From a discussion [[Wikipedia talk:Non-free use rationale
guideline#What are we really accomplishing here?]], is it the foundations view that the wording of the policy requires a *written* rationale for any non-free content, or only that a rationale exists for its use (possibly in the abstract)?
Usually we had assumed it required a written one, but the phrase "...should go through a discussion process where it is determined whether such a rationale exists..." makes it seem as though perhaps the intention is to mean a rationale in the abstract.
Please read the discussion if you have time, but as a short summary we are finding that requiring unique rationales for certain image classes to be causing more trouble than it is worth. It is leading to fairly open anger towards our image policies in general, as I know some of you are aware :) Thanks for your input.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline...
Judson [[:en:User:Cohesion]]
On 8/7/07, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
From a discussion [[Wikipedia talk:Non-free use rationale guideline#What are we really accomplishing here?]], is it the foundations view that the wording of the policy requires a *written* rationale for any non-free content, or only that a rationale exists for its use (possibly in the abstract)?
Usually we had assumed it required a written one, but the phrase "...should go through a discussion process where it is determined whether such a rationale exists..." makes it seem as though perhaps the intention is to mean a rationale in the abstract.
"Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if they lack an applicable rationale..."
"...existing media under such licenses should go through a discussion process where it is determined whether such a rationale exists..."
Those seem to be the relevant bits, at first glance. I could be mistaken, but I don't see anything there that requires the rationale be in writing. My current understanding is that en.wikipedia policy adds this requirement explicitly.
But, I'm not in a position to speak for the foundation in any capacity, just a nosy list member. ;)
-Luna
On 8/8/07, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/7/07, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
From a discussion [[Wikipedia talk:Non-free use rationale guideline#What are we really accomplishing here?]], is it the foundations view that the wording of the policy requires a *written* rationale for any non-free content, or only that a rationale exists for its use (possibly in the abstract)?
Usually we had assumed it required a written one, but the phrase "...should go through a discussion process where it is determined whether such a rationale exists..." makes it seem as though perhaps the intention is to mean a rationale in the abstract.
"Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if they lack an applicable rationale..."
"...existing media under such licenses should go through a discussion process where it is determined whether such a rationale exists..."
Those seem to be the relevant bits, at first glance. I could be mistaken, but I don't see anything there that requires the rationale be in writing. My current understanding is that en.wikipedia policy adds this requirement explicitly.
But, I'm not in a position to speak for the foundation in any capacity, just a nosy list member. ;)
Yep. The rationale doesn't actually need to be stated explicitly, and boilerplate is perfectly fine if it is actually used correctly and applies to the particular media in the particular situation. There just needs to *be* a solid rationale within the licensing policy for using non-free media. If it's not absolutely clear that a rationale exists, it's best to err on the side of writing it down, and if en.wikipedia wants to demand an explicit rationale, then it's free to set policy that way.
(Note that I haven't consulted the rest of the board -- as those who are not currently in planes are probably really tired -- but I have no reason to think any would disagree.)
-Kat
Hoi, Out of curiosity, the board insists on an "exemption doctrine policy" for those Wiki projects that insist to make exemptions and include data that does not conform to the official policy that has otherwise to be complied with. As there are legal implications to not conforming to the official policy, a risc is created that makes the WMF vulnerable to legal proceedings. As the existence is officially mandated, the WMF seems to take responsibility for these policies.
How can the WMF take the responsibility for "exemption doctrine policies" when they are not written down and as a consequence cannot be checked against pertinent laws in pertinent countries ??
Thanks, GerardM
On 8/8/07, Kat Walsh kat@mindspillage.org wrote:
On 8/8/07, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/7/07, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
From a discussion [[Wikipedia talk:Non-free use rationale guideline#What are we really accomplishing here?]], is it the foundations view that the wording of the policy requires a *written* rationale for any non-free content, or only that a rationale exists for its use (possibly in the abstract)?
Usually we had assumed it required a written one, but the phrase "...should go through a discussion process where it is determined whether such a rationale exists..." makes it seem as though perhaps the intention is to mean a rationale in the abstract.
"Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if they lack an
applicable
rationale..."
"...existing media under such licenses should go through a discussion process where it is determined whether such a rationale exists..."
Those seem to be the relevant bits, at first glance. I could be
mistaken,
but I don't see anything there that requires the rationale be in
writing. My
current understanding is that en.wikipedia policy adds this requirement explicitly.
But, I'm not in a position to speak for the foundation in any capacity,
just
a nosy list member. ;)
Yep. The rationale doesn't actually need to be stated explicitly, and boilerplate is perfectly fine if it is actually used correctly and applies to the particular media in the particular situation. There just needs to *be* a solid rationale within the licensing policy for using non-free media. If it's not absolutely clear that a rationale exists, it's best to err on the side of writing it down, and if en.wikipedia wants to demand an explicit rationale, then it's free to set policy that way.
(Note that I haven't consulted the rest of the board -- as those who are not currently in planes are probably really tired -- but I have no reason to think any would disagree.)
-Kat
-- Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Kat Walsh wrote:
On 8/8/07, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/7/07, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
From a discussion [[Wikipedia talk:Non-free use rationale guideline#What are we really accomplishing here?]], is it the foundations view that the wording of the policy requires a *written* rationale for any non-free content, or only that a rationale exists for its use (possibly in the abstract)?
Usually we had assumed it required a written one, but the phrase "...should go through a discussion process where it is determined whether such a rationale exists..." makes it seem as though perhaps the intention is to mean a rationale in the abstract.
"Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if they lack an applicable rationale..."
"...existing media under such licenses should go through a discussion process where it is determined whether such a rationale exists..."
Those seem to be the relevant bits, at first glance. I could be mistaken, but I don't see anything there that requires the rationale be in writing. My current understanding is that en.wikipedia policy adds this requirement explicitly.
But, I'm not in a position to speak for the foundation in any capacity, just a nosy list member. ;)
Yep. The rationale doesn't actually need to be stated explicitly, and boilerplate is perfectly fine if it is actually used correctly and applies to the particular media in the particular situation. There just needs to *be* a solid rationale within the licensing policy for using non-free media. If it's not absolutely clear that a rationale exists, it's best to err on the side of writing it down, and if en.wikipedia wants to demand an explicit rationale, then it's free to set policy that way.
(Note that I haven't consulted the rest of the board -- as those who are not currently in planes are probably really tired -- but I have no reason to think any would disagree.)
-Kat
While we're at it here, a clarification on what constitutes "minimal" use wouldn't be a terribly bad idea either. It seems the ideas on that range from "Pretty much anywhere we could legally get away with it" to "Only in a very few cases". There seems to be especial heat over album/book/movie covers, movie and game screenshots, etc., and whether those should be allowed in all such articles or only where they're specifically discussed in the article or actually illustrate article text, rather than simply just to "be there".
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org