Am Mo., 12. Aug. 2019 um 22:34 Uhr schrieb Aron Manning <
Part of this would be the addition of NC and ND licenses. This doesn't mean
that there will be less free content, but instead more material will be
possible to be uploaded, from underrepresented communities. This would be a
very welcome change.
The concern is that allowing NC and ND would lead to more content being
uploaded under these "unfree" conditions that otherwise would be uploaded
as "free". See the excellent brochure published by WMDE some years ago.
The draft already refers to 2 articles (1
that explain the need for ND. I'll
ask for further sources that show the
benefits of NC and ND licensed materials.
I fail to see how these two articles "explain the need for ND". The -
interesting - article about the daguerrotypes relates to images that are
long in the Public Domain.
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 11:25, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The justifications for the change read as
unsourced and arbitrary. In
particular there is no evidence that using Commons to host NC ND
material that may be important to minority communities, such as
traditional folk art, would help better to educate the public about
those arts when the same NC restriction would halt in its
tracks the general use of Commons by educators and universities. The
change in commons policies would have the consequence of advice to
educators being against using our media in lectures, study materials,
academic papers, academic books etc.
The Meta page that is linked to verges on being blatantly hostile to
the views of the Wikimedia Commons communities
* Q4a. Could this Recommendation have a negative impact/change?
* (Answer) All change has negative connotations to some members of the
This appears deliberately flippant and provocative. Bizarre.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org