Erik Moeller wrote:
On 3/1/07, Robert Horning
<robert_horning(a)netzero.net> wrote:
The idea that each one of the 200 or so
"active" Wikimedia projects will each have to submit some sort of
"EDP"
to legal counsel, overcoming language and local legal issues too, seems
to be something so absurd as to be unworkable as well.
There is absolutely no requirement for any project to develop an EDP.
They may simply not use any kind of "fair use" material until they do
so. Some may never want to do so.
The requirement to work directly with WMF counsel in the process is
not in the current draft resolution. However, we will probably try to
form a volunteer team (committee or workgroup) that coordinates this
process.
This is effectively banning fair use from all but the absolutely most
active projects and mandating that there is no fair use. It also
doesn't deal at all with existing content which has claimed fair use and
has been a part of the Wikimedia culture from nearly the very beginning
of Wikipedia, right or wrong. This also adds a major requirement for
those smaller projects that are for the most part still struggling to
even get participants at all.
The language issues are something that is going to be very substantial.
I don't know how many WMF counselors (or attorneys) that speak
Indonesian or Thai, but trying to come up with such a policy seems that
it would offer several cultural problems that translation may not
completely catch. This isn't quite as simple of a proposition as is
being suggested here.
In addition, what would happen if a project allows fair use (the admins
don't delete the content and are insisting on keeping it in the
projects) but hasn't submitted this EDP? Is the WMF prepared to "pull
the plug" and kill the project completely? That seems to be the threat
that is offered here, and is certainly something very confrontational in
nature that goes against the traditional tone of the relationship
between the WMF and individual projects. Particularly when this is a
policy that is coming from the top down and is a change in the rules
from what has been traditionally permitted in the very recent past. I'm
not saying that the WMF can't do this in a legal sense, but this sort of
roughshod micromanagement of individual projects is the sort of thing
that kills project communities, especially when there are additional
language and cultural barriers that would make this issue even more
complex to deal with.
Wikibooks has survived, rather poorly unfortunately, this exact sort of
micromanagement from the top and still hasn't recovered the previous
momentium it had before some massive culling of content that has taken
place over the previous year. And that was for Wikibooks-specific
content policies. I see this becoming a major issue if it is not dealt
with on a grass-roots level first involving a great many people from all
of the major Wikimedia projects.
-- Robert Horning