 :(
G'day Phil W,
On May 19, 2006, at 4:33 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I support serious action to ban people who commit copyvios. We are supposed to be using fair use only in certain very limited circumstances and people who do not realize that should be banned from the project.
This seems overly aggressive to me. It's better to re-educate than to ban whenever possible.
I agree. Re-educate first. However, *aggressive* copyright violators, especially people advocating (and agitating!) we relax our guard against copyvios, are making our life harder and potentially causing serious damage to the project, all for the sake of a few unnecessary but pretty pictures. Such people (and most copyvio fans are not in this league, and should be re-educated, not banned) fall well and truly into the "more heat than light" category and shouldn't be pandered to.
If people want a fight on copyright issues, they should understand ahead of time that they'll lose, and they'll lose *big*.
Mark Gallagher wrote:
If people want a fight on copyright issues, they should understand ahead of time that they'll lose, and they'll lose *big*.
That statement is best classified as wild speculation. If I'm going to look for such a fight, I will choose my battles to win. If something for which I am responsible becomes the subject of a takedown order, I will fully review the situation before I take the next step. If I feel there is little chance of winning I am not obliged to take the matter further.
Ec
On 5/19/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I support serious action to ban people who commit copyvios. We are supposed to be using fair use only in certain very limited circumstances and people who do not realize that should be banned from the project.
Can we also disable image uploading for new users? Please?
Mark Wagner wrote:
On 5/19/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I support serious action to ban people who commit copyvios. We are supposed to be using fair use only in certain very limited circumstances and people who do not realize that should be banned from the project.
Can we also disable image uploading for new users? Please?
Seconded.
-- Neil
On 5/20/06, Neil Harris neil@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
Mark Wagner wrote:
On 5/19/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I support serious action to ban people who commit copyvios. We are supposed to be using fair use only in certain very limited circumstances and people who do not realize that should be banned from the project.
Can we also disable image uploading for new users? Please?
Seconded.
-- Neil
The effect will be limited. Even quite senior people don't appear to be able to follow our copyright policy.
geni wrote:
On 5/20/06, Neil Harris neil@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
Mark Wagner wrote:
On 5/19/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I support serious action to ban people who commit copyvios. We are supposed to be using fair use only in certain very limited circumstances and people who do not realize that should be banned from the project.
Can we also disable image uploading for new users? Please?
Seconded.
-- Neil
The effect will be limited. Even quite senior people don't appear to be able to follow our copyright policy.
And even those who claim they do still want to claim fair use in cases where it's plainly not.
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
geni wrote:
The effect will be limited. Even quite senior people don't appear to be able to follow our copyright policy.
And even those who claim they do still want to claim fair use in cases where it's plainly not.
If this is an oblique reference to me and the O RLY situation, I still haven't come across a convincing argument for why fair use didn't apply. It's hardly "plainly not" when even actual lawyers think it's fair use.
All I've been asking for is some sort of explanation of the takedown. I don't mind the image being gone for other reasons than invalid fair use, if that's the case, I just want to know why.
On 5/20/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
geni wrote:
The effect will be limited. Even quite senior people don't appear to be able to follow our copyright policy.
And even those who claim they do still want to claim fair use in cases where it's plainly not.
If this is an oblique reference to me and the O RLY situation, I still haven't come across a convincing argument for why fair use didn't apply. It's hardly "plainly not" when even actual lawyers think it's fair use.
All I've been asking for is some sort of explanation of the takedown. I don't mind the image being gone for other reasons than invalid fair use, if that's the case, I just want to know why.
As of now the image *is* in the article, in the form of [[Image:Orlypaper.jpg]].
I suppose if you don't think the use is fair use, then the current image is a copyright violation of a copyright violation of a copyright violation. :)
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 5/20/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
geni wrote:
The effect will be limited. Even quite senior people don't appear to be able to follow our copyright policy.
And even those who claim they do still want to claim fair use in cases where it's plainly not.
If this is an oblique reference to me and the O RLY situation, I still haven't come across a convincing argument for why fair use didn't apply. It's hardly "plainly not" when even actual lawyers think it's fair use.
All I've been asking for is some sort of explanation of the takedown. I don't mind the image being gone for other reasons than invalid fair use, if that's the case, I just want to know why.
As of now the image *is* in the article, in the form of [[Image:Orlypaper.jpg]].
I suppose if you don't think the use is fair use, then the current image is a copyright violation of a copyright violation of a copyright violation. :)
The newspaper image depicts the image as having gained notoriety outside of teh internets, so it's informative, critiquing, yada yada.
(That's a "Yes, I think fair use applies now", BTW.)
Mark Wagner wrote:
On 5/19/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I support serious action to ban people who commit copyvios. We are supposed to be using fair use only in certain very limited circumstances and people who do not realize that should be banned from the project.
Can we also disable image uploading for new users? Please?
It sounds like everybody is in agreement on this - it won't stop all copyvios, but it will put a big dent in the uninformed drive-by uploads, give us more time to work on hard cases. So what does it take to make this happen? Bugzilla? Phone call to Brion? :-)
Stan
On 5/17/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
there's still no effective way of getting rid of things like the mess at [[Category:Fair use magazine covers]].
I've made some progress there although it does involve rule lawyering the heck out the orphan fair use rule.
Mark Wagner wrote:
On 5/17/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
or a "culture of image tagging" that has become fairly effective at searching out and destroying bad uploads.
I wish. We're managing to keep the worst of the worst out, but that basically means images where the uploader can't be bothered to find source information, or where nobody's gotten around to sticking a "fair use" tag on it. The new CSD criteria will help a little with the worst abuses of the {{fairuse}} and {{fairusein}} tags, but there's still no effective way of getting rid of things like the mess at [[Category:Fair use magazine covers]].
I knew there would be somebody naysaying this. :-) I wasn't trying to declare victory, just observing that, unlike, say, the AfD or userbox situations, the sourcing/licensing process runs with very little interference or debate (of course there is plenty of grumbling), and the rate at which it goes is really only limited by the number of participants.
By contrast, we don't have an agreed "culture of fair use", and so there are daily skirmishes over that.
Stan
Steve Bennett wrote:
I'm happy to be corrected, but I was under the impression that as long as we can convey that the information is not guaranteed accurate (by the use of cite tags), then "speculative" information is better than none.
Absolutely not. Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.
As a reader, often you approach a topic knowing nothing at all. If Wikipedia can at least give you a broad outline of the topic with some clues as to where it fits with respect to other topics, then it's doing well. Whether or not it's a neutral, balanced and totally factually accurate article is a secondary concern to me, as a reader.
That can be true to a degree and in some cases, but this is not the sort of thing that I am talking about at all.
On Tue, 16 May 2006 16:30:15 -0400, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I can NOT emphasize this enough.
There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about
I cannot agree with such a general statement that encompasses "all information".
It is worth noting that the German WP is quite successful while _not_ sourcing information the way the English one does.
Compare the featured articles of the past few days and you will find that typical English FAs contain several dozen footnotes and German FAs have just "Literatur" sections [1].
Random speculation and hearsay is usually stated as fact -- few editors start by saying "I heard somewhere that ...". Many if not most claims in WP are not specifically sourced. If we removed all unsourced information because we can't tell the difference between unsourced and untrue, we would lose a good portion of the useful content in WP.
Roger
[1] They appear to be in constant violation of their own guide that looks very much like [[WP:CITE]] (stating, among other thing: "Wichtige oder strittige Aussagen sollten detailliert in Form von Einzelnachweisen belegt werden."). Even the recent FA on the death penalty ([[de:Todesstrafe]]) doesn't contain any important or disputed claims that would need to be sourced individually. Or so it seems.
On 5/16/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.
The problem is that POV warriors are starting to adopt this as one of their tactics. They are removing information that is easily provable with a quick google search because it is unsourced, and of course they refuse to lift a finger to do any work providing references themselves. The most egregious example of this I've witnessed is the removal of the Cheney/Leahy exchange (Dick_cheney#Rebuilding_of_Iraq) on the grounds that it was temporarily unsourced. Does anyone seriously doubt that this happened? Of course it's simple enough to counter this edit warring with digging up references, but when edit warriors are removing entire sections of articles at a time and you're already working on a dozen articles at once and no one is answering your RfC request, something is going to get lost in the shuffle and the accuracy and neutrality of WP will suffer as a result. I view the {{fact}} tag as the equivalent of the {{hang on}] tag: don't delete this until I've gotten a chance to look up the references in a couple hours/during my lunch break/sometime soon. Of course they shouldn't stay unsourced indefinitely, and anything horrifically inflammatory like the Seigenthaler/JFK claim should be removed immediately, but in practice it's giving an advantage to the edit warriors.
On 5/18/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
themselves. The most egregious example of this I've witnessed is the removal of the Cheney/Leahy exchange (Dick_cheney#Rebuilding_of_Iraq) on the grounds that it was temporarily unsourced. Does anyone seriously doubt that this happened? Of course it's simple enough to
It's because WP:V is very vague on this one basic point. It defines what should be the case. It is conspicuously tacit on what to do if it's not. Delete? Remove temporarily? Hide? {{fact}}? Allow for a while? Hence my suggestion to designate classes of articles with different rules for unsourced material. FA's should not tolerate any unsourced material, for instance.
the accuracy and neutrality of WP will suffer as a result. I view the {{fact}} tag as the equivalent of the {{hang on}] tag: don't delete
Not as a "I seriously question this" tag?
Steve
On 5/17/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
the accuracy and neutrality of WP will suffer as a result. I view the {{fact}} tag as the equivalent of the {{hang on}] tag: don't delete
Not as a "I seriously question this" tag?
Fair enough, I've used it in that sense as well. But the edit warriors I was complaining about were clearly not expressing any doubt about the material and weren't using the tag in that way.
On 17/05/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/18/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
themselves. The most egregious example of this I've witnessed is the removal of the Cheney/Leahy exchange (Dick_cheney#Rebuilding_of_Iraq) on the grounds that it was temporarily unsourced. Does anyone seriously doubt that this happened? Of course it's simple enough to
It's because WP:V is very vague on this one basic point. It defines what should be the case. It is conspicuously tacit on what to do if it's not. Delete? Remove temporarily? Hide? {{fact}}? Allow for a while? Hence my suggestion to designate classes of articles with different rules for unsourced material. FA's should not tolerate any unsourced material, for instance.
For what it's worth, what I usually do in situations where there's unsourced and disputed material that I believe/know empirically is correct, but cannot prove at the time, is remove to talk, explicitly saying that "this is unsourced, and unsuitable for the article at the present time, but I plan to find references and reinsert it" or something along those lines. What are talk pages for, if not discussing and debating content?
-Sam
On 5/17/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
It's because WP:V is very vague on this one basic point. It defines what should be the case. It is conspicuously tacit on what to do if it's not. Delete? Remove temporarily? Hide? {{fact}}? Allow for a while? Hence my suggestion to designate classes of articles with different rules for unsourced material. FA's should not tolerate any unsourced material, for instance.
WP:V is deliberately vague on this point and editors have to use common sense. If an article says "John Smith is a killer" and there's no source, remove it immediately. But an edit saying "Skiiing is Switzerland's top sport" can be tagged (but please remember to go back at some point to see if a source has turned up), or better still, the editor who's questioning it could look for a source himself. There are so many gradations of unsourced material between these two examples that we couldn't possibly be algorithmic about it, so editors have to be sensible: the more harmful or the sillier an unsourced edit looks, the faster it should be removed.
Sarah
On 5/18/06, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
WP:V is deliberately vague on this point and editors have to use common sense. If an article says "John Smith is a killer" and there's no source, remove it immediately. But an edit saying "Skiiing is Switzerland's top sport" can be tagged (but please remember to go back at some point to see if a source has turned up), or better still, the editor who's questioning it could look for a source himself. There are so many gradations of unsourced material between these two examples that we couldn't possibly be algorithmic about it, so editors have to be sensible: the more harmful or the sillier an unsourced edit looks, the faster it should be removed.
The problem is POV warriors aren't interested in gradations. Anything they don't like is challenged and deleted immediately. Perhaps, with the exception of the most obvious cases, we should change the policy to require that any facts challenged on the grounds of simply being unsourced should be immediately moved to the talk page by the person deleting them.
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
WP:V is deliberately vague on this point and editors have to use common sense. If an article says "John Smith is a killer" and there's no source, remove it immediately. But an edit saying "Skiiing is Switzerland's top sport" can be tagged (but please remember to go back at some point to see if a source has turned up), or better still, the editor who's questioning it could look for a source himself. There are so many gradations of unsourced material between these two examples that we couldn't possibly be algorithmic about it, so editors have to be sensible: the more harmful or the sillier an unsourced edit looks, the faster it should be removed.
Precisely!
Jimmy Wales wrote:
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
WP:V is deliberately vague on this point and editors have to use common sense. If an article says "John Smith is a killer" and there's no source, remove it immediately. But an edit saying "Skiiing is Switzerland's top sport" can be tagged (but please remember to go back at some point to see if a source has turned up), or better still, the editor who's questioning it could look for a source himself. There are so many gradations of unsourced material between these two examples that we couldn't possibly be algorithmic about it, so editors have to be sensible: the more harmful or the sillier an unsourced edit looks, the faster it should be removed.
Precisely!
I too find this a good basis.
An unfortunate tendency when you make a pronouncement is that people generalize when they read them. It is one thing to say that unsourced statements about living persons should be deleted immediately, but quite another to say that all unsourced statements should be deleted immediately. When you begin with the former, and during a later message in the thread you assume you are talking about the same thing when you shorten your reference, you can be sure that their will be those who never read the first message and who will interpret the second message as general policy.
It's hard to imagine how people will misunderstand you in the year 4039 when you have the same headstart as Jesus now has.
Ec
On 5/16/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I can NOT emphasize this enough.
There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.
I think a fair number of people need to be kicked out of the project just for being lousy writers. (This is not a policy statement, just a statement of attitude and frustration.)
Heh. What is the source of your ever-increasing frustration?