On 11/22/2009 05:57 PM, David Gerard wrote:
2009/11/22 Judson Dunn
<cohesion(a)sleepyhead.org>rg>:
And in defense of the bureaucratic morons, you
might be surprised the
number of super positive generous people that want their work on
Wikipedia that are completely unwilling to allow 3rd parties to use
their work. I don't personally make people say "The Great Sentence of
Our Holy Secrets" but I would like some indication that they are ok
with other people using their work commercially. Many people simply
aren't, and it hasn't crossed their minds that when they give
something to Wikipedia that is what they're signing up for. I think we
owe it to those people to make sure they understand.
+1
This "free content" idea regularly EXPLODES PEOPLE'S HEADS. They
really, seriously, don't get it. Even when they say they do, they
frequently don't.
The bureaucracy around submitting photos for Wikipedia is a goddamn
pain in the arse ... *but* there are extremely good reasons it came
about.
What's the "shoot on sight" percentage on Commons like now? I
understand it was 10-12% a coupla years ago. (GMaxwell, I vaguely
recall you giving this figure, please correct if I'm wrong.)
- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I am contributing to various Wikimedia projects since 2003 and I
contributed my first piece of free software in 1999. Since late 1990s
I am actively ideologically supporting free software in my country and
in my part of the world. It is hard to imagine to me a kind of
surprisingly new behavior from the side of people who makes their
first touches with free software and free content. Actually, I am able
to present many anecdotes related to such behavior. Actually, I am
fully supporting position of both of you.
If you read the content of the link which I posted inside of the first
email, you could see that I had passed a variation of the same
process. "Please, make the content free." "Yes, I will do it if it
doesn't assume commercial interest." ... However, I've got permission
as it is needed after one more ask.
The point is that I came into the dead end with the demand to mark
what may and what may not be included into Wikipedia. (Besides the
fact that situation "Please repeat the next: ..." is solidly stupid if
you have ~60 years old professor at the other side.)
If I think constructively, I will need to do the next:
* Analyze all the sites and find some generic way to cover given
permissions as simple as it is possible. Probably, I will need some
help (and I'll get it).
* Write as shorter email as it is possible with as less as it is
possible points.
* Explain to the professor that this way of getting permissions is
necessary even I think that it is stupid.
* Send it to OTRS again and hope that I wouldn't have to do the process again.
This task will consume a lot of time. Instead of spending that time on
more constructive Wikimedian tasks, I will do it just to raise legal
safety from 99% to 99.5%.
Keep in mind that this is not about non-free content, this is not
about a possibility that professor didn't understand all consequences
of his approval; this is just about The Form. The Bureaucracy. Note,
also, that this cooperation exists for four years. I don't think that
it is reasonable.