Daniel Mayer wrote:
I certainly don't see Wikimedia as producing "content".
What do you call images, sound, and video then? They are not documents. What word do you suggest we use to describe what we have? Is the free content movement operating under a bad name? If so what should it call itself?
'Media' *might* work but has some ambiguity issues. 'Publication' might also work. 'Copyleft' would be redundant. Any other ideas?
Well, I don't see it as one category. If you're producing artwork, I'd call it 'artwork'. If you're producing educational materials, I'd call them 'educational materials'. Decomposing them into 'visual content' and 'audio content' or something like that smacks too much of a marketplace-oriented categorize-and-package-for-sale approach. If a generic term is necessary, I'd prefer something really generic like "material". I.e. "I produced some video-based material today".
I'm not sure what the "free content" movement should call itself. "Creative commons" is one term I rather like, as it emphasizes the space (a "commons") in which many different materials (or simply "stuff") can co-exist rather than grouping the materials themself under a single moniker, but the term seems to already be taken by a particular instantiation of the idea.
-Mark