This is unfortunately about to be deleted due to licencing issues, but you need to see it first. Fair warms the heart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Studentsorry.jpg
- d.
I especially like the date: "January I6,2008".
Pete, charmed to see a gent in a restaurant, eating with his date
On Jan 27, 2008 8:45 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
This is unfortunately about to be deleted due to licencing issues, but you need to see it first. Fair warms the heart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Studentsorry.jpg
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David Gerard wrote:
This is unfortunately about to be deleted due to licencing issues, but you need to see it first. Fair warms the heart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Studentsorry.jpg
Aren't any of our sub-wikis able to host stuff that's licenced "for Wikipedia use only" such as this, purely for our own use? I'm thinking meta might be suited for it.
On Jan 27, 2008 5:21 PM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
This is unfortunately about to be deleted due to licencing issues, but you need to see it first. Fair warms the heart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Studentsorry.jpg
Aren't any of our sub-wikis able to host stuff that's licenced "for Wikipedia use only" such as this, purely for our own use? I'm thinking meta might be suited for it.
Maybe the foundation wiki (wikimediafoundation.org), but it's not really on-topic there.
Meta doesn't allow fair use anymore. I was rather surprised that such a policy had appeared there. Even awards we've won are being deleted. http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trophy_box&oldid=800714#Web_User_Magazine_Award_2004
Angela
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Meta doesn't allow fair use anymore.
Is this fair use, though? Is the right of a recipient to reproduce a letter just a special case of fair use, or is it a separate law?
But we don't need fair use at all in this situation. The copyright holder has explicitly licensed Wikipedia to use this image. It's just the fact that they didn't license anyone else to use it that stops it from being used on Wikipedia. This is because Wikipedia's mandate is to produce an encyclopedia that anyone else can redistribute if they want.
Meta, on the other hand, has no such mandate.
On Jan 28, 2008 10:31 AM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Meta doesn't allow fair use anymore.
Is this fair use, though? Is the right of a recipient to reproduce a letter just a special case of fair use, or is it a separate law?
But we don't need fair use at all in this situation. The copyright holder has explicitly licensed Wikipedia to use this image.
You could say exactly the same thing about the little icons used on the awards page on meta. When you win such an award, you are given explicit permission to display the award on your site - that's the entire purpose of those images. But they're still getting deleted.
It would probably be easier to just use one of the growing number of Wikipedian community sites that exist outside of Wikimedia. There are a growing number of wikis, forums, blogs, and other social networks, that were created for and by Wikipedians that are not restricted by Wikip/media policies. One of the oldest examples is http://community.livejournal.com/wikipedians/ (which, by the way, started in 2002 with a post still relevant today - "will someone tell me what's happened with the whole Lir affair?")
Angela
Angela wrote:
You could say exactly the same thing about the little icons used on the awards page on meta. When you win such an award, you are given explicit permission to display the award on your site - that's the entire purpose of those images. But they're still getting deleted.
It's probably foolish/futile to ask, but: are we so far out of control of our own site that it's impossible to get that trend reversed?
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 07:24:15PM -0500, Steve Summit wrote:
Angela wrote:
You could say exactly the same thing about the little icons used on the awards page on meta. When you win such an award, you are given explicit permission to display the award on your site - that's the entire purpose of those images. But they're still getting deleted.
It's probably foolish/futile to ask, but: are we so far out of control of our own site that it's impossible to get that trend reversed?
I support that. What policy or guideline on meta resulted in them being deleted? Was the deletion discussed? Is there a IfD on meta? I must explore that further but an Australia Day Holiday BBQ calls.
Brian.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Jan 28, 2008 11:40 AM, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote:
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 07:24:15PM -0500, Steve Summit wrote:
Angela wrote:
You could say exactly the same thing about the little icons used on the awards page on meta. When you win such an award, you are given explicit permission to display the award on your site - that's the entire purpose of those images. But they're still getting deleted.
It's probably foolish/futile to ask, but: are we so far out of control of our own site that it's impossible to get that trend reversed?
I support that. What policy or guideline on meta resulted in them being deleted? Was the deletion discussed? Is there a IfD on meta? I must explore that further but an Australia Day Holiday BBQ calls.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Fairuse redirects to the speedy delete template, so they're not discussed. It would probably be better to discuss that at http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediameta-l rather than here.
Angela
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 04:31:57PM -0700, Bryan Derksen wrote:
But we don't need fair use at all in this situation. The copyright holder has explicitly licensed Wikipedia to use this image. It's just the fact that they didn't license anyone else to use it that stops it from being used on Wikipedia. This is because Wikipedia's mandate is to produce an encyclopedia that anyone else can redistribute if they want.
Meta, on the other hand, has no such mandate.
Meta hosts the "Foundation issues" page, which claims that "copyleft licensing of content" is "essentially beyond debate". The foundation resolution on nonfree content explicitly lists meta as a "project". The natural conclusion is that meta has the same mandate towards free content as all other wikimedia projects. It would be quite strange if the central coordinating wiki for free-content projects would lack their committment to free content.
Personally, I find it strange to think that any nonfree content not under the control of the foundation should appear on meta.
- Carl
Carl Beckhorn wrote:
Personally, I find it strange to think that any nonfree content not under the control of the foundation should appear on meta.
And I find it completely bizarre that there is apparently no place anywhere within any of the foundation's projects that we can host an image that's explicitly licensed for our use.
I'm all for free content and all, but this has the unsettling feel of fundamentalism.
On Jan 28, 2008 2:52 AM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Carl Beckhorn wrote:
Personally, I find it strange to think that any nonfree content not under the control of the foundation should appear on meta.
And I find it completely bizarre that there is apparently no place anywhere within any of the foundation's projects that we can host an image that's explicitly licensed for our use.
I'm all for free content and all, but this has the unsettling feel of fundamentalism.
The solution is probably to create an explicitly separate site hosted on Foundation servers for such material. The alternative is to alter the terms under which meta operates.
Johnleemk
On 28/01/2008, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
The solution is probably to create an explicitly separate site hosted on Foundation servers for such material. The alternative is to alter the terms under which meta operates.
Does anyone have a copy of the vandalism apology letter up anywhere to link to? I think it's reasonable to presume it was meant to be available to people to see (even without name).
- d.
d. wrote:
Does anyone have a copy of the vandalism apology letter up anywhere to link to?
Sure, I can do that: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/wiki/Studentsorry.jpg
Does anyone have a copy of the vandalism apology letter up anywhere to link to?
Sure, I can do that: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/wiki/Studentsorry.jpg
Or with the explanatory text:
http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/wiki/Studentsorry.html
Fortunately I'd saved that much. I'd post more of the provenance, but I see that [[Image:Studentsorry.jpg]] has, as was threatened, already been deleted. My, that was fast. Good thing we're so very very vigilant about these things...
On Jan 28, 2008 9:54 AM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Fortunately I'd saved that much. I'd post more of the provenance, but I see that [[Image:Studentsorry.jpg]] has, as was threatened, already been deleted. My, that was fast. Good thing we're so very very vigilant about these things...
I know, right? We came so dangerously close to sanity there.
On Jan 28, 2008 10:15 AM, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008 9:54 AM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Fortunately I'd saved that much. I'd post more of the provenance, but I see that [[Image:Studentsorry.jpg]] has, as was threatened, already been deleted. My, that was fast. Good thing we're so very very vigilant about these things...
I know, right? We came so dangerously close to sanity there.
Well, so long as the precedent is set, should we go after http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedia-logo-en-big.png next?
On Jan 28, 2008 12:29 PM, Elias Friedman elipongo@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008 10:15 AM, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008 9:54 AM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Fortunately I'd saved that much. I'd post more of the provenance, but I see that [[Image:Studentsorry.jpg]] has, as was threatened, already been deleted. My, that was fast. Good thing we're so very very vigilant about these things...
I know, right? We came so dangerously close to sanity there.
Well, so long as the precedent is set, should we go after http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedia-logo-en-big.png next?
Another WP:POINT violation to prove the point? I'm really close to supporting that.
Of course, it might wind up going through. We could be logo-less in a day!
Chris Howie wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008 12:29 PM, Elias Friedman elipongo@gmail.com wrote:
Well, so long as the precedent is set, should we go after http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedia-logo-en-big.png next?
Another WP:POINT violation to prove the point? I'm really close to supporting that.
Heck, it even makes sense to me. With this image's big red copyright sitting there in the Commons database, one theoretically can't call a complete image dump from Commons "free". Anyone that wanted to reuse the image dump as a whole would have to know about these exceptions and go through manually weeding them out. These logos should be hosted elsewhere, and once again, Meta seems like the logical choice.
Presumably this would be troublesome for projects linking to them, but if those projects allow "nonfree" images they could have local copies. And if they don't allow "nonfree" images they shouldn't be using the logos in the first place.
On 29/01/2008, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Chris Howie wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008 12:29 PM, Elias Friedman elipongo@gmail.com wrote:
Well, so long as the precedent is set, should we go after http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedia-logo-en-big.png next?
Another WP:POINT violation to prove the point? I'm really close to supporting that.
Heck, it even makes sense to me. With this image's big red copyright sitting there in the Commons database, one theoretically can't call a complete image dump from Commons "free". Anyone that wanted to reuse the image dump as a whole would have to know about these exceptions and go through manually weeding them out. These logos should be hosted elsewhere, and once again, Meta seems like the logical choice.
Presumably this would be troublesome for projects linking to them, but if those projects allow "nonfree" images they could have local copies. And if they don't allow "nonfree" images they shouldn't be using the logos in the first place.
Better not turn up the discussion about the hallowed wikipedia logo's copyleft status... A group only ever looks consistent from the outside, and sometimes not even then.
Peter Ansell
On 29/01/2008, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
Presumably this would be troublesome for projects linking to them, but if those projects allow "nonfree" images they could have local copies. And if they don't allow "nonfree" images they shouldn't be using the logos in the first place.
Better not turn up the discussion about the hallowed wikipedia logo's copyleft status... A group only ever looks consistent from the outside, and sometimes not even then.
Consistency is the something-or-other of foolish minds, as the saying goes. We make these rules for ourselves; they don't have to be consistent, don't have to be elaborately foolproof logical constructions, they just have to *work* - and if "works" requires seventeen exceptions to encompass stuff like logos and other inftrastructure, some rather verbose footnotes, and a "don't be silly" clause, then that's just reality intruding.
Frankly, what is demoralising about this whole charade is that we seem to have lost the ability to tacitly ignore things - do we really have nothing better to do?
On 29/01/2008, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/01/2008, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
Presumably this would be troublesome for projects linking to them, but if those projects allow "nonfree" images they could have local copies. And if they don't allow "nonfree" images they shouldn't be using the logos in the first place.
Better not turn up the discussion about the hallowed wikipedia logo's copyleft status... A group only ever looks consistent from the outside, and sometimes not even then.
Consistency is the something-or-other of foolish minds, as the saying goes. We make these rules for ourselves; they don't have to be consistent, don't have to be elaborately foolproof logical constructions, they just have to *work* - and if "works" requires seventeen exceptions to encompass stuff like logos and other inftrastructure, some rather verbose footnotes, and a "don't be silly" clause, then that's just reality intruding.
Frankly, what is demoralising about this whole charade is that we seem to have lost the ability to tacitly ignore things - do we really have nothing better to do?
The licensing of the wikipedia logos is a reasonable subject to discuss I think. I had a warning and a deleted image which contained a wikipedia screenshot that I made to demonstrate a bug with a template! Not sure if it was the wikipedia and firefox logos that were to blame, but either way both organisations take their trademarks way too seriously. Wikipedia has an overall goal to provide information and media for free, but touch the logo and the pounce on you. Doesn't seem right to me.
If the exceptions have a realistic focus and don't practically damage the overall goal (or the public perception of wikipedia, like the logo issue would if the public knew they could never touch it due to copyright), then they won't cause too much of a fuss. Copyleft isn't meant to have corporate exceptions, that is the point, and wikipedia just doesn't get it in this one little case. Which is why it is brought up as a clear case of trying to go both ways at once and stretching oneself without making it obvious to people.
Having a stated mission of free knowledge, making a point of talking about other sites for copyrighting their images while only stating the mission, and then copyrighting ones own images, is nonsensical by even the most trusting exception handler. It would be awfully ironic if wikipedia died out because it locked up its copyrights.
Peter Ansell
On 28/01/2008, Elias Friedman elipongo@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008 10:15 AM, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008 9:54 AM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Fortunately I'd saved that much. I'd post more of the provenance, but I see that [[Image:Studentsorry.jpg]] has, as was threatened, already been deleted. My, that was fast. Good thing we're so very very vigilant about these things...
I know, right? We came so dangerously close to sanity there.
Well, so long as the precedent is set, should we go after http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedia-logo-en-big.png next?
In this case removing all on wiki uses would be a good first step.
On 29/01/2008, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008 9:54 AM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Fortunately I'd saved that much. I'd post more of the provenance, but I see that [[Image:Studentsorry.jpg]] has, as was threatened, already been deleted. My, that was fast. Good thing we're so very very vigilant about these things...
I know, right? We came so dangerously close to sanity there.
Now now, don't go expecting a sane solution from a random group (or mob) walk. It might be the wisdom of the mob in this case.
Peter Ansell
On 28/01/2008, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Carl Beckhorn wrote:
Personally, I find it strange to think that any nonfree content not under the control of the foundation should appear on meta.
And I find it completely bizarre that there is apparently no place anywhere within any of the foundation's projects that we can host an image that's explicitly licensed for our use.
I'm all for free content and all, but this has the unsettling feel of fundamentalism.
wikimediafoundation.org would probably work for the awards (the letter wouldn't be in scope).
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Carl Beckhorn wrote:
Personally, I find it strange to think that any nonfree content not under the control of the foundation should appear on meta.
And I find it completely bizarre that there is apparently no place anywhere within any of the foundation's projects that we can host an image that's explicitly licensed for our use.
I'm all for free content and all, but this has the unsettling feel of fundamentalism.
I don't want to endorse the charge of "fundamentalism," which seems a bit harsh to me. But I did want to support the idea that it is one thing to say that our encyclopedic and other *works* need to be freely licensed because that's what we are here for, and another thing to say that absolutely everything in every place has to be freely licensed.
On 1/28/08, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Carl Beckhorn wrote:
Personally, I find it strange to think that any nonfree content not under the control of the foundation should appear on meta.
And I find it completely bizarre that there is apparently no place anywhere within any of the foundation's projects that we can host an image that's explicitly licensed for our use.
I'm all for free content and all, but this has the unsettling feel of fundamentalism.
I don't want to endorse the charge of "fundamentalism," which seems a bit harsh to me. But I did want to support the idea that it is one thing to say that our encyclopedic and other *works* need to be freely licensed because that's what we are here for, and another thing to say that absolutely everything in every place has to be freely licensed.
And yet a third thing to define what we are talking about in ways that are actually meaningful on a practical level.
;)
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On 2/2/08, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/28/08, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Carl Beckhorn wrote:
Personally, I find it strange to think that any nonfree content not under the control of the foundation should appear on meta.
And I find it completely bizarre that there is apparently no place anywhere within any of the foundation's projects that we can host an image that's explicitly licensed for our use.
I'm all for free content and all, but this has the unsettling feel of fundamentalism.
I don't want to endorse the charge of "fundamentalism," which seems a bit harsh to me. But I did want to support the idea that it is one thing to say that our encyclopedic and other *works* need to be freely licensed because that's what we are here for, and another thing to say that absolutely everything in every place has to be freely licensed.
And yet a third thing to define what we are talking about in ways that are actually meaningful on a practical level.
Or In Other Words:
[[If-by-whiskey]]
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Bryan Derksen wrote:
And I find it completely bizarre that there is apparently no place anywhere within any of the foundation's projects that we can host an image that's explicitly licensed for our use.
I'm all for free content and all, but this has the unsettling feel of fundamentalism.
Common sense? We don't need no steenking common sense...
On Jan 28, 2008 2:52 AM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Carl Beckhorn wrote:
Personally, I find it strange to think that any nonfree content not under the control of the foundation should appear on meta.
And I find it completely bizarre that there is apparently no place anywhere within any of the foundation's projects that we can host an image that's explicitly licensed for our use.
Meta would probably make a lot of sense for things like this: Not to become a general unfree media dump, but for for cases where such things are useful for doing our own work. The counter argument is that people will start linking to meta to evade project policies, but that already happens with random external sites.
I think it would be worthwhile to explore what reasonable exceptions could be made on meta for this kind of thing.
Extending strong requirements for free media beyond the bounds of the 'product' is essential for fostering free media as part of our community identity, but for intrinsically sausage making things like letters and awards there probably isn't much benefit.
Whatever we do we need be careful to keep material which is not freely licensed treated as second-class (and as far away from the product as reasonably possible), but second class doesn't always necessitate "deleted".
I'm all for free content and all, but this has the unsettling feel of fundamentalism.
That is *exactly* what you were intended to feel: .... This nomination of was an example of [[WP:POINT]]. The nominator did so with the intention of using it to argue to change the policy. He didn't get what he expected and now regrets doing that. :) Lets keep this in mind.
Selective enforcement has an amazing power to dull the sharp corners of any rule. Had someone not been interested in trying to make an example out of this it could have happily sat forever with its less than totally accurate license tag. Less than ideal, perhaps, but it would be far far from the worst inaccuracy in tagging. (Not that I think the outcome should be changed now... it stops being selective enforcement if instead people start voting to ignore the rule)
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Selective enforcement has an amazing power to dull the sharp corners of any rule. Had someone not been interested in trying to make an example out of this it could have happily sat forever with its less than totally accurate license tag. Less than ideal, perhaps, but it would be far far from the worst inaccuracy in tagging.
"Selective enforcement has an amazing power to dull the sharp corners of any rule" is a bug, not a feature.
Rules which are badly broken enough that we need to selectively enforce them really should be fixed. And it's easy for selective enforcement to turn into WP:ILIKEIT, where things that people like are immune to the rules, while things that people don't like can get rule-lawyered out of existence. Once everyone is a lawbreaker, anyone can be arrested at the whim of the police.
On Tuesday 29 January 2008 09:50, Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Selective enforcement has an amazing power to dull the sharp corners of any rule. Had someone not been interested in trying to make an example out of this it could have happily sat forever with its less than totally accurate license tag. Less than ideal, perhaps, but it would be far far from the worst inaccuracy in tagging.
"Selective enforcement has an amazing power to dull the sharp corners of any rule" is a bug, not a feature.
Rules which are badly broken enough that we need to selectively enforce them really should be fixed.
Which is why it's so important that everyone understand that we don't have rules in the first place.
"Policy", on Wikipedia, is not prescriptive. The choice of the word "policy" was unfortunate, and unless we do something about that we'll be dealing with this forever. All "policy" on Wikipedia is is merely a description of what has typically happened in certain situations in the past. Actions do not follow "policy"; "policy" follows actions. People needn't be afraid of breaking the rules, because there are no rules to break. Just use your head and do the right thing.
And no, I'm not saying "Ignore all rules." I'm saying there are no rules to ignore in the first place.
On 30/01/2008, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Selective enforcement has an amazing power to dull the sharp corners of any rule. Had someone not been interested in trying to make an example out of this it could have happily sat forever with its less than totally accurate license tag. Less than ideal, perhaps, but it would be far far from the worst inaccuracy in tagging.
"Selective enforcement has an amazing power to dull the sharp corners of any rule" is a bug, not a feature.
Rules which are badly broken enough that we need to selectively enforce them really should be fixed. And it's easy for selective enforcement to turn into WP:ILIKEIT, where things that people like are immune to the rules, while things that people don't like can get rule-lawyered out of existence. Once everyone is a lawbreaker, anyone can be arrested at the whim of the police.
The police, judges and lawmakers are not independent groups in the wikipedia community, inevitably leading to corruption at some stage.
Peter