Planned school curriculum by MPAA

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Fwd: Wikimedia UK's wiki migration...

Community consultation on...

David Gerard

24 Sep 2013 24 Sep '13

4:42 p.m.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/09/mpaa-school-propaganda/ “This thinly disguised corporate propaganda is inaccurate and inappropriate,” says Mitch Stoltz, an intellectual property attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who reviewed the material at WIRED’s request. “It suggests, falsely, that ideas are property and that building on others’ ideas always requires permission,” Stoltz says. “The overriding message of this curriculum is that students’ time should be consumed not in creating but in worrying about their impact on corporate profits.” I suggest we see if WMF commenting, possibly in a blog post or similar, would help avert such anti-sharing foolishness. - d.

Show replies by date

geni

24 Sep 24 Sep

5:21 p.m.

On 24 September 2013 17:42, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Tyler Romeo

5:29 p.m.

What exactly does this have to do with the WMF? Just because we encourage open sharing of data doesn't mean we need to comment on every political debate that shows up on the news. *-- * *Tyler Romeo* Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016 Major in Computer Science On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 1:21 PM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 24 September 2013 17:42, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Might not be a great idea Its an improvement on previous attempts (to start with It doesn't appear to violate the GFDL) and we would actually benefit from our uploaders having a working knowledge of copyright. Knowing all the exceptions is something best left to more experienced users. -- geni _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Andrew Lih

25 Sep 25 Sep

1:50 p.m.

I disagree that this is simply "political." It is very much a culture of ownership -- and a corporate one at that -- being instituted earlier to American kids. If you remember, it was exactly this problem that inspired Lawrence Lessig to start Creative Commons in the first place. He observed that there was a critical inflection point -- when kids are first taught to share and cooperate and then are flipped to hoard and restrict. This amplifies hoarding and restricting at the same time kids are taught to share. I'm glad I moved out of California before this propaganda was introduced to my kids. -Andrew On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Tyler Romeo <tylerromeo(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 24 September 2013 17:42, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Might not be a great idea Its an improvement on previous attempts (to start with It doesn't appear

violate the GFDL) and we would actually benefit from our uploaders

having a

working knowledge of copyright. Knowing all the exceptions is something best left to more experienced users. -- geni _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Tyler Romeo

5:45 p.m.

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I disagree that this is simply "political."

Andrew Lih

6:33 p.m.

It has something to do with countering falsehoods and educating folks about the full range of content rights. Their 2nd grade materials state: "Property comes in many forms: when we buy a book, we own that book. It’s our property, but we don’t own the right to reproduce that book and then sell it or give it away. That’s stealing." Um, no. A Creative Commons SA book, a public domain work or expired copyright work can indeed be reproduced. And it's not stealing. "We are careful to acknowledge the work of authors and creators and respect their ownership. We recognize that it’s hard work to produce something, and we want to get paid for our work." No, not all people want to get paid for their work. I'd be OK if they simply gave some space in the training materials to talk about public domain, free licenses and fair use. That's not likely to happen given who's in control of those lesson plans. On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Tyler Romeo <tylerromeo(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I disagree that this is simply "political."

This doesn't answer my original question. What does this have to do with WMF? Wikipedia does not own any public schools in California, nor will Wikipedia be affected by this curriculum should it be implemented. The only similarity is that is has something to do with knowledge, which is extremely vague. *-- * *Tyler Romeo* Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016 Major in Computer Science _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Tyler Romeo

7:09 p.m.

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I'd be OK if they simply gave some space in the training materials to talk about public domain, free licenses and fair use. That's not likely to happen given who's in control of those lesson plans.

Andrew Lih

7:23 p.m.

The California school system is the back yard (actually front yard) of both Wikimedia Foundation and Creative Commons.

...

From the message on the web site, the WMF is a "nonprofit charitable

organization dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual, educational content, and to providing the full content of these wiki-based projects to the public free of charge." Inside a California public school, the WMF should indeed have an interest in making sure that students using Wikipedia don't think to themselves that using such material is "stealing" and that someone is expecting to be "paid." On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Tyler Romeo <tylerromeo(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I'd be OK if they simply gave some space in the training materials to

talk

about public domain, free licenses and fair use. That's not likely to happen given who's in control of those lesson plans.

You're still just arguing about the correctness of the material. I agree that this curriculum is stupid and misleading, but that doesn't explain why the WMF should care enough to make a statement, or even continue discussion, about it. *-- * *Tyler Romeo* Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016 Major in Computer Science _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

David Gerard

7:33 p.m.

On 25 September 2013 20:23, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

From the message on the web site, the WMF is a "nonprofit charitable organization dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual, educational content, and to providing the full content of these wiki-based projects to the public free of charge." Inside a California public school, the WMF should indeed have an interest in making sure that students using Wikipedia don't think to themselves that using such material is "stealing" and that someone is expecting to be "paid."

Pretty much. It's in our direct interest that this not go ahead as planned. - d.

Jens Best

8:06 p.m.

This is obviously a propaganda campaign focused on children which isn't reflecting on the variety of ownership and sharing-enabling licences. It is against the idea of free knowledge. Therefore it is a political/sociocultural problem which is against the spreading of the knowledge about free knowledge and its basic principles. But as this is an US-American problem it should be handled by an US-American Wikimedia chapter...as there is imo no US-American chapter WMF could act as a representative for Wikimedia-related problems in an US-country education system. best regards Jens Best 2013/9/25 David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>

...

On 25 September 2013 20:23, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com> wrote:

charge."

Inside a California public school, the WMF should indeed have an interest in making sure that students using Wikipedia don't think to themselves

that

using such material is "stealing" and that someone is expecting to be "paid."

Pretty much. It's in our direct interest that this not go ahead as planned. - d. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Andrew Lih

9:43 p.m.

You are right, that the lack of a national US chapter holds us back. The obvious solution is to create a new group: Committee of Wikipedian Parents Interested in Education, aka COWPIE On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Jens Best <jens.best(a)wikimedia.de> wrote:

...

On 25 September 2013 20:23, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com> wrote: > From the message on the web site, the WMF is a "nonprofit charitable > organization dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and > distribution of free, multilingual, educational content, and to

providing

the full content of these wiki-based projects to the public free of

charge." > Inside a California public school, the WMF should indeed have an

interest

in making sure that students using Wikipedia don't think to themselves

that

using such material is "stealing" and that someone is expecting to be "paid."

Pretty much. It's in our direct interest that this not go ahead as

planned.

- d. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- -- Jens Best Präsidium Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. web: http://www.wikimedia.de mail: jens.best <http://goog_17221883>@wikimedia.de Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

James Alexander

10:25 p.m.

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

You are right, that the lack of a national US chapter holds us back. The obvious solution is to create a new group: Committee of Wikipedian Parents Interested in Education, aka COWPIE

I feel like I'm obligated to make some kind of COWPIE/WALRUS related joke here but I can't come up with one yet.

Laura Hale

26 Sep 26 Sep

10:51 a.m.

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Tyler Romeo <tylerromeo(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I'd be OK if they simply gave some space in the training materials to

talk

about public domain, free licenses and fair use. That's not likely to happen given who's in control of those lesson plans.

One alternative option would be to work with the Education folks and create Wikimedia centric lesson plans for teachers to use that share the values people are expressing. These can be linked on education outreach pages, distributed to chapters, etc. Or general handouts can be made that explain these concepts ad the linked on https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bookshelf . This is a nice option because it is pro-active and community driven. If some one does approach the WMF externally asking for support on this issue, they have the materials to then work with. -- twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com

Michael Snow

25 Sep 25 Sep

7:56 p.m.

On 9/25/2013 11:33 AM, Andrew Lih wrote:

...

I'd be OK if they simply gave some space in the training materials to talk about public domain, free licenses and fair use. That's not likely to happen given who's in control of those lesson plans.

Because the program in question is intended for elementary schools, they claim that the children aren't ready to handle the level of nuance and abstract thought involved in those concepts. I might be willing to accept that objection, but it really should be taken a step farther. At that stage, most children aren't developmentally ready for the level of abstraction involved in copyright, period. Neither the things it forbids nor the things it allows. A second-grader who wants to draw Buzz Lightyear, because that's her favorite cartoon character and she wants to be an astronaut, is never going to understand that Pixar owns the rights to that character and she can't do whatever she wants with it. ("Honey, why don't you just put away the crayons and come play with your action figure instead?") ("Yes, I know Grandma buys your artwork for a quarter so she can put it on her refrigerator, but you're not allowed to give her this one.") You can tell her what's allowed and what's not, and she may even comply, but there's no way she will understand the reasons, in her mind they will simply be rules that you made up. That's a particularly good sign that the purpose of the materials is really propaganda and indoctrination. Regardless of whether the curriculum is suitably "balanced", the concepts are beyond what's developmentally appropriate to be teaching at that level. --Michael Snow

Andrew Lih

9:46 p.m.

Michael, you are correct -- we should push for just ditching the whole thing. On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)frontier.com>wrote;wrote:

...

On 9/25/2013 11:33 AM, Andrew Lih wrote:

I'd be OK if they simply gave some space in the training materials to talk about public domain, free licenses and fair use. That's not likely to happen given who's in control of those lesson plans.

geni

26 Sep 26 Sep

4:40 a.m.

On 25 September 2013 19:33, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

The course covers creative commons.

...

a public domain work or expired copyright work can indeed be reproduced. And it's not stealing.

Varies. what can catch you out there is that it may be possible to copyright typography (in the UK that copyright lasts for 20 years). geni

Andrew Lih

4:23 p.m.

On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:40 AM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 25 September 2013 19:33, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com> wrote:

It has something to do with countering falsehoods and educating folks

about

the full range of content rights. Their 2nd grade materials state: "Property comes in many forms: when we buy a book, we own that book. It’s our property, but we don’t own the right to reproduce that book and then sell it or give it away. That’s stealing." Um, no. A Creative Commons SA book,

The course covers creative commons.

Not that I can see. Creative Commons in not in the lesson plan for 2nd graders. http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2013/09/Grade-2-Copyright-Les… Creative Commons is introduced in 5th grade.

???

8:19 p.m.

On 25/09/2013 19:33, Andrew Lih wrote:

...

The chances of them coming across either is vanishingly small when compared to the bulk of content they'll come into contact with. I guess that 2nd grade is 7 yo, when I was 15 I was taught that electrons circled about a central nucleus in neat little orbits, when I was 16 I was taught that the reality was a lot different.

...

"We are careful to acknowledge the work of authors and creators and respect their ownership. We recognize that it’s hard work to produce something, and we want to get paid for our work." No, not all people want to get paid for their work.

Most do. Most of the things we hold to be culturally significant are indeed paid. In fact wikipedia wouldn't exist if it was for the content in books, magazines, and articles that people had been paid to produce.

Andrew Lih

27 Sep 27 Sep

2:37 p.m.

On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:19 PM, ??? <wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:

...

Todd Allen

2:42 p.m.

Not to mention open source software. And anyone who uses the Web is encountering servers that run Linux, Apache, Tomcat, Mediawiki, Squid, etc., etc., etc., not to mention most browsers. Free software and free content is not some fringe thing that never gets used. On Sep 27, 2013 8:37 AM, "Andrew Lih" <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:19 PM, ??? <wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Most do. Most of the things we hold to be culturally significant are indeed paid. In fact wikipedia wouldn't exist if it was for the content

books, magazines, and articles that people had been paid to produce.

Seeing no real identifying information from your email address, I'm not sure if this is just troll-bait. But you should read up on public domain, government sources, Creative Commons and their roles in Wikipedia. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

???

6:09 p.m.

On 27/09/2013 15:42, Todd Allen wrote:

...

No one has said they are. Although if I were to be brutal I could say that Jaron Lanier pointed out that Linux is a replica of a OS that was developed commercially 40 years ago. And well WP is repetition of something that Pliny created almost 2000 years ago. The main point though is that if you forked off an encyclopedia that was simply about OSS and free content, which was sourced entirely from free content it wouldn't be something that a whole load of people would be interested in. Page views last 90 days Dan Brown Inferno - 355707 http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Inferno%20%28Dan%20Brown%20novel%29 Page views last 90 days Cory Doctorow Homeland - 6890 http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/homeland%20%28Cory%20Doctorow%20novel%29

???

5:54 p.m.

On 27/09/2013 15:37, Andrew Lih wrote:

...

On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:19 PM, ??? <wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Seeing no real identifying information from your email address, I'm not sure if this is just troll-bait.

The above ignored as petulance.

...

But you should read up on public domain, government sources, Creative Commons and their roles in Wikipedia.

I'm well aware of all such. Suffice to say that most of the PD was at one time paid content. You wouldn't have Tom Sawyer, Pride and Prejudiced, Jemima Puddleduck, Little Women, Wuthering Heights, or millions of other works if it wasn't for paid content. Paid content allowed Jan Austen, Beatrix Potter, Louisa May Alcott, the Bronte sisters, and many others to live independent lives. Paid content supported Jefferson's family after his death, when James Maddison arranged to have his papers published. The bulk of wikipedia is the result of paid content. The foundation of it is the 1000s of articles imported from Britannica and other early 20th century works. Even today almost every article on wikipedia is the result of paid content. The references used were almost all paid content at one time or another. Unless the project has abandoned NOR and SYNTH the articles are simply a conglomerate of paid content. The subject matter of the bulk of the articles are dependent on paid content, that includes the articles on actors, TV shows, books, music, musicians, films. All of it the result of paid content, all of it the things that people want to read about.

Kat Walsh

25 Sep 25 Sep

11:44 p.m.

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 9:42 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/09/mpaa-school-propaganda/

[...]

...

I suggest we see if WMF commenting, possibly in a blog post or similar, would help avert such anti-sharing foolishness

I doubt it would avert it, though pointing it out might at least draw attention. I agree with the comment that it's a ridiculous idea to introduce in elementary school (and I would be surprised if it did not simply die on its own, along with many actual good ideas for curriculum supplementation that simply can't be packed in to the school day). Creative Commons now has a blog post up from Jane Park, criticizing the program and pointing out the alternatives that exist: https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/39781 (I am reminded of the clever "If you don't talk to your children about copyright, who will?", also available in bumper-sticker format: http://questioncopyright.com/qco-stk-chld.html ) -Kat -- Your donations keep Wikipedia free: https://donate.wikimedia.org

3887

days inactive

3890

days old

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

22 comments

11 participants

tags (0)

participants (11)

???
Andrew Lih
David Gerard
geni
James Alexander
Jens Best
Kat Walsh
Laura Hale
Michael Snow
Todd Allen
Tyler Romeo