On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is the behavior of a certain core set of Commons admins;
George, SJ, and Nathan:
In addition to Erik Moeller's initial proposal that Commons be used as a repository for *free* media files (linked previously), there has been a very recent referendum that speaks very directly to the Wikimedia community's commitment to holding the line on the principles of free licenses, even in the face of negative practical consequences. That referendum was the recent proposal to use the MP4 format. When concluded, more than 300 people had voted against compromising on this principle, while fewer then 150 voted in favor.[1] Of course there are some considerations that are specific to that case, but it is useful to consider now, because the central topic is essentially the same in both cases:
Should we sacrifice free content principles, if that sacrifice will enable us to distribute more educational content?
The answer was a resounding "no."
The people you, Nathan, are accusing of behaving badly, are the ones who are doing the hard, day-do-day work of enforcing the expressed consensus of the Wikimedia community, which values a commitment to free licenses.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
The basis of this thread provides as clear a counter-example as there possibly could be. Take a look at the deletion discussions regarding the files Yann first posted about; each was a clear, obvious "keep" judging by consensus. Yet each file was deleted. And this was not the first time; files that were deleted because of URAA and restored following the RFC are being deleted repeatedly for other, excessively technical and practically irrelevant reasons. Is this a violation of consensus? Of course, but according to the administrators involved, that doesn't matter. When "technocrats" (i.e. self-described experts) disagree with a consensus outcome, they over-rule it. And they will tell you that themselves, and be proud of it.
I don't dispute that there are many hard-working, conscientious Commons users who take a practical, realistic approach to keeping Commons content free. But the URAA RFC consensus was clear, yet there are multiple admins who are not shy about saying that they will disregard it when the feel like it. It's obvious to me that the "expressed consensus" of Commons only matters to these administrators when they agree with it. This URAA issue is only one recent example, and in fact -- in fact!! -- its notable at least in part because it shows the tiniest bit of progress. Typically the "technocrats" have totally free rein, but at least in this case the Commons community spoke up for reason and practicality in the RFC. Yet as we can see, no real good has come of it.