Why can't we setup a meta server sandbox that allows these experimental things to be rapidly activated in the sense of giving each a virtual server slice. That way there is room to play and if something takes off it can then be allocated some serious resources. The ones that die on the vine won't be tying up much of any time or resources since they are virtual anyway.
On 7/12/2011 11:16 AM, foundation-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
But now, I feel like we may be able to move back into an era of rapid experimentation, where new projects are more like unmanned 1940s test rockets-- they should be blowing up left and right, as we try to learn from the failed attempts.
I'll go further-- provided we can do so cheaply, I want new projects that are like the ridiculous early failures of flight. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7OJvv4LG9M]. I want to hear about a new WMF project and it's policy, think "That's crazy-- that's never gonna get off the ground", and indeed, learn something from whether it crashes or whether it actually takes off.
Having an "early flight era" attitude is how we can find something even better than Wikipedia. I agree a lot of ideas are unlikely to work-- but provided the resource usage is sufficiently negligible, let people start making insane flying machine projects, and eventually the wright brothers will show up.
Something better than Wikipedia ? I can think of something right off the bat.
Kill the copyright police who do nothing useful and harm the project immensely.
Go back to the more transparent rationale that copyright infringement rests solely upon the person who uploaded the copyrighted item, not on people who merely link to it. That would allow us to link to YouTube videos for example (not host them, just link to them).
Why read an article on Wikipedia about say.... Shirley Temple, if someone else has an identical article AND video streaming as well so you can watch one of her movie or a newsreel interview.
Re-hosters will eventually figure this out, grab all of our content and improve upon it. We should get there before they do.
Will
Go back to the more transparent rationale that copyright infringement rests solely upon the person who uploaded the copyrighted item, not on people who merely link to it. That would allow us to link to YouTube videos for example (not host them, just link to them).
Why read an article on Wikipedia about say.... Shirley Temple, if someone else has an identical article AND video streaming as well so you can watch one of her movie or a newsreel interview.
Re-hosters will eventually figure this out, grab all of our content and improve upon it. We should get there before they do.
Strongly disagree. Wikipedia is built on the principle that freely licensed content rocks and is the future. Making use of non-freely licensed content makes that goal hypocritical and awkward.
(by the way; there is not necessairily an issue with linking to Youtube content - if it is correctly licensed, then it is fine)
Besides; no one has managed to make use of Wikipedia content and build on it in a way that you suggest - if it were so clear an advantage I am sure someone would have done it by now!
Wikipedia but with extra non-free images and videos is not a Wikipedia with significant extra value. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but we have millions :)
Tom
Again you are referring to the hosting or presentation of non-free content and I am not. I am not referring to the DISPLAY of videos within Wikipedia. Only the LINKING of videos from Wikipedia.
99.9999% of Youtube videos have no licensing information at all so there is no way to tell if they are being uploaded by the copyright holder. The Wikipedian copyright police take a worst-case position and disallow all such linking.
I am suggesting that linking itself should be a moot issue. By the way Thomas this thread is for suggesting ways to move forward.
-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, Jul 12, 2011 12:45 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] They do make or break reputations
Go back to the more transparent rationale that copyright infringement rests solely upon the person who uploaded the copyrighted item, not on people who merely link to it. That would allow us to link to YouTube videos for example (not host them, just link to them).
Why read an article on Wikipedia about say.... Shirley Temple, if someone else has an identical article AND video streaming as well so you can watch one of her movie or a newsreel interview.
Re-hosters will eventually figure this out, grab all of our content and improve upon it. We should get there before they do.
trongly disagree. Wikipedia is built on the principle that freely licensed ontent rocks and is the future. Making use of non-freely licensed content akes that goal hypocritical and awkward. (by the way; there is not necessairily an issue with linking to Youtube ontent - if it is correctly licensed, then it is fine) Besides; no one has managed to make use of Wikipedia content and build on it n a way that you suggest - if it were so clear an advantage I am sure omeone would have done it by now! Wikipedia but with extra non-free images and videos is not a Wikipedia with ignificant extra value. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but we ave millions :) Tom ______________________________________________ oundation-l mailing list oundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Again you are referring to the hosting or presentation of non-free content and I am not. I am not referring to the DISPLAY of videos within Wikipedia. Only the LINKING of videos from Wikipedia.
No, I realise that is what you are referring to - and I don't honestly see any huge value to linking to such material. For example; in the case of a music single article, if the user was looking for a video of the content they would have gone to Youtube, that is the recognised place to go. If they were looking for background info they come to Wikipedia.
I see the minor value of linking out to Youtube to enhance reader experience in a small way; but balanced against our view of free content I feel that value is cancelled out.
99.9999% of Youtube videos have no licensing information at all so there is no way to tell if they are being uploaded by the copyright holder. The Wikipedian copyright police take a worst-case position and disallow all such linking.
Not at all; in many cases it is obvious (or taken on good faith). In other
cases Youtube is set up in such a way as to identify official accounts.
Often it is 100% clear the content is not free or used properly.
The critical issue is value; if non-free content adds substantial value then I 100% support the idea of linking or displaying it. This is the core of the current en.wiki non-free content policy.
But in many cases that value is "meh" and encouraging such linking is a significant step backwards.
I've also been quite happy taking the long view. In the ideal world we could place the music video directly in the relevant article - as it is copyright prohibits that. In not all that many years (although after we are gone, certainly) the video can be placed in the article.
So I see no issue :) right now you can see it on Youtube, with dubious licensing. The next few generations will be able to see what their grandparents were watching/listening to on Wikipedia. :)
By the way Thomas this thread is for suggesting ways to move forward.
I'm not sure what you mean there exactly... that my view is the current standard and therefore irrelevant to moving forward?
Pfft. :)
Tom
If you don't see the significant value in including video content, then I would suggest that you don't see the significant value in including photographic content either. I would suggest that's an outdated value system.
A picture is worth a thousand words, an audio is worth ten thousand, a video is worth a million.
Will Johnson
If you don't see the significant value in including video content, then I would suggest that you don't see the significant value in including photographic content either. I would suggest that's an outdated value system.
You're simply extending my argument too far there, which is just bad rhetoric. Images and video can have significant value. If we wait a reasonable time (250 years?) these problems will naturally be solved, and our archiving systems today are so good I am unconcerned at having to wait that long.
But the minimal advantages of linking to copyrighted videos on Youtube right here and now is, I feel, well outweight by the far more important values of free and properly licensed content.
Of course; if you are able to provide some specific counter examples (this is fairly off-topic, so perhaps a new thread?) I'm happy to reconsider my own view!
Tom
Links by themselves are not copyrightable, and are not unfree. So your argument, which you keep repeating is not germane to this point. The point is, the copyright police have taken a fear (of something which has never occurred in actual law), and made it a point of battle.
We are arbiters of information content, should not be acting as the police and judge over what is on YouTube. We cannot know is something loaded is under copyright or not and should not be attempting to know. It's none of our business. Our business should be merely to decide what is useful for our project.
The links themselves, I repeat, are free. The point of contention is whether a link by itself IS a copyright violation. And on the presumption that it MIGHT be (which is itself ridiculous) our project suffers immense harm by a handful of ummmm persons.
All that is beside the point, my point, which is that a link cannot be a copyright violation, and cannot be licensed.
The point is, the copyright police have taken a fear (of something which has never occurred in actual law), and made it a point of battle.
This is, I think, the wrong forum for our disagreement. I mostly rose to your nasty casting of "copyright police", which was a mistake. Sorry to everyone else :)
But my final comment is thus; you have misconstrued, I think, the point of the argument against such links. In fact; pretty much all cases I have ever seen have been unambiguous in one way or another. So while I would entertain the notion that such a policy is limiting our ability to link to legitimately licensed/hosted content I suggest you kinda need to demonstrate that with specifics.
Perhaps an on-wiki discussion is the way to progress this.
Tom
Pick a spot that you think is appropriate. But you are missing the point. The point in not to continue forward *under the current restrictions and requirements*, that is a dead horse. The glamour is off the rose.
-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, Jul 12, 2011 1:27 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] They do make or break reputations
The point is, the copyright police have taken a fear (of something which has never occurred in actual law), and made it a point of battle.
This is, I think, the wrong forum for our disagreement. I mostly rose to our nasty casting of "copyright police", which was a mistake. Sorry to veryone else :) But my final comment is thus; you have misconstrued, I think, the point of he argument against such links. In fact; pretty much all cases I have ever een have been unambiguous in one way or another. So while I would entertain he notion that such a policy is limiting our ability to link to egitimately licensed/hosted content I suggest you kinda need to demonstrate hat with specifics. Perhaps an on-wiki discussion is the way to progress this. Tom ______________________________________________ oundation-l mailing list oundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Where is that policy and discussion?
In terms of en.wiki...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ELNEVERhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ELNEVER#Restrictions_on_linking
That is the main restriction against external linking which makes an extremely strong (even for WP policy) statement; *"Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works should not be linked."* * * Specific guidance on YouTube (and related) is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:YOUTUBE#Linking_to_user-submitted_vid...
Which clearly just cautions care against using such links (*Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis*).
Policy discussion is best done on the relevant talk page. Although I seriously doubt that this is likely to be changed.
Tom
I agree 100% with this. Some people on Wikimedia want to enforce copyright much beyond what is reasonable. This is hurt us, and is outside of our mission.
Yann
2011/7/13 Wjhonson wjhonson@aol.com:
Links by themselves are not copyrightable, and are not unfree. So your argument, which you keep repeating is not germane to this point. The point is, the copyright police have taken a fear (of something which has never occurred in actual law), and made it a point of battle.
We are arbiters of information content, should not be acting as the police and judge over what is on YouTube. We cannot know is something loaded is under copyright or not and should not be attempting to know. It's none of our business. Our business should be merely to decide what is useful for our project.
The links themselves, I repeat, are free. The point of contention is whether a link by itself IS a copyright violation. And on the presumption that it MIGHT be (which is itself ridiculous) our project suffers immense harm by a handful of ummmm persons.
All that is beside the point, my point, which is that a link cannot be a copyright violation, and cannot be licensed.
There are practices which are beyond the pale, for example, linking to a pirated copy of the latest Harry Potter movie. Linking to the typical YouTube video of unknown provenance is quite another matter; although it is quite true that in both cases there may be a technical copyright violation. In the second case, there is usually no one complaining. When there are complaints YouTube takes the material down. The copyright police demand proof of ownership and either expiration or release in instances where such information is unavailable. That may be what is required if we are to host the material, but might be unreasonable for mere linking.
Fred
I agree 100% with this. Some people on Wikimedia want to enforce copyright much beyond what is reasonable. This is hurt us, and is outside of our mission.
Yann
2011/7/13 Wjhonson wjhonson@aol.com:
Links by themselves are not copyrightable, and are not unfree. So your argument, which you keep repeating is not germane to this point. The point is, the copyright police have taken a fear (of something which has never occurred in actual law), and made it a point of battle.
We are arbiters of information content, should not be acting as the police and judge over what is on YouTube. We cannot know is something loaded is under copyright or not and should not be attempting to know. It's none of our business. Our business should be merely to decide what is useful for our project.
The links themselves, I repeat, are free. The point of contention is whether a link by itself IS a copyright violation. And on the presumption that it MIGHT be (which is itself ridiculous) our project suffers immense harm by a handful of ummmm persons.
All that is beside the point, my point, which is that a link cannot be a copyright violation, and cannot be licensed.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hi all,
I haven't fully read the context of this thread, but something that did cross my mind recently, why do we treat YouTube-links different from other links here?
Aren't most of our sources and external linked websites atleast as copyrighted as YouTube ?
Consider links to IMDb for example, the content we link to, through that, is all copyrighted!
Or just a good old "Official website"-link on an article about person X or organization Y, likely also "All rights reserved."
YouTube atleast is partially (and soon more) under a CC-license.
-- Krinkle
Fred Bauder wrote:
There are practices which are beyond the pale, for example, linking to a pirated copy of the latest Harry Potter movie. Linking to the typical YouTube video of unknown provenance is quite another matter; although it is quite true that in both cases there may be a technical copyright violation. In the second case, there is usually no one complaining. When there are complaints YouTube takes the material down. The copyright police demand proof of ownership and either expiration or release in instances where such information is unavailable. That may be what is required if we are to host the material, but might be unreasonable for mere linking.
Fred
I agree 100% with this. Some people on Wikimedia want to enforce copyright much beyond what is reasonable. This is hurt us, and is outside of our mission.
Yann
2011/7/13 Wjhonson wjhonson@aol.com:
Links by themselves are not copyrightable, and are not unfree. So your argument, which you keep repeating is not germane to this point. The point is, the copyright police have taken a fear (of something which has never occurred in actual law), and made it a point of battle.
We are arbiters of information content, should not be acting as the police and judge over what is on YouTube. We cannot know is something loaded is under copyright or not and should not be attempting to know. It's none of our business. Our business should be merely to decide what is useful for our project.
The links themselves, I repeat, are free. The point of contention is whether a link by itself IS a copyright violation. And on the presumption that it MIGHT be (which is itself ridiculous) our project suffers immense harm by a handful of ummmm persons.
All that is beside the point, my point, which is that a link cannot be a copyright violation, and cannot be licensed.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Krinkle krinklemail@gmail.com wrote:
I haven't fully read the context of this thread, but something that did cross my mind recently, why do we treat YouTube-links different from other links here?
Aren't most of our sources and external linked websites atleast as copyrighted as YouTube ?
Consider links to IMDb for example, the content we link to, through that, is all copyrighted!
Or just a good old "Official website"-link on an article about person X or organization Y, likely also "All rights reserved."
YouTube atleast is partially (and soon more) under a CC-license.
There's a big difference - those are copyrighted _by the person who put the material on the web site_. On YouTube the videos are often uploaded by people who do not own the copyright, nor are connected to them. It's not copyright that is the problem, it is copyright violations.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Wjhonson wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
Something better than Wikipedia ? I can think of something right off the bat.
< allow us to link to YouTube videos for example (not host them, just link to them).
That makes sense. Can you point to a problematic debate against linking to YouTube videos?
SJ
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org