During the brainstorming phase of the project, we ran a small straw poll on what the preferred license for Wikinews content would be:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/License_straw_poll
The content that is currently on the Demo wiki is in the public domain in order to facilitate the migration to any other license. In the straw poll, there is currently a small lead in favor of using dual licensing, but the opinions on what licenses to use differ: Some think we should dual-license as copyleft, others believe that we should allow non-copyleft uses for the sake of simplicity. The straw poll as such is not very conclusive.
If there are no objections, I will go ahead and hold a real vote on the issue as soon as demo.wikinews.org is moved to en.wikinews.org. However, please note that this is a rather far-reaching decision, so Board input would be appreciated.
Regards,
Erik
Does anyone have any info on the discussions between jimbo, lessig and rms re: cc-by-sa and gfdl compatibility. If it looks like it is going to happen sometime in the not to distant future, then perhaps some of this discussion won't be as important.
paz y amor, [[User:The bellman]] rjs
On 02 Dec 2004 22:10:00 +0100, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
During the brainstorming phase of the project, we ran a small straw poll on what the preferred license for Wikinews content would be:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/License_straw_poll
The content that is currently on the Demo wiki is in the public domain in order to facilitate the migration to any other license. In the straw poll, there is currently a small lead in favor of using dual licensing, but the opinions on what licenses to use differ: Some think we should dual-license as copyleft, others believe that we should allow non-copyleft uses for the sake of simplicity. The straw poll as such is not very conclusive.
If there are no objections, I will go ahead and hold a real vote on the issue as soon as demo.wikinews.org is moved to en.wikinews.org. However, please note that this is a rather far-reaching decision, so Board input would be appreciated.
Regards,
Erik _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I'm not active in Wikinews and I don't know whether I'll ever join -- but anyway, here are my 2 eurocents as regards the licensing issue:
(1) While WP compatibility might seem like a real important and convenient thing, IMHO coming to that conclusion is fallacious (as in [[logical fallacy]]): - WP compatibility is pretty much only needed if people want to DUPLICATE (ie. not rewrite) content from the WP. - Wikinews was was expressly advertised as a project that would NOT simply duplicate WP content. Thus, I believe the "requirement" for WP license compatibility is much less than one might think.
(2) I would ''strongly'' argue for a public domain "license". As they say: Yesterday's news is used to wrap fish tomorrow. For a news site like Wikinews, the biggest asset will likely turn out to be an active, striving contributor community. Yes, a PD "license" would dramatically lessen Wikinews' control over content reuse, but any static copies will quickly become outdated and only serve as far as their archive value goes (real obnoxious automated content grabbing sited could be blocked). Users will thus figure out pretty quickly that the real McCoy is at wikinews.org. So little is lost by going PD and PD is what news should be. Any writing "for posteriority" (where you might have bigger concerns over content reuse) probably belongs at wikipedia.org anyway.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
On 2 Dec 2004, at 22:10, Erik Moeller wrote:
During the brainstorming phase of the project, we ran a small straw poll on what the preferred license for Wikinews content would be:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/License_straw_poll
The content that is currently on the Demo wiki is in the public domain in order to facilitate the migration to any other license. In the straw poll, there is currently a small lead in favor of using dual licensing, but the opinions on what licenses to use differ: Some think we should dual-license as copyleft, others believe that we should allow non-copyleft uses for the sake of simplicity. The straw poll as such is not very conclusive.
If there are no objections, I will go ahead and hold a real vote on the issue as soon as demo.wikinews.org is moved to en.wikinews.org. However, please note that this is a rather far-reaching decision, so Board input would be appreciated.
Regards,
Erik _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
----- Original Message ----- From: Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 01:47:22 +0100 Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikinews Licensing
(1) While WP compatibility might seem like a real important and convenient thing, IMHO coming to that conclusion is fallacious (as in [[logical fallacy]]):
- WP compatibility is pretty much only needed if people want to
DUPLICATE (ie. not rewrite) content from the WP.
- Wikinews was was expressly advertised as a project that would NOT
simply duplicate WP content. Thus, I believe the "requirement" for WP license compatibility is much less than one might think.
Looking at the Wikinews articles I was involved in so far, it seems that taking materials from Wikipedia does not happen much.
If Wikinews articles can be incorporated into Wikipedia article, that would be good. I am guessing that the need for Wikinews to incorporate Wikipedia articles is quite limited.
Regarding the license poll, I noticed that the people who expressed their opinions are not necessarily the active participants on Wikinews so far. I am not sure what to make of it, but I wonder if only Wikinews participants will vote on the license issue, or any Wikimedian can vote. The former has some intuitive appeal, but there aren't that many active participants yet. I think it is okay to delay the vote until there will be more active users on Wikinews. For a while, Wikinews contents are under public domain - it is like a opening special give-away for potential re-users.
There is virtually no discussion on license issue on wikinews. The biggest discussion so far among the participants is if we would like to publish unreviewed articles on the main page (the community is really divided on this), and if and how we want to change the reveiw process.
Regards,
Tomos
On 3 Dec 2004 17:28:17 +0900 wiki_tomos wiki_tomos@inter7.jp wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 01:47:22 +0100 Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikinews Licensing
(1) While WP compatibility might seem like a real important
and convenient
thing, IMHO coming to that conclusion is fallacious (as
in [[logical
fallacy]]):
- WP compatibility is pretty much only needed if people
want to
DUPLICATE (ie. not rewrite) content from the WP.
- Wikinews was was expressly advertised as a project
that would NOT
simply duplicate WP content. Thus, I believe the "requirement" for WP license
compatibility is much
less than one might think.
Looking at the Wikinews articles I was involved in so far, it seems that taking materials from Wikipedia does not happen much.
If Wikinews articles can be incorporated into Wikipedia article, that would be good. I am guessing that the need for Wikinews to incorporate Wikipedia articles is quite limited.
Regarding the license poll, I noticed that the people who expressed their opinions are not necessarily the active participants on Wikinews so far. I am not sure what to make of it, but I wonder if only Wikinews participants will vote on the license issue, or any Wikimedian can vote. The former has some intuitive appeal, but there aren't that many active participants yet. I think it is okay to delay the vote until there will be more active users on Wikinews. For a while, Wikinews contents are under public domain - it is like a opening special give-away for potential re-users.
There is virtually no discussion on license issue on wikinews. The biggest discussion so far among the participants is if we would like to publish unreviewed articles on the main page (the community is really divided on this), and if and how we want to change the reveiw process.
Regards,
Tomos thanks a million for that bit of news.it is really
interesting and i will think on it._______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_____________________________________________________________________ For super low premiums, click here http://www.dialdirect.co.za/quote
Jens Ropers (ropers@ropersonline.com) [041203 11:47]:
(1) While WP compatibility might seem like a real important and convenient thing, IMHO coming to that conclusion is fallacious (as in [[logical fallacy]]):
- WP compatibility is pretty much only needed if people want to
DUPLICATE (ie. not rewrite) content from the WP.
- Wikinews was was expressly advertised as a project that would NOT
simply duplicate WP content. Thus, I believe the "requirement" for WP license compatibility is much less than one might think.
I'd disagree, actually. Have you noticed how a breaking news story article comes together on Wikipedia? It's like seeing a newsmagazine feature being composed before your eyes. And a lot of stuff on wikinews-l is actually newsmagazine-quality writing, not necessarily simple-grammar inverted-pyramid newspaper-style information. So I think a lot of the stuff on wikinews, we really will want to just copy from Wikinews to Wikipedia.
(2) I would ''strongly'' argue for a public domain "license". As they say: Yesterday's news is used to wrap fish tomorrow. For a news site like Wikinews, the biggest asset will likely turn out to be an active, striving contributor community. Yes, a PD "license" would dramatically lessen Wikinews' control over content reuse, but any static copies will quickly become outdated and only serve as far as their archive value goes (real obnoxious automated content grabbing sited could be blocked). Users will thus figure out pretty quickly that the real McCoy is at wikinews.org. So little is lost by going PD and PD is what news should be. Any writing "for posteriority" (where you might have bigger concerns over content reuse) probably belongs at wikipedia.org anyway.
This is probably true. I suppose it depends what the contributors want. I do know of at least one professional journalist who is really very excited over Wikinews, and who I've contacted suggesting they weigh in with an opinion. Something that would attract professional journalists who can't help but write news but would like to write for someone other than Rupert Murdoch would be marvellous.
- d.
David Gerard (fun@thingy.apana.org.au) [041203 21:45]:
Jens Ropers (ropers@ropersonline.com) [041203 11:47]:
(1) While WP compatibility might seem like a real important and convenient thing, IMHO coming to that conclusion is fallacious (as in [[logical fallacy]]):
- WP compatibility is pretty much only needed if people want to
DUPLICATE (ie. not rewrite) content from the WP.
- Wikinews was was expressly advertised as a project that would NOT
simply duplicate WP content. Thus, I believe the "requirement" for WP license compatibility is much less than one might think.
I'd disagree, actually. Have you noticed how a breaking news story article comes together on Wikipedia? It's like seeing a newsmagazine feature being composed before your eyes. And a lot of stuff on wikinews-l is actually newsmagazine-quality writing, not necessarily simple-grammar inverted-pyramid newspaper-style information. So I think a lot of the stuff on wikinews, we really will want to just copy from Wikinews to Wikipedia.
I should of course read before writing. (I plead a severely sleep-deprived week of on-call.) You are of course talking about WP->WN, not the other way around.
kiiillllll meeeeee. But give me coffee first. (Caffeine is *not* a substitute for sheep.)
- d.
Well i have contributed 2 articles to wikinews so far, and one of them i lifted (more or less) straight from wikipedia (from an article that was written about 5 minutes before i sat down to write). I can think that there would be plenty of times when lifting a paragraph or so from wikipedia would be useful in wikinews. Hence while i would like it to be PD, i think that GFDL (provided that becomes CC-BY-SA complient sometime) would be the most practical.
paz y amor, [[User:The bellman]] rjs
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 21:57:25 +1100, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
David Gerard (fun@thingy.apana.org.au) [041203 21:45]:
Jens Ropers (ropers@ropersonline.com) [041203 11:47]:
(1) While WP compatibility might seem like a real important and convenient thing, IMHO coming to that conclusion is fallacious (as in [[logical fallacy]]):
- WP compatibility is pretty much only needed if people want to
DUPLICATE (ie. not rewrite) content from the WP.
- Wikinews was was expressly advertised as a project that would NOT
simply duplicate WP content. Thus, I believe the "requirement" for WP license compatibility is much less than one might think.
I'd disagree, actually. Have you noticed how a breaking news story article comes together on Wikipedia? It's like seeing a newsmagazine feature being composed before your eyes. And a lot of stuff on wikinews-l is actually newsmagazine-quality writing, not necessarily simple-grammar inverted-pyramid newspaper-style information. So I think a lot of the stuff on wikinews, we really will want to just copy from Wikinews to Wikipedia.
I should of course read before writing. (I plead a severely sleep-deprived week of on-call.) You are of course talking about WP->WN, not the other way around.
kiiillllll meeeeee. But give me coffee first. (Caffeine is *not* a substitute for sheep.)
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Robin Shannon wrote:
Well i have contributed 2 articles to wikinews so far, and one of them i lifted (more or less) straight from wikipedia (from an article that was written about 5 minutes before i sat down to write). I can think that there would be plenty of times when lifting a paragraph or so from wikipedia would be useful in wikinews. Hence while i would like it to be PD, i think that GFDL (provided that becomes CC-BY-SA complient sometime) would be the most practical.
Yesterday, ddp, a medium sized news agency copied [[de:Misshandlung]] from wikipedia 1:1 and sent it over their channel. They didn't even try to stick to the GNU FDL and it took me some time to explain copyright to them.
I will not participate in a PD wikinews that does not ensure that free text remains free. CC-BY-SA does not block newspapers from using the content and because of the <buzzword>synergy</buzzword> hopes regarding wikipedia, i suggest a dual licensing of GFDL and CC-BY-SA (keeping in mind that these two should merge some day...)
Mathias
Mathias Schindler wrote:
I will not participate in a PD wikinews that does not ensure that free text remains free.
I agree, but I hope you'll participate on a short-term basis with it being PD, since the purpose of being PD right now is just to enable us to have some time to really think through the licensing issues more carefully.
--Jimbo
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
I agree, but I hope you'll participate on a short-term basis with it being PD, since the purpose of being PD right now is just to enable us to have some time to really think through the licensing issues more carefully.
I'll participate in a wiki that is still evaluating the 'right' license. And I don't expect wikinews to become a souce of steal-worthy content in that evaluation time so PD does not hurt in that time.
However, I urge you all not to postpone this decision into a distant future. The License issue has been 'in the air' for years, so there is no need to start from the beginning. We seem to have all the facts which enable us to an informed decision.
I only see GFDL or CC as a possible candidate so a dual-licensing would not block future decisions as well. But these are details which can be all discussed.
And maybe someone is able to convince me to use PD, nobody knows :)
Mathias
Aaargh. No, kill me, actually, for replying to your prev post just now. When going through these posts "latest first", I should consider that the question may already have been answered later in the queue.
--ropers
On 3 Dec 2004, at 11:57, David Gerard wrote:
David Gerard (fun@thingy.apana.org.au) [041203 21:45]:
Jens Ropers (ropers@ropersonline.com) [041203 11:47]:
(1) While WP compatibility might seem like a real important and convenient thing, IMHO coming to that conclusion is fallacious (as in [[logical fallacy]]):
- WP compatibility is pretty much only needed if people want to
DUPLICATE (ie. not rewrite) content from the WP.
- Wikinews was was expressly advertised as a project that would NOT
simply duplicate WP content. Thus, I believe the "requirement" for WP license compatibility is much less than one might think.
I'd disagree, actually. Have you noticed how a breaking news story article comes together on Wikipedia? It's like seeing a newsmagazine feature being composed before your eyes. And a lot of stuff on wikinews-l is actually newsmagazine-quality writing, not necessarily simple-grammar inverted-pyramid newspaper-style information. So I think a lot of the stuff on wikinews, we really will want to just copy from Wikinews to Wikipedia.
I should of course read before writing. (I plead a severely sleep-deprived week of on-call.) You are of course talking about WP->WN, not the other way around.
kiiillllll meeeeee. But give me coffee first. (Caffeine is *not* a substitute for sheep.)
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 3 Dec 2004, at 11:42, David Gerard wrote:
Jens Ropers (ropers@ropersonline.com) [041203 11:47]:
(1) While WP compatibility might seem like a real important and convenient thing, IMHO coming to that conclusion is fallacious (as in [[logical fallacy]]):
- WP compatibility is pretty much only needed if people want to
DUPLICATE (ie. not rewrite) content from the WP.
- Wikinews was was expressly advertised as a project that would NOT
simply duplicate WP content. Thus, I believe the "requirement" for WP license compatibility is much less than one might think.
I'd disagree, actually. Have you noticed how a breaking news story article comes together on Wikipedia? It's like seeing a newsmagazine feature being composed before your eyes. And a lot of stuff on wikinews-l is actually newsmagazine-quality writing, not necessarily simple-grammar inverted-pyramid newspaper-style information. So I think a lot of the stuff on wikinews, we really will want to just copy from Wikinews to Wikipedia.
And you can do just that.
If Wikinews stays in the public domain, then you CAN simply copy content from Wikinews to the Wikipedia. What you may not be able to do easily (i.e. w/o checking with all relevant contributors) is copy content from the Wikipedia to Wikinews.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org