Recently i have been lurking around many smaller WMF projects. (When i say "smaller", i refer to Wikipedias which are smaller then the biggest ones - yes, that means almost all Wikipedias - and to non-Wikipedia projects in languages which have an established Wikipedia, as they are usually smaller than the Wikipedia in the same language.)
One worrying thing that i noticed is that in some of these projects there is no strict adherence to GFDL-only text. Since my first day in Wikipedia i understood how important the GFDL is. I understood that articles cannot be copied verbatim even from sources whose copyright terms allow copying for non-commercial usage, because the "free" in "The Free Encyclopedia" does not refer only to price.
There is, however, a de-facto consensus in most projects that non-text media (images, sounds) can be uploaded as fair use (es.wiki is a notable exception). PLEASE READ FURTHER: THIS EMAIL IS NOT A PROTEST AGAINST FAIR USE IMAGES.
What i started noticing recently is that certain projects allow TEXT which is GFDL-incompatible.
For example, a certain Wikipedia admits to taking certain texts from copyrighted sources which allow verbatim copying if the source is cited, but not free modification. Their rationale is that their language is under-privileged and has few proficient volunteer writers.
Another Wikipedia has a template on thousands of articles saying that they were copied from a copyrighted online encyclopedia and asks the editors not to enhance them. (I have to admit that i have limited understanding of this language, but i'm pretty sure that i got this one correctly.) Unlike in the first example, this is a very well established literary language with millions of educated writers.
A Wikisource in another language accepts texts which are outright copyrighted "by a special arrangement with the publisher, which allowed their free (as in beer) publication in Wikisource".
Does the foundation allow autonomy in such matters to projects? I believe that it is not the case.
I intentionally don't name the languages, because i don't really want to act like a cop, especially not in a community of which i am only a lurker.
I do ask the Foundation this: If the GFDL is important to WMF, please have some serious WMF representative reiterate the importance of GFDL to the apparent leaders of ALL projects, not just Wikipedias.
Of course, if the GFDL is not important to WMF, then forget it...
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@gmail.com wrote:
Another Wikipedia has a template on thousands of articles saying that they were copied from a copyrighted online encyclopedia and asks the editors not to enhance them. (I have to admit that i have limited understanding of this language, but i'm pretty sure that i got this one correctly.) Unlike in the first example, this is a very well established literary language with millions of educated writers.
One thing that i forgot to mention is that i often fix interwiki links in Wikipedias in other languages in cases of complicated interwiki conflicts which interwiki bots cannot resolve automatically. Such fixes must be made across all Wikipedias; if even one Wikipedia is left unmaintained, the interwiki bots cannot update the links in other Wikipedias. (Or worse, they may update them incorrectly.)
When i start fixing interwiki links in a group of related articles in different languages and see such a template on an article in one of the Wikipedias, what am i supposed to do? I AM NOT *FREE* TO EDIT IT - i may be infringing the copyright of the author of the original text. Of course i understand that fixing an interwiki link is a small and technical edit, but i do not have any warranty that the copyright holder's lawyers will not sue me for that after seeing my name in the history.
So i don't have a choice: i don't edit the article in that language, and i leave the links in other languages unmaintained, too, because there is no point in a partial resolve of an interwiki conflict.
Of course, that is just one of the implications of not enforcing the GFDL across all projects.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 7:41 PM, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@gmail.com wrote:
Another Wikipedia has a template on thousands of articles saying that they were copied from a copyrighted online encyclopedia and asks the editors not to enhance them. (I have to admit that i have limited understanding of this language, but i'm pretty sure that i got this one correctly.) Unlike in the first example, this is a very well established literary language with millions of educated writers.
One thing that i forgot to mention is that i often fix interwiki links in Wikipedias in other languages in cases of complicated interwiki conflicts which interwiki bots cannot resolve automatically. Such fixes must be made across all Wikipedias; if even one Wikipedia is left unmaintained, the interwiki bots cannot update the links in other Wikipedias. (Or worse, they may update them incorrectly.)
When i start fixing interwiki links in a group of related articles in different languages and see such a template on an article in one of the Wikipedias, what am i supposed to do? I AM NOT *FREE* TO EDIT IT - i may be infringing the copyright of the author of the original text. Of course i understand that fixing an interwiki link is a small and technical edit, but i do not have any warranty that the copyright holder's lawyers will not sue me for that after seeing my name in the history.
You are not infringing the copyright by your edit. The person who clicked save asserted that it was their own text, and released it under the GFDL - they are responsible! If you notice, you should tag it as a copyright violation, but it is not your duty to check.
-- John Vandenberg
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 12:50 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 7:41 PM, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@gmail.com wrote:
Another Wikipedia has a template on thousands of articles saying that they were copied from a copyrighted online encyclopedia and asks the editors not to enhance them. (I have to admit that i have limited understanding of this language, but i'm pretty sure that i got this one correctly.) Unlike in the first example, this is a very well established literary language with millions of educated writers.
One thing that i forgot to mention is that i often fix interwiki links in Wikipedias in other languages in cases of complicated interwiki conflicts which interwiki bots cannot resolve automatically. Such fixes must be made across all Wikipedias; if even one Wikipedia is left unmaintained, the interwiki bots cannot update the links in other Wikipedias. (Or worse, they may update them incorrectly.)
When i start fixing interwiki links in a group of related articles in different languages and see such a template on an article in one of the Wikipedias, what am i supposed to do? I AM NOT *FREE* TO EDIT IT - i may be infringing the copyright of the author of the original text. Of course i understand that fixing an interwiki link is a small and technical edit, but i do not have any warranty that the copyright holder's lawyers will not sue me for that after seeing my name in the history.
You are not infringing the copyright by your edit. The person who clicked save asserted that it was their own text, and released it under the GFDL - they are responsible! If you notice, you should tag it as a copyright violation, but it is not your duty to check.
I don't know. You are probably right, but the template has a big octagon STOP sign on it. Like, "it's a wiki, but don't dare editing it."
It also reiterates the need for wider inter-language coordination and cooperation, but that's a separate thread.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@gmail.com wrote:
Recently i have been lurking around many smaller WMF projects. (When i say "smaller", i refer to Wikipedias which are smaller then the biggest ones - yes, that means almost all Wikipedias - and to non-Wikipedia projects in languages which have an established Wikipedia, as they are usually smaller than the Wikipedia in the same language.)
One worrying thing that i noticed is that in some of these projects there is no strict adherence to GFDL-only text. Since my first day in Wikipedia i understood how important the GFDL is. I understood that articles cannot be copied verbatim even from sources whose copyright terms allow copying for non-commercial usage, because the "free" in "The Free Encyclopedia" does not refer only to price.
There is, however, a de-facto consensus in most projects that non-text media (images, sounds) can be uploaded as fair use (es.wiki is a notable exception). PLEASE READ FURTHER: THIS EMAIL IS NOT A PROTEST AGAINST FAIR USE IMAGES.
What i started noticing recently is that certain projects allow TEXT which is GFDL-incompatible.
For example, a certain Wikipedia admits to taking certain texts from copyrighted sources which allow verbatim copying if the source is cited, but not free modification. Their rationale is that their language is under-privileged and has few proficient volunteer writers.
Another Wikipedia has a template on thousands of articles saying that they were copied from a copyrighted online encyclopedia and asks the editors not to enhance them. (I have to admit that i have limited understanding of this language, but i'm pretty sure that i got this one correctly.) Unlike in the first example, this is a very well established literary language with millions of educated writers.
A Wikisource in another language accepts texts which are outright copyrighted "by a special arrangement with the publisher, which allowed their free (as in beer) publication in Wikisource".
Which Wikisource is this?
I have found similar problems on small wikis; often they are happy to have assistance if it is done carefully and is not rushed.
Cheers, John Vandenberg
If a project does not have an EDP, or it does not respect licences, steward should delete the offending pages (e.g., if there is a lot of images without licence information, and admins refuse to delete them, steward have to delete them).
Nemo
Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
One worrying thing that i noticed is that in some of these projects there is no strict adherence to GFDL-only text. Since my first day in Wikipedia i understood how important the GFDL is. I understood that articles cannot be copied verbatim even from sources whose copyright terms allow copying for non-commercial usage, because the "free" in "The Free Encyclopedia" does not refer only to price.
Well, there is even more of that than you describe.
There are projects that are either unable or unvilling to enforce proper licencing of images. (Read: many/most images are without any copyright templates.)
There are projects that, due to misunderstanding or carelessness, use material (text and images) that are PD in life+50 jurisdictions and not in the US.
There are projects that, despite dedicating significant attention to copyright issues, have significant amount of material copied from print sources, and thus practically undetectable.
This may come as a surprise to Westerners, but most people out there are not really aware of copyright. Intelligent, educated adults may have no knowledge or understanding of it, and rise a protest when you tell them they can't copy text from somewhere.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu wrote:
Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
One worrying thing that i noticed is that in some of these projects there is no strict adherence to GFDL-only text. Since my first day in Wikipedia i understood how important the GFDL is. I understood that articles cannot be copied verbatim even from sources whose copyright terms allow copying for non-commercial usage, because the "free" in "The Free Encyclopedia" does not refer only to price.
Well, there is even more of that than you describe.
There are projects that are either unable or unvilling to enforce proper licencing of images. (Read: many/most images are without any copyright templates.)
I intentionally limited my description of the problem to text. Image fair use is a separate issue.
There are projects that, despite dedicating significant attention to copyright issues, have significant amount of material copied from print sources, and thus practically undetectable.
Yes, this exists. I am referring to cases where the projects (not just single contributors) are aware that the license of the text is not GFDL.
This may come as a surprise to Westerners, but most people out there are not really aware of copyright. Intelligent, educated adults may have no knowledge or understanding of it, and rise a protest when you tell them they can't copy text from somewhere.
True: I intentionally wrote "aware that the license of the text is not GFDL" above, because it is possible that they think that "free as in beer" is GFDL-compatible.
I would volunteer to approach such projects with an explanation of the importance of the GFDL, but i am not a lawyer and not an official representative of WMF. The WMF can tell me to "be bold", but since i am not talking about cases of singular articles, but whole projects which apparently have a policy of disregard to GFDL compatibility, i am quite unsure. The legitimacy of a project may be in question, so i am reluctant to handle it all by myself.
--- On Fri, 9/19/08, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@gmail.com wrote:
From: Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] deviation from the GFDL in smaller projects To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Friday, September 19, 2008, 5:38 AM On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu wrote:
Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
One worrying thing that i noticed is that in some
of these projects
there is no strict adherence to GFDL-only text.
Since my first day in
Wikipedia i understood how important the GFDL is.
I understood that
articles cannot be copied verbatim even from
sources whose copyright
terms allow copying for non-commercial usage,
because the "free" in
"The Free Encyclopedia" does not refer
only to price.
Well, there is even more of that than you describe.
There are projects that are either unable or unvilling
to enforce proper
licencing of images. (Read: many/most images are
without any copyright
templates.)
I intentionally limited my description of the problem to text. Image fair use is a separate issue.
There are projects that, despite dedicating
significant attention to
copyright issues, have significant amount of material
copied from print
sources, and thus practically undetectable.
Yes, this exists. I am referring to cases where the projects (not just single contributors) are aware that the license of the text is not GFDL.
This may come as a surprise to Westerners, but most
people out there are
not really aware of copyright. Intelligent, educated
adults may have no
knowledge or understanding of it, and rise a protest
when you tell them
they can't copy text from somewhere.
True: I intentionally wrote "aware that the license of the text is not GFDL" above, because it is possible that they think that "free as in beer" is GFDL-compatible.
I would volunteer to approach such projects with an explanation of the importance of the GFDL, but i am not a lawyer and not an official representative of WMF. The WMF can tell me to "be bold", but since i am not talking about cases of singular articles, but whole projects which apparently have a policy of disregard to GFDL compatibility, i am quite unsure. The legitimacy of a project may be in question, so i am reluctant to handle it all by myself.
Depending on the language, you may the person best able to educate some of these wikis. Or especially if you don't want publicize who they are ;) The legitimacy of the project should not brought up until some education effrt has proven to fail. Do you know about the WMF licensing resolution [1]? Is it translated into the languages in question? If not, the first step would be working on such a translation and then bringing that to the attention of the community that is deviating. Next figure out the likliest Wikipedia full of knowledge people on copyright to be able to communicate with this smaller wiki (look at the most common second languages on the small wiki). Then recruit some people from the bigger wiki to help you answer questions and explain things.
Birgitte SB
[1]http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
To be fair, I only had a very hazy understanding of copyright until I started becoming very involved with Wikipedia and Commons. Contributors take the lead from more experienced contributors, but in lots of these projects which are still pretty embryonic there isn't a significant enough body of experienced contributors to spread certain bodies of knowledge as effectively as we'd like. It's not far off from en-Wikipedia's very early days. Other projects will grow up in time.
Ford MF
On 9/19/08, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu wrote:
This may come as a surprise to Westerners, but most people out there are not really aware of copyright. Intelligent, educated adults may have no knowledge or understanding of it, and rise a protest when you tell them they can't copy text from somewhere.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org