Ting Chen wrote:
Datum: Fri, 13
Jun 2008 20:54:41 -0400
Von: Dan Rosenthal <swatjester(a)gmail.com
1) What Baidupedia is doing is wrong.
Ack
2) Because of the Great Firewall, taking down
Baidupedia is a net negative for us.
That I don't agree. Fact is, we don't have the power to take it down,
and we don't care if it is down or not. If Baidu is down or not doesn't have an
influence on us. Baidu is not a mirror of Wikipedia. We have had contact with other
agencies in China to build up a mirror (the foundation was informed about these contacts),
but because of the issue of the GFW the contacts all run dead. We don't consider Baidu
as a collaboration, we also don't consider them as a potential collaborator.
The issue is one of free licensing. Under GFDL they have every right to
use our material. If they play by the rules we have the right to use
theirs. They are not bound to follow NPOV on their site, because it's
their site. Whether it's editorially sound to use their material is
quite a different question from having a legal right to use that
material. Our efforts to set up a mirror in China have nothing to do
with Baidupedia.
3) We want to
find a way to bring Baidupedia into compliance with the GFDL.
That would be fine. But that would not happen. Baidu uses a very muddy
copyright policy porpusely, this was confirmed from inofficial channel.
Bringing them into compliance may require that they move away from such
a muddy copyright policy. It doesn't help to be pessimistic about our
prospects; that makes it difficult to look for possible solutions.
4) We also
potentially want to use some of Baidupedia's content for ourselves too.
No, never. Because every content on Baidu is potentially copyviod, contents
from Baidu on Wikipedia is a kill-argument. Whenever I see that the content originate from
Baidu it is for me a kill creteria.
That's a big leap between potentially copyvio and factually copyvio.
This argument looks highly prejudicial since it leaves no room to
consider the material on its own merits. If their article has
significantly drawn on Wikipedia there may be implicit GFDL even if they
don't say so. Also, drawing on their information and putting it in our
own words would not be a copyvio because ideas are not copyrightable.
5) Because
Baidupedia is a collaborative site instead of a static
site, it faces different operational and legal implications than other
cases.
Maybe in the future once a day. But now they don't see any neccesity to
change their policy. To device a way to let them see the neccesity is maybe a method we
should search for.
I think that that last point is exactly where we should be heading.
They may not now see any necessity to change policy; we just need to
find a convincing argument for change.
Ec