Hah,
I am not defending top or bottom posting here, but merely explaining why it happens. Several services and programs are programmed by default to top post, and users don't tend to change those defaults as that requires extra work. (assuming its even possible)
For those remotely curious... The program I am using is http://www.google.com/mobile/default/mail.html
On 1/18/09, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Wilhelm Schnotz wilhelm@nixeagle.orgwrote:
Gmail mobile hides all quotes.
However from a mobile device using google mobile, I am unable to change the setting from top post to anything else. I can't even copy paste my response to the bottom of the mail because I can't "see" the comments, so I have no way to post "under" them.
Good thing James is there to fix your posts for you.
I think James's point is that wikilawyers have lost all perspective.
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Wilhelm Schnotz wilhelm@nixeagle.orgwrote:
Hah,
I am not defending top or bottom posting here, but merely explaining why it happens. Several services and programs are programmed by default to top post, and users don't tend to change those defaults as that requires extra work. (assuming its even possible)
For those remotely curious... The program I am using is http://www.google.com/mobile/default/mail.html
On 1/18/09, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Wilhelm Schnotz wilhelm@nixeagle.orgwrote:
Gmail mobile hides all quotes.
However from a mobile device using google mobile, I am unable to change the setting from top post to anything else. I can't even copy paste my response to the bottom of the mail because I can't "see" the comments, so I have no way to post "under" them.
Good thing James is there to fix your posts for you.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/1/18 The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com:
I think James's point is that wikilawyers have lost all perspective.
That may well be his point. The example he gave does not support it, though.
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, The Cunctator wrote:
I think James's point is that wikilawyers have lost all perspective.
In this case, the image actually may be unusable even under fair use. It's the *real* law which has lost all perspective. We have no choice but to follow it.
But it is sort of amusing, because Wikipedia's image policy is ridiculously strict and fails logic in several ways, yet can't be changed. So now this ridiculously strict policy is being applied more evenly than we'd have expected and, of course, people are up in arms about it.
There's a good solution: don't have a ridiculously strict policy. Even if the Spider-Man picture is fair use in a legal sense (something I rather doubt), it's hard to justify having it while still excluding fair use photos of living people (probably the worst case) and all sorts of other fair uses that we could legally have but aren't allowed by policy.
(And I never liked the Spiderman Reichtag joke anyway. It seems to me a lot like "look, we can violate the rules to be funny, and you can't!")
2009/1/19 Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, The Cunctator wrote:
I think James's point is that wikilawyers have lost all perspective.
In this case, the image actually may be unusable even under fair use. It's the *real* law which has lost all perspective. We have no choice but to follow it.
Oh, we always have a choice. In this case, one available choice is "do nothing and see if they send us a C&D". Another would be to contact them and ask "is it OK for us to do this?".
But, no. Instead we choose to make Wikipedia a marginally worse place to be involved.
I spend a fun couple of hours reading [[WP:LAME]] (having been sent there by a post on this list) - I'd advise everyone else to visit it while it's still there.
I'm glad you liked my link to WP:LAME.
The primary reason we cannot accept "permission" from a company is that permission does not make that image free. (our license and mission means we should maximize free content..., in addition we cannot accept permission for wikimedia only as re-users (legit mirrors) would not have that same permission)
We can use an image under fair use regardless if the publisher allows us to do so or not. That is the point of fair use.
Of the two options you gave, only the first is possible. (remember asking permission means they have to release under an acceptable license, we cannot accept "wikipedia only" permissions because of downstream users). If you think it is a good idea to leave up and see what happens suggest that on commons.
Now I do understand that by asking, you mean asking if putting the image on commons is ok, not if doing so under fair use is ok... However I find it very unlikely that the company that holds the copyrights in this case would permit any free image of spider man.. And they would have to say its ok to have under a free license for it to be on commons.
I hope I make some sense... Feel free to *nicely* tell me if I don't. Cheers!
On 1/18/09, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/19 Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, The Cunctator wrote:
I think James's point is that wikilawyers have lost all perspective.
In this case, the image actually may be unusable even under fair use. It's the *real* law which has lost all perspective. We have no choice but to follow it.
Oh, we always have a choice. In this case, one available choice is "do nothing and see if they send us a C&D". Another would be to contact them and ask "is it OK for us to do this?".
But, no. Instead we choose to make Wikipedia a marginally worse place to be involved.
I spend a fun couple of hours reading [[WP:LAME]] (having been sent there by a post on this list) - I'd advise everyone else to visit it while it's still there.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/1/19 James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com:
Oh, we always have a choice. In this case, one available choice is "do nothing and see if they send us a C&D".
We could do that in a lot of cases. Rather runs into the problem that wikipedia is meant to be free content though.
Another would be to contact them and ask "is it OK for us to do this?".
The answer will be no because getting a yes would likely involve them in a lot of paperwork. We are talking comic books here. While their history in the field of IP may be an interesting read and quite funny in some respects that doesn't mean that you could prize it off them without a very large crowbar.
Instance number 192,453,345,252 that someone complains about something that "makes no sense" and turns out to be completely wrong. Next!
Nathan
Are you kidding me?
Person X has one opinion. Person Y has another.
You agree with person Y, so you conclude person X is "completely wrong."
ObSheesh: Sheesh.
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Instance number 192,453,345,252 that someone complains about something that "makes no sense" and turns out to be completely wrong. Next!
Nathan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
No, being wrong isn't a function of my opinion. Mr. Farrar doesn't even argue for being right, he just thinks we should make an exception for when we're having fun. Plus I thought it'd be neat to arbitrarily pick a number to add to my unnecessarily definitive statement.
Nathan
2009/1/19 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
Instance number 192,453,345,252 that someone complains about something that "makes no sense" and turns out to be completely wrong. Next!
No-one said that.
2009/1/19 geni geniice@gmail.com:
2009/1/19 James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com:
Oh, we always have a choice. In this case, one available choice is "do nothing and see if they send us a C&D".
We could do that in a lot of cases. Rather runs into the problem that wikipedia is meant to be free content though.
Which brings up the question "What is Wikipedia?". Is meta-content like User: space and Wikipedia: space actually part of Wikipedia?
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 8:29 AM, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Which brings up the question "What is Wikipedia?". Is meta-content like User: space and Wikipedia: space actually part of Wikipedia?
A question I thought of after reading [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Angr this]. Is Wikipedia a free (libre) encyclopedia or a free (beer) encyclopedia that primarily uses a free (libre) license?
2009/1/19 Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 8:29 AM, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Which brings up the question "What is Wikipedia?". Is meta-content like User: space and Wikipedia: space actually part of Wikipedia?
A question I thought of after reading [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Angr this]. Is Wikipedia a free (libre) encyclopedia or a free (beer) encyclopedia that primarily uses a free (libre) license?
I've asked that question before and always got fobbed off. Some people seem to think that they can pursue "a free encyclopaedia" with no possible conflict between the freeness of the project and the quality of the project as an encyclopaedia.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 8:29 AM, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Which brings up the question "What is Wikipedia?". Is meta-content like User: space and Wikipedia: space actually part of Wikipedia?
A question I thought of after reading [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Angr this]. Is Wikipedia a free (libre) encyclopedia or a free (beer) encyclopedia that primarily uses a free (libre) license?
When you sit down and try to understand the true nature of the problem, you won't worry about this. If you read up on say, Nematodes, you'll discover than every vegan eats something like one hundred thousand to one million animals every day. At this point, it becomes necessary to compromise on the "no using animal products/no eating animals" principle, and ask "What can I live with?"
Brian
Ron Ritzman wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 8:29 AM, James Farrar wrote:
Which brings up the question "What is Wikipedia?". Is meta-content like User: space and Wikipedia: space actually part of Wikipedia?
A question I thought of after reading [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Angr this]. Is Wikipedia a free (libre) encyclopedia or a free (beer) encyclopedia that primarily uses a free (libre) license?
I prefer using "free" as a verb. A noun makes it too static.
Ec
Ron Ritzman wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 8:29 AM, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Which brings up the question "What is Wikipedia?". Is meta-content like User: space and Wikipedia: space actually part of Wikipedia?
A question I thought of after reading [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Angr this]. Is Wikipedia a free (libre) encyclopedia or a free (beer) encyclopedia that primarily uses a free (libre) license?
You can view it lots of different ways, I suppose. I personally consider Wikipedia primarily important as a *project* to produce a free (libre) encyclopedia. From that perspective, our primary product is the downloadable dumps. Once they exist, then the rest (distribution, online hosting, repackaging of subsets, etc.) can be done by dozens of other organizations. But producing the encyclopedia is much harder, which we're the only ones really doing on this scale---even if you included non-free projects.
That said, hosting said encyclopedia for free (gratis) public access does also happen to be quite useful for bolstering our primary role, in that it attracts editors, promotes our mission, attracts goodwill for providing a free (and ad-free) source of information, etc.
-Mark
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Ron Ritzman wrote:
A question I thought of after reading [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Angr this]. Is Wikipedia a free (libre) encyclopedia or a free (beer) encyclopedia that primarily uses a free (libre) license?
You can view it lots of different ways, I suppose.
The way it is viewed IMHO affects what our non free content policy should be. If it is viewed as the former, then User:Angr and those who say that all non-free images should be prohibited have a strong case. If it is viewed as the latter, then it can be argued that a good image, free or otherwise, means a better article and better articles mean a better encyclopedia. In other words, IAR.
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
There's a good solution: don't have a ridiculously strict policy.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think the current image policy is a compromise between those who believe enwp should have no non-free images, which would be a very simple policy, either the image is free or it's not, no need for WP:FFD, just delete, and those who believe that any image can be used as long as an even remotely plausible fair use rationale can be provided.
What we have is a wikilawyer's delight. (no sorry, that picture Gary Coleman as a kid is unacceptable because he still looks like a kid so it's replaceable. Oh what's that, you are Gary Coleman and you took the picture yesterday? Just who was holding the camera?")
The problem is *this* particular example is on commons. If james meant to point out our complex image policy.. He should have linked to a closed discussion on en wiki.
Common's rules are simpler then en wiki... Most of the complexity is really copyright law.
On 1/19/09, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
There's a good solution: don't have a ridiculously strict policy.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think the current image policy is a compromise between those who believe enwp should have no non-free images, which would be a very simple policy, either the image is free or it's not, no need for WP:FFD, just delete, and those who believe that any image can be used as long as an even remotely plausible fair use rationale can be provided.
What we have is a wikilawyer's delight. (no sorry, that picture Gary Coleman as a kid is unacceptable because he still looks like a kid so it's replaceable. Oh what's that, you are Gary Coleman and you took the picture yesterday? Just who was holding the camera?")
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/1/19 Wilhelm Schnotz wilhelm@nixeagle.org:
On 1/19/09, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
There's a good solution: don't have a ridiculously strict policy.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think the current image policy is a compromise between those who believe enwp should have no non-free images, which would be a very simple policy, either the image is free or it's not, no need for WP:FFD, just delete, and those who believe that any image can be used as long as an even remotely plausible fair use rationale can be provided.
What we have is a wikilawyer's delight. (no sorry, that picture Gary Coleman as a kid is unacceptable because he still looks like a kid so it's replaceable. Oh what's that, you are Gary Coleman and you took the picture yesterday? Just who was holding the camera?")
The problem is *this* particular example is on commons. If james meant to point out our complex image policy.. He should have linked to a closed discussion on en wiki.
Common's rules are simpler then en wiki... Most of the complexity is really copyright law.
It's an image which appears on enwiki.
Right, but it is on wikimedia commons.
If it were hosted on en wikipedia, you could argue fair use, etc. As far as the image's current status, I explained that in a prior post.
Remember commons hosts only free images.
On 1/19/09, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/19 Wilhelm Schnotz wilhelm@nixeagle.org:
On 1/19/09, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
There's a good solution: don't have a ridiculously strict policy.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think the current image policy is a compromise between those who believe enwp should have no non-free images, which would be a very simple policy, either the image is free or it's not, no need for WP:FFD, just delete, and those who believe that any image can be used as long as an even remotely plausible fair use rationale can be provided.
What we have is a wikilawyer's delight. (no sorry, that picture Gary Coleman as a kid is unacceptable because he still looks like a kid so it's replaceable. Oh what's that, you are Gary Coleman and you took the picture yesterday? Just who was holding the camera?")
The problem is *this* particular example is on commons. If james meant to point out our complex image policy.. He should have linked to a closed discussion on en wiki.
Common's rules are simpler then en wiki... Most of the complexity is really copyright law.
It's an image which appears on enwiki.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/1/19 Wilhelm Schnotz wilhelm@nixeagle.org:
On 1/19/09, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/19 Wilhelm Schnotz wilhelm@nixeagle.org:
On 1/19/09, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
There's a good solution: don't have a ridiculously strict policy.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think the current image policy is a compromise between those who believe enwp should have no non-free images, which would be a very simple policy, either the image is free or it's not, no need for WP:FFD, just delete, and those who believe that any image can be used as long as an even remotely plausible fair use rationale can be provided.
What we have is a wikilawyer's delight. (no sorry, that picture Gary Coleman as a kid is unacceptable because he still looks like a kid so it's replaceable. Oh what's that, you are Gary Coleman and you took the picture yesterday? Just who was holding the camera?")
The problem is *this* particular example is on commons. If james meant to point out our complex image policy.. He should have linked to a closed discussion on en wiki.
Common's rules are simpler then en wiki... Most of the complexity is really copyright law.
It's an image which appears on enwiki.
Right, but it is on wikimedia commons.
True, but IMX images hosted on enwiki get moved to commons PDQ.
2009/1/19 James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com:
True, but IMX images hosted on enwiki get moved to commons PDQ.
Not always. There are situations where they cannot be moved and notices are placed. In this case however the image could not be used on en since we don't allow non free images outside the article namespace because while some of them might qualify under fair use it isn't worth the hassle it would take to keep the situation under control.