The mission of Wikimedia is to generate "neutral educational content under a free content license". The Foundation's resolution from March 2007 states that EDP use must be minimal, within narrow limits.
Subsequent to the resolution being passed, a number of efforts were undertaken to limit fair use usage on en.wikipedia. This affected discographies, episode lists, and character lists. A *huge* number of debates erupted over these removals. One such debate was covered at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair_us.... The disputes have never ended. For discographies and episode lists, the debate has simmered down for the most part, with occasional flare ups. For character lists, the debate is still raging.
What has been the rule of thumb in removing the images is that an image of the character being used for depiction of that character only is allowable on that character's particular article, but not on articles collecting multiple characters into a single article. The rationale here is that if a character is notable enough for an article, they're notable enough for an image, and vice versa. Allowances have been made for "cast" type images showing multiple characters in a single image from the copyright holder (not montages made by editors).
Nevertheless, the debate has raged endlessly, and has recently exploded. It stands now on a precipice, and it is highly likely that fair use inclusionists will 'win' in that per-character images are going to be permitted on character articles (for example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogwarts_students ).
Some discussion exists currently at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Fair_us... and scattered through a variety of sections of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content
If Wikipedia is truly a free content encyclopedia, if you truly care about free content, we must limit fair use usage per the Foundation's resolution. As it stands now, this debate is lost in favor of people who are more focused on whether something is suitable as a guide than focused on being a free content resource.
A strong voice from the Foundation would be appreciated, most especially in favor of a new section added to clarify the local EDP at the second paragraph of this version of the guideline: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content&old... (paragraph since removed in an edit war)
Thank you, Hammersoft
On 07/01/2008, Brian Hammer hammersoft123@gmail.com wrote:
The mission of Wikimedia is to generate "neutral educational content under a free content license". The Foundation's resolution from March 2007 states that EDP use must be minimal, within narrow limits.
The key issue that seems to be causing this problem is a misunderstanding over the definition of "minimal". It does *not* mean "small".
The abuse of fair use images is absolutely rampant on the English Wikipedia. During my tenure as an administrator, I deleted over 26000 pages, the vast majority of which were Fair Use Images.
Thousands upon thousands are deleted every month, and yet it still never seems to stem the tide of incoming images. Until uploading FU images on the English Wikipedia is forbidden, the problem will not be getting smaller.
Chad H.
On Jan 7, 2008 11:23 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/01/2008, Brian Hammer hammersoft123@gmail.com wrote:
The mission of Wikimedia is to generate "neutral educational content under a free content license". The Foundation's resolution from March 2007 states that EDP use must be minimal, within narrow limits.
The key issue that seems to be causing this problem is a misunderstanding over the definition of "minimal". It does *not* mean "small".
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--- Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
The abuse of fair use images is absolutely rampant on the English Wikipedia. During my tenure as an administrator, I deleted over 26000 pages, the vast majority of which were Fair Use Images.
Thousands upon thousands are deleted every month, and yet it still never seems to stem the tide of incoming images. Until uploading FU images on the English Wikipedia is forbidden, the problem will not be getting smaller.
Chad H.
No. You deleted over 26000 pages the vast majority of which were non-free images with a missing or invalid claim of fair use.
You are confusing non-free images without a fair use claim with *all* non-free images. The latter is a completely different thing.
Uploading non-free images without a valid claim of fair use is *already* prohibited; it being a wiki, however, this still happens. Prohibiting non-free images altogether will not solve the problem -- they will still be uploaded, and still need to be deleted.
Here is an analogy with another aspect of Wikipedia. I have reverted over 26000 edits the vast majority of which were vandalism. Thousands upon thousands of vandal edits are reverted every month, and yet it never seems to stem the tide of incoming vandalism.
Now vandalism is already prohibited; the equivalent to banning all non-free content in this analogy would be to ban all *editing*. See the difference?
-Gurch
Some people, myself included, want to create the best possible no-cost encyclopedia. From that point of view, copyleft and free content is a means to that end.
Other people (including much of the WMF Board apparently) feel creating free content is an end in itself that justifies sacrificing some encyclopedic coverage and limiting our exercise of fair use rights to a much narrower set of circumstances than allowed by law.
I can understand that point of view, even though I don't agree with it.
However, I do think we need a different set of language here. Despite the title of this thread, there is a NOT an abuse of fair use here. The situation being described is exactly the kind of situation for which fair use rights were created, e.g. identifying subjects of academic discussion in a non-commercial, non-competitve setting.
It is, arguably, an abuse of non-free content under Wikipedia/Wikimedia policy, but abusing non-free content with respect to Wikipedia is very different than abusing fair use.
That said, policy is the creation of Wikipedians/Wikimedians. It evolves with time and often has fuzzy edges. It's limits are, more or less, whatever it is that we agree to enforce. Appeals to absolutes like "if you truly care about free content, we must limit fair use usage" is not very helpful, since we already do limit fair use quite substantially, both in policy and in practice.
-Robert A. Rohde
On Jan 7, 2008 8:01 AM, Brian Hammer hammersoft123@gmail.com wrote:
The mission of Wikimedia is to generate "neutral educational content under a free content license". The Foundation's resolution from March 2007 states that EDP use must be minimal, within narrow limits.
Subsequent to the resolution being passed, a number of efforts were undertaken to limit fair use usage on en.wikipedia. This affected discographies, episode lists, and character lists. A *huge* number of debates erupted over these removals. One such debate was covered at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair_us... . The disputes have never ended. For discographies and episode lists, the debate has simmered down for the most part, with occasional flare ups. For character lists, the debate is still raging.
What has been the rule of thumb in removing the images is that an image of the character being used for depiction of that character only is allowable on that character's particular article, but not on articles collecting multiple characters into a single article. The rationale here is that if a character is notable enough for an article, they're notable enough for an image, and vice versa. Allowances have been made for "cast" type images showing multiple characters in a single image from the copyright holder (not montages made by editors).
Nevertheless, the debate has raged endlessly, and has recently exploded. It stands now on a precipice, and it is highly likely that fair use inclusionists will 'win' in that per-character images are going to be permitted on character articles (for example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogwarts_students ).
Some discussion exists currently at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Fair_us... and scattered through a variety of sections of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content
If Wikipedia is truly a free content encyclopedia, if you truly care about free content, we must limit fair use usage per the Foundation's resolution. As it stands now, this debate is lost in favor of people who are more focused on whether something is suitable as a guide than focused on being a free content resource.
A strong voice from the Foundation would be appreciated, most especially in favor of a new section added to clarify the local EDP at the second paragraph of this version of the guideline:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content&old... (paragraph since removed in an edit war)
Thank you, Hammersoft _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, Your aim is different from the stated aim of producing a product that is freely licensed and everything to its content is permitted as per the license. Both the GFDL and the CC-by-sa explicitly allow for the commercial application of our products. This is stated policy and when fair use is incompatible with this purpose, fair use is not defendable. Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 7, 2008 6:19 PM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
Some people, myself included, want to create the best possible no-cost encyclopedia. From that point of view, copyleft and free content is a means to that end.
Other people (including much of the WMF Board apparently) feel creating free content is an end in itself that justifies sacrificing some encyclopedic coverage and limiting our exercise of fair use rights to a much narrower set of circumstances than allowed by law.
I can understand that point of view, even though I don't agree with it.
However, I do think we need a different set of language here. Despite the title of this thread, there is a NOT an abuse of fair use here. The situation being described is exactly the kind of situation for which fair use rights were created, e.g. identifying subjects of academic discussion in a non-commercial, non-competitve setting.
It is, arguably, an abuse of non-free content under Wikipedia/Wikimedia policy, but abusing non-free content with respect to Wikipedia is very different than abusing fair use.
That said, policy is the creation of Wikipedians/Wikimedians. It evolves with time and often has fuzzy edges. It's limits are, more or less, whatever it is that we agree to enforce. Appeals to absolutes like "if you truly care about free content, we must limit fair use usage" is not very helpful, since we already do limit fair use quite substantially, both in policy and in practice.
-Robert A. Rohde
On Jan 7, 2008 8:01 AM, Brian Hammer hammersoft123@gmail.com wrote:
The mission of Wikimedia is to generate "neutral educational content
under
a free content license". The Foundation's resolution from March 2007
states
that EDP use must be minimal, within narrow limits.
Subsequent to the resolution being passed, a number of efforts were undertaken to limit fair use usage on en.wikipedia. This affected discographies, episode lists, and character lists. A *huge* number of debates erupted over these removals. One such debate was covered at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair_us...
. The disputes have never ended. For discographies and episode lists, the debate has simmered down for the most part, with occasional flare ups.
For
character lists, the debate is still raging.
What has been the rule of thumb in removing the images is that an image
of
the character being used for depiction of that character only is
allowable
on that character's particular article, but not on articles collecting multiple characters into a single article. The rationale here is that if
a
character is notable enough for an article, they're notable enough for
an
image, and vice versa. Allowances have been made for "cast" type images showing multiple characters in a single image from the copyright holder (not montages made by editors).
Nevertheless, the debate has raged endlessly, and has recently exploded. It stands now on a precipice, and it is highly likely that fair use inclusionists will 'win' in that per-character images are going to be permitted on character articles (for example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogwarts_students ).
Some discussion exists currently at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Fair_us...
and scattered through a variety of sections of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content
If Wikipedia is truly a free content encyclopedia, if you truly care
about
free content, we must limit fair use usage per the Foundation's resolution. As it stands now, this debate is lost in favor of people who are more focused on whether something is suitable as a guide than focused on
being
a free content resource.
A strong voice from the Foundation would be appreciated, most especially in favor of a new section added to clarify the local EDP at the second paragraph of this version of the guideline:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content&old...
(paragraph since removed in an edit war)
Thank you, Hammersoft _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 07/01/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Your aim is different from the stated aim of producing a product that is freely licensed and everything to its content is permitted as per the license.
Given the existence of personality rights you've just tried to argue against including pics of living people. Most randomly taken photos will have some elements of unfreeness if you look hard enough.
Both the GFDL and the CC-by-sa explicitly allow for the commercial application of our products.
So does fair use in certain situations.
It may be worthwhile for all involved to review fair use under American law http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html - the most relevant point is probably "quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment" which covers almost everything that's legitimate under Wikipedia's policies on what's allowable - obviously violations occur.
Of course, I say this as a private citizen living in Canada, and as such someone who's essentially incapable of violating copyright laws. Your mileage may vary.
Cheers WilyD
On Jan 7, 2008 1:06 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Your aim is different from the stated aim of producing a product that is freely licensed and everything to its content is permitted as per the license. Both the GFDL and the CC-by-sa explicitly allow for the commercial application of our products. This is stated policy and when fair use is incompatible with this purpose, fair use is not defendable. Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 7, 2008 6:19 PM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
Some people, myself included, want to create the best possible no-cost encyclopedia. From that point of view, copyleft and free content is a means to that end.
Other people (including much of the WMF Board apparently) feel creating free content is an end in itself that justifies sacrificing some encyclopedic coverage and limiting our exercise of fair use rights to a much narrower set of circumstances than allowed by law.
I can understand that point of view, even though I don't agree with it.
However, I do think we need a different set of language here. Despite the title of this thread, there is a NOT an abuse of fair use here. The situation being described is exactly the kind of situation for which fair use rights were created, e.g. identifying subjects of academic discussion in a non-commercial, non-competitve setting.
It is, arguably, an abuse of non-free content under Wikipedia/Wikimedia policy, but abusing non-free content with respect to Wikipedia is very different than abusing fair use.
That said, policy is the creation of Wikipedians/Wikimedians. It evolves with time and often has fuzzy edges. It's limits are, more or less, whatever it is that we agree to enforce. Appeals to absolutes like "if you truly care about free content, we must limit fair use usage" is not very helpful, since we already do limit fair use quite substantially, both in policy and in practice.
-Robert A. Rohde
On Jan 7, 2008 8:01 AM, Brian Hammer hammersoft123@gmail.com wrote:
The mission of Wikimedia is to generate "neutral educational content
under
a free content license". The Foundation's resolution from March 2007
states
that EDP use must be minimal, within narrow limits.
Subsequent to the resolution being passed, a number of efforts were undertaken to limit fair use usage on en.wikipedia. This affected discographies, episode lists, and character lists. A *huge* number of debates erupted over these removals. One such debate was covered at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair_us...
. The disputes have never ended. For discographies and episode lists, the debate has simmered down for the most part, with occasional flare ups.
For
character lists, the debate is still raging.
What has been the rule of thumb in removing the images is that an image
of
the character being used for depiction of that character only is
allowable
on that character's particular article, but not on articles collecting multiple characters into a single article. The rationale here is that if
a
character is notable enough for an article, they're notable enough for
an
image, and vice versa. Allowances have been made for "cast" type images showing multiple characters in a single image from the copyright holder (not montages made by editors).
Nevertheless, the debate has raged endlessly, and has recently exploded. It stands now on a precipice, and it is highly likely that fair use inclusionists will 'win' in that per-character images are going to be permitted on character articles (for example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogwarts_students ).
Some discussion exists currently at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Fair_us...
and scattered through a variety of sections of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content
If Wikipedia is truly a free content encyclopedia, if you truly care
about
free content, we must limit fair use usage per the Foundation's resolution. As it stands now, this debate is lost in favor of people who are more focused on whether something is suitable as a guide than focused on
being
a free content resource.
A strong voice from the Foundation would be appreciated, most especially in favor of a new section added to clarify the local EDP at the second paragraph of this version of the guideline:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content&old...
(paragraph since removed in an edit war)
Thank you, Hammersoft _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
"Is it fair use?" is not the relevant question for inclusion, as Gerard pointed out very well. Our license requires that our content be reusable for any purpose, including commercial, and fair use content damages that goal. Therefore, the policy is that non-free content is prohibited, except when the content is essential and no free alternative is available and it meets US fair use requirements.
Nathan
On Jan 7, 2008 1:24 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
It may be worthwhile for all involved to review fair use under American law http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html - the most relevant point is probably "quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment" which covers almost everything that's legitimate under Wikipedia's policies on what's allowable - obviously violations occur.
Of course, I say this as a private citizen living in Canada, and as such someone who's essentially incapable of violating copyright laws. Your mileage may vary.
Cheers WilyD
On Jan 7, 2008 1:06 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Your aim is different from the stated aim of producing a product that is freely licensed and everything to its content is permitted as per the license. Both the GFDL and the CC-by-sa explicitly allow for the commercial application of our products. This is stated policy and when fair use is incompatible with this purpose, fair use is not defendable. Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 7, 2008 6:19 PM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
Some people, myself included, want to create the best possible no-cost encyclopedia. From that point of view, copyleft and free content is a means to that end.
Other people (including much of the WMF Board apparently) feel creating free content is an end in itself that justifies sacrificing some encyclopedic coverage and limiting our exercise of fair use rights to a much narrower set of circumstances than allowed by law.
I can understand that point of view, even though I don't agree with it.
However, I do think we need a different set of language here. Despite the title of this thread, there is a NOT an abuse of fair use here. The situation being described is exactly the kind of situation for which fair use rights were created, e.g. identifying subjects of academic discussion in a non-commercial, non-competitve setting.
It is, arguably, an abuse of non-free content under Wikipedia/Wikimedia policy, but abusing non-free content with respect to Wikipedia is very different than abusing fair use.
That said, policy is the creation of Wikipedians/Wikimedians. It evolves with time and often has fuzzy edges. It's limits are, more or less, whatever it is that we agree to enforce. Appeals to absolutes like "if you truly care about free content, we must limit fair use usage" is not very helpful, since we already do limit fair use quite substantially, both in policy and in practice.
-Robert A. Rohde
On Jan 7, 2008 8:01 AM, Brian Hammer hammersoft123@gmail.com wrote:
The mission of Wikimedia is to generate "neutral educational content
under
a free content license". The Foundation's resolution from March 2007
states
that EDP use must be minimal, within narrow limits.
Subsequent to the resolution being passed, a number of efforts were undertaken to limit fair use usage on en.wikipedia. This affected discographies, episode lists, and character lists. A *huge* number of debates erupted over these removals. One such debate was covered at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair_us...
. The disputes have never ended. For discographies and episode lists, the debate has simmered down for the most part, with occasional flare ups.
For
character lists, the debate is still raging.
What has been the rule of thumb in removing the images is that an image
of
the character being used for depiction of that character only is
allowable
on that character's particular article, but not on articles collecting multiple characters into a single article. The rationale here is that if
a
character is notable enough for an article, they're notable enough for
an
image, and vice versa. Allowances have been made for "cast" type images showing multiple characters in a single image from the copyright holder (not montages made by editors).
Nevertheless, the debate has raged endlessly, and has recently exploded. It stands now on a precipice, and it is highly likely that fair use inclusionists will 'win' in that per-character images are going to be permitted on character articles (for example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogwarts_students ).
Some discussion exists currently at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Fair_us...
and scattered through a variety of sections of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content
If Wikipedia is truly a free content encyclopedia, if you truly care
about
free content, we must limit fair use usage per the Foundation's resolution. As it stands now, this debate is lost in favor of people who are more focused on whether something is suitable as a guide than focused on
being
a free content resource.
A strong voice from the Foundation would be appreciated, most especially in favor of a new section added to clarify the local EDP at the second paragraph of this version of the guideline:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content&old...
(paragraph since removed in an edit war)
Thank you, Hammersoft _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 07/01/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
"Is it fair use?" is not the relevant question for inclusion, as Gerard pointed out very well. Our license requires that our content be reusable for any purpose, including commercial, and fair use content damages that goal. Therefore, the policy is that non-free content is prohibited, except when the content is essential and no free alternative is available and it meets US fair use requirements.
Absolutely. Our definition of fair use is intentionally much stricter than the legal one. I don't think anyone is disputing the definition given at the top of [[en:Wikipedia:Non-free content]], it just the interpretation of that definition which is causing trouble.
Hoi, What is ambiguous about it ? It is just that some people are not prepared to live with a Wikipedia that complies with its own license. Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 7, 2008 7:35 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/01/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
"Is it fair use?" is not the relevant question for inclusion, as Gerard pointed out very well. Our license requires that our content be reusable for any purpose, including commercial, and fair use content damages that goal. Therefore, the policy is that non-free content is prohibited, except when the content is essential and no free alternative is available and it meets US fair use requirements.
Absolutely. Our definition of fair use is intentionally much stricter than the legal one. I don't think anyone is disputing the definition given at the top of [[en:Wikipedia:Non-free content]], it just the interpretation of that definition which is causing trouble.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 07/01/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, What is ambiguous about it ? It is just that some people are not prepared to live with a Wikipedia that complies with its own license.
The ambiguity is in sections 3(a) and 8 (which are pretty much the same thing). "Significant" is a very subjective word, so there is obviously going to be some room for interpretation.
On 07/01/2008, Brian Hammer hammersoft123@gmail.com wrote:
The mission of Wikimedia is to generate "neutral educational content under a free content license". The Foundation's resolution from March 2007 states that EDP use must be minimal, within narrow limits.
Subsequent to the resolution being passed, a number of efforts were undertaken to limit fair use usage on en.wikipedia. This affected discographies, episode lists, and character lists. A *huge* number of debates erupted over these removals. One such debate was covered at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair_us.... The disputes have never ended. For discographies and episode lists, the debate has simmered down for the most part, with occasional flare ups. For character lists, the debate is still raging.
What has been the rule of thumb in removing the images is that an image of the character being used for depiction of that character only is allowable on that character's particular article, but not on articles collecting multiple characters into a single article. The rationale here is that if a character is notable enough for an article, they're notable enough for an image, and vice versa.
There is no reading of law or policy under which that makes sense.
Allowances have been made for "cast" type images showing multiple characters in a single image from the copyright holder (not montages made by editors).
Nevertheless, the debate has raged endlessly, and has recently exploded. It stands now on a precipice, and it is highly likely that fair use inclusionists will 'win' in that per-character images are going to be permitted on character articles (for example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogwarts_students ).
So?
Some discussion exists currently at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Fair_us...
and scattered through a variety of sections of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content
If Wikipedia is truly a free content encyclopedia, if you truly care about free content, we must limit fair use usage per the Foundation's resolution.
We have. And because I care about free content I will not fight this battle. As policy and law stands there is little in the way of support for the position of useing images in this case if they qualify under fair use. We are not for the most part going to be able to get free character photos.
As it stands now, this debate is lost in favor of people who are more focused on whether something is suitable as a guide than focused on being a free content resource.
No. The debate has largely ended up favoring free content. There are some areas where it is unreasonable to expect free content.
A strong voice from the Foundation would be appreciated, most especially in favor of a new section added to clarify the local EDP at the second paragraph of this version of the guideline:
The foundation has approved en's EDP. Anything less than a board resolution on the matter is irrelevant. It was hard enough putting the first one together.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content&old... (paragraph since removed in an edit war)
"clarifications" have no place in and EDP. Your options are to get a community consensus for a change in the EDP and then board approval or to accept the current version.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org