Hello everybody, I hope, it is never too late to discuss these things. Today, I have noticed the Commons added following text under the edit window:
"Re-users will be required to credit you, at minimum, through a hyperlink or URL to the article you are contributing to, and you hereby agree that such credit is sufficient in any medium."
I was and I am a fan of switching to CC-BY-SA 3.0. However, I am not a fan of this violation of freedom which Wikimedia declares for its projects.
It is true, a similar statement is present at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update . But this change was not discussed at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers as I can see (it was shortly discussed at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers/Opposi... ). Also it was announced nowhere (as far as I know) that this policy will be advertized in this explicite manner. I feel to be cheated. I was voting for an easier implementation of freedom. I was definitively not voting for the end of freedom. And this statement means the end of freedom.
Why end of freedom? Just imagine, the Wikimedia will have closed the business. Everybody, who used links to provide a sufficient list of authors, will be in troubles immediately. Yes, everybody can download dumps. But will this be enough? No. For example it will not be possible to easily update just published paper books (for example textbooks for children at schools). The publisher will not be able to use the freedom, he could think he enjoyed. Yes, the publisher can always exactly follow the license. But then Wikimedia should not even suggest that something less than exact following of license could be enough.
Similar, may be more understandable problem: just imagine, the article which was reused, is deleted in the Wikimedia project. The list of authors will be lost in a very similar way like in a case of Wikimedia shutting down completely.
Just another problem: imagine, the Wikimedia foundation will get into financial troubles. This can happen very easily (I hope it will not happen soon). All the reusers who have thought linking to Wikimedia site was sufficient, will be pushed under a serious threat. They can be blackmailed: "give to Wikimedia foundation money or you can close your business based on CC-BY-SA licensed content."
And one problem more: what about works of third parties? If somebody issues his work under CC-BY-SA 3.0, how could anybody insert it into Wikimedia projects when Wikimedia allows to re-use it and not to follow the original attribution manner specified by the author? Either nobody could insert the works of the third parties into Wikimedia projects or Wikimedia would explicitely allow to violate the third party's rights given by license the third party have chosen.
What is a freedom if it cannot be guaranteed for ever in all conditions? It is not a freedom anymore. I am an author of quite many texts in Wikimedia projects. I can hardly accept my work could be misused in such a way. I do not allow to attribute my old works in this way. And I will be not willing to continue working at, for example, Wikipedia if this becomes a common policy there.
I understand this does not have to be a big problem at Commons - the image descriptions are usually not the most important part of the articles. The media (image, video, sound) is. And if I understand it well, the authors of the media must be still attributed directly. However, I see it as a major problem in case of Wikipedia and similar projects.
I understand re-using the texts inside Wikimedia project is complicated if the attribution means a list of writers. But we should deal with this. It's a challenge. We can show the world the collaborative authors can get appropriate credits.
Please, do not apply this policy there. It will be a serious hit into a face of freedom. It can mean the authors will not be willing to contribute so much anymore. It can mean the Wikimedia foundation will be discredited. It can mean the people will not be willing to make donations to the Foundation. It can lead to the end of Wikimedia projects.
Best regards, Jiri Hofman
The terms of use for editors will require that editors accept linking as sufficient attribution; however, the instructions for re-users will explicitly say that this is only one form of possible attribution and highlight more permanent forms of attribution, such as creating author lists. I would expect that book publishers and other concerned with permanence would choose a more permanent format.
In the attribution survey of 1000+ editors in March, attribution by link was the most popular option (though certainly not universally accepted). Given that, I would expect that most text contributors will happily continue editing, and it won't lead to "the end of Wikimedia projects" as you suggest, even though some individuals may choose to stop contributing.
-Robert Rohde
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Jiri Hofmanhofmanj@aldebaran.cz wrote:
Hello everybody, I hope, it is never too late to discuss these things. Today, I have noticed the Commons added following text under the edit window:
"Re-users will be required to credit you, at minimum, through a hyperlink or URL to the article you are contributing to, and you hereby agree that such credit is sufficient in any medium."
I was and I am a fan of switching to CC-BY-SA 3.0. However, I am not a fan of this violation of freedom which Wikimedia declares for its projects.
It is true, a similar statement is present at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update . But this change was not discussed at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers as I can see (it was shortly discussed at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers/Opposi... ). Also it was announced nowhere (as far as I know) that this policy will be advertized in this explicite manner. I feel to be cheated. I was voting for an easier implementation of freedom. I was definitively not voting for the end of freedom. And this statement means the end of freedom.
Why end of freedom? Just imagine, the Wikimedia will have closed the business. Everybody, who used links to provide a sufficient list of authors, will be in troubles immediately. Yes, everybody can download dumps. But will this be enough? No. For example it will not be possible to easily update just published paper books (for example textbooks for children at schools). The publisher will not be able to use the freedom, he could think he enjoyed. Yes, the publisher can always exactly follow the license. But then Wikimedia should not even suggest that something less than exact following of license could be enough.
Similar, may be more understandable problem: just imagine, the article which was reused, is deleted in the Wikimedia project. The list of authors will be lost in a very similar way like in a case of Wikimedia shutting down completely.
Just another problem: imagine, the Wikimedia foundation will get into financial troubles. This can happen very easily (I hope it will not happen soon). All the reusers who have thought linking to Wikimedia site was sufficient, will be pushed under a serious threat. They can be blackmailed: "give to Wikimedia foundation money or you can close your business based on CC-BY-SA licensed content."
And one problem more: what about works of third parties? If somebody issues his work under CC-BY-SA 3.0, how could anybody insert it into Wikimedia projects when Wikimedia allows to re-use it and not to follow the original attribution manner specified by the author? Either nobody could insert the works of the third parties into Wikimedia projects or Wikimedia would explicitely allow to violate the third party's rights given by license the third party have chosen.
What is a freedom if it cannot be guaranteed for ever in all conditions? It is not a freedom anymore. I am an author of quite many texts in Wikimedia projects. I can hardly accept my work could be misused in such a way. I do not allow to attribute my old works in this way. And I will be not willing to continue working at, for example, Wikipedia if this becomes a common policy there.
I understand this does not have to be a big problem at Commons - the image descriptions are usually not the most important part of the articles. The media (image, video, sound) is. And if I understand it well, the authors of the media must be still attributed directly. However, I see it as a major problem in case of Wikipedia and similar projects.
I understand re-using the texts inside Wikimedia project is complicated if the attribution means a list of writers. But we should deal with this. It's a challenge. We can show the world the collaborative authors can get appropriate credits.
Please, do not apply this policy there. It will be a serious hit into a face of freedom. It can mean the authors will not be willing to contribute so much anymore. It can mean the Wikimedia foundation will be discredited. It can mean the people will not be willing to make donations to the Foundation. It can lead to the end of Wikimedia projects.
Best regards, Jiri Hofman
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Дана Monday 15 June 2009 20:24:39 Robert Rohde написа:
The terms of use for editors will require that editors accept linking as sufficient attribution; however, the instructions for re-users will
Why do the terms require that, when this is in collision with actual licences?
explicitly say that this is only one form of possible attribution and highlight more permanent forms of attribution, such as creating author lists. I would expect that book publishers and other concerned with permanence would choose a more permanent format.
Why do you expect them to do that, when it is not required of them, and it is easier for them to not do it?
In the attribution survey of 1000+ editors in March, attribution by link was the most popular option (though certainly not universally accepted). Given that, I would expect that most text contributors
The survey was fundamentally flawed, having questions that were biased strongly in favor of this outcome. As such, its results are worthless, and you really shouldn't present it as valid.
will happily continue editing, and it won't lead to "the end of Wikimedia projects" as you suggest, even though some individuals may choose to stop contributing.
Translation: "Given that most people are willing to tolerate our ludicrous decisions, we should continue to be make more ludicrous decisions."
2009/6/15 Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu:
Дана Monday 15 June 2009 20:24:39 Robert Rohde написа:
The terms of use for editors will require that editors accept linking as sufficient attribution; however, the instructions for re-users will
Why do the terms require that, when this is in collision with actual licences?
For reference, I've summarized our position on this point here: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-March/050953.html
Of course we're not going to re-open this discussion. The revised terms will be implemented on all applicable sites in the coming days, beginning today.
Дана Monday 15 June 2009 21:09:36 Erik Moeller написа:
2009/6/15 Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu:
Дана Monday 15 June 2009 20:24:39 Robert Rohde написа:
The terms of use for editors will require that editors accept linking as sufficient attribution; however, the instructions for re-users will
Why do the terms require that, when this is in collision with actual licences?
For reference, I've summarized our position on this point here: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-March/050953.html
Of course we're not going to re-open this discussion. The revised
The discussion was closed?
terms will be implemented on all applicable sites in the coming days, beginning today.
I, for one, have written a piece of javascript that removes disputed text from the page before I contribute.
And for Christ's sake, why such arrogance in wording this? "you hereby agree that such credit is sufficient in any medium" - no I most certainly do not! You could have at very least have decency to say "you agree to be credited in this way" - still not ideal but at least you don't require of people to agree that black is whit.
2009/6/15 Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu:
I, for one, have written a piece of javascript that removes disputed text from the page before I contribute.
Deliberate attempts to circumvene site terms which you've clearly understood and consulted are irrelevant to the actual terms of release. Furthermore, they are against policy, and should be reverted on sight.
Дана Monday 15 June 2009 22:46:44 Erik Moeller написа:
2009/6/15 Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu:
I, for one, have written a piece of javascript that removes disputed text from the page before I contribute.
Deliberate attempts to circumvene site terms which you've clearly understood and consulted are irrelevant to the actual terms of release. Furthermore, they are against policy, and should be reverted on sight.
I am not circumventing site terms, my actual terms of release are those of applicable licences.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu wrote:
I am not circumventing site terms, my actual terms of release are those of applicable licences.
You've made it quite clear that you have a flawed interpretation of the CC-BY-SA, which directly contradicts that of the legal counsel of both CC and WMF. What's not clear is what exactly the code you've written does.
Дана Monday 15 June 2009 23:09:20 Brian написа:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu wrote:
I am not circumventing site terms, my actual terms of release are those of applicable licences.
You've made it quite clear that you have a flawed interpretation of the CC-BY-SA, which directly contradicts that of the legal counsel of both CC and WMF. What's not clear is what exactly the code you've written does.
No, I made it quite clear that I have a correct interpretation of CC-BY-SA, and that your claims of having a legal counsel are bogus.
"*Mike Godwin http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:Mikegodwin*, General Counsel and Legal Coordinator since July 2007." ( http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff) Hmm that would claim otherwise.
Mark
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yuwrote:
Дана Monday 15 June 2009 23:09:20 Brian написа:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu
wrote:
I am not circumventing site terms, my actual terms of release are those of applicable licences.
You've made it quite clear that you have a flawed interpretation of the CC-BY-SA, which directly contradicts that of the legal counsel of both CC and WMF. What's not clear is what exactly the code you've written does.
No, I made it quite clear that I have a correct interpretation of CC-BY-SA, and that your claims of having a legal counsel are bogus.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Дана Monday 15 June 2009 23:19:15 Mark (Markie) написа:
"*Mike Godwin http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:Mikegodwin*, General Counsel and Legal Coordinator since July 2007." ( http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff) Hmm that would claim otherwise.
I'm not aware of him having made any counsel that would permit something like this. I might be wrong though. But at very least, I doubt that I am wrong when I say that requiring people to "agree that such credit is sufficient" is plain evil.
I'm not going to get into any more of a tit-for-tat with you (seriously - its my last post), but I do not claim to have legal counsel. As you would expect, however, both CC and WMF do. The best you could possibly hope to do is listen to their advice since this is unlikely to ever go to court. Additionally, if you wish to contribute to the projects you must contribute according to the intention and correct interpretation of the license. A user's interpretation of the license may or may not be in line with the correct view. If it is not, they should not contribute. That's all I have. On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu wrote:
Дана Monday 15 June 2009 23:09:20 Brian написа:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu
wrote:
I am not circumventing site terms, my actual terms of release are those of applicable licences.
You've made it quite clear that you have a flawed interpretation of the CC-BY-SA, which directly contradicts that of the legal counsel of both CC and WMF. What's not clear is what exactly the code you've written does.
No, I made it quite clear that I have a correct interpretation of CC-BY-SA, and that your claims of having a legal counsel are bogus.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/6/15 Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu:
The best you could possibly hope to do is listen to their advice since this is unlikely to ever go to court.
CC have a massive conflict of interest and public advice from Godwin is kinda thin on the ground. Obviously we don't know the situation with regards to private advice.
Additionally, if you wish to contribute to the projects you must contribute according to the intention and correct interpretation of the license.
No. The most obvious counter example is the disclaimers mess that the english wikipedia managed to get itself into a few years back.
A user's interpretation of the license may or may not be in line with the correct view. If it is not, they should not contribute. That's all I have.
"Correct view" is not a good choice of terminology.
Дана Monday 15 June 2009 23:20:10 Brian написа:
I'm not going to get into any more of a tit-for-tat with you (seriously - its my last post), but I do not claim to have legal counsel. As you would expect, however, both CC and WMF do. The best you could possibly hope to do is listen to their advice since this is unlikely to ever go to court. Additionally, if you wish to contribute to the projects you must contribute according to the intention and correct interpretation of the license. A user's interpretation of the license may or may not be in line with the correct view. If it is not, they should not contribute. That's all I have.
You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work.
That's really all there's to it.
2009/6/15 Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu:
Дана Monday 15 June 2009 23:20:10 Brian написа:
I'm not going to get into any more of a tit-for-tat with you (seriously - its my last post), but I do not claim to have legal counsel. As you would expect, however, both CC and WMF do. The best you could possibly hope to do is listen to their advice since this is unlikely to ever go to court. Additionally, if you wish to contribute to the projects you must contribute according to the intention and correct interpretation of the license. A user's interpretation of the license may or may not be in line with the correct view. If it is not, they should not contribute. That's all I have.
You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work.
I think we've found part of the problem: that's from the GNU GPL. Wikipedia is licensed under the GNU FDL.
Mark Wagner wrote:
2009/6/15 Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu:
Дана Monday 15 June 2009 23:20:10 Brian написа:
I'm not going to get into any more of a tit-for-tat with you (seriously - its my last post), but I do not claim to have legal counsel. As you would expect, however, both CC and WMF do. The best you could possibly hope to do is listen to their advice since this is unlikely to ever go to court. Additionally, if you wish to contribute to the projects you must contribute according to the intention and correct interpretation of the license. A user's interpretation of the license may or may not be in line with the correct view. If it is not, they should not contribute. That's all I have.
You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work.
I think we've found part of the problem: that's from the GNU GPL. Wikipedia is licensed under the GNU FDL.
The same principle is stated the most beautifully in the GPL, but applies to GFDL and CC licences too.
2009/6/15 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
2009/6/15 Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu:
I, for one, have written a piece of javascript that removes disputed text from the page before I contribute.
Deliberate attempts to circumvene site terms which you've clearly understood and consulted are irrelevant to the actual terms of release. Furthermore, they are against policy, and should be reverted on sight.
No such policy exists. Are you proposing one?
Дана Monday 15 June 2009 21:09:36 Erik Moeller написа:
2009/6/15 Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu:
Дана Monday 15 June 2009 20:24:39 Robert Rohde написа:
The terms of use for editors will require that editors accept linking as sufficient attribution; however, the instructions for re-users will
Why do the terms require that, when this is in collision with actual licences?
For reference, I've summarized our position on this point here: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-March/050953.html
Of course we're not going to re-open this discussion. The revised terms will be implemented on all applicable sites in the coming days, beginning today.
Please don't view this as trolling, because it is a honest question. The new notice says that "you hereby agree that such credit is sufficient in any medium". Mere fact that this statement is there shows that, without contributors' agreement, such credit would not be sufficient (or else you wouldn't ask for it, given that you don't ask for agreement on a number of other details). So, given that there are hundreds of millions of edits prior to this notice where people haven't given their agreement that this credit is sufficient, how is this actually going to work?
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yuwrote:
Please don't view this as trolling, because it is a honest question. The new notice says that "you hereby agree that such credit is sufficient in any medium". Mere fact that this statement is there shows that, without contributors' agreement, such credit would not be sufficient (or else you wouldn't ask for it, given that you don't ask for agreement on a number of other details). So, given that there are hundreds of millions of edits prior to this notice where people haven't given their agreement that this credit is sufficient, how is this actually going to work?
The same way "anyone can edit" works: magic fairy pixie dust.
Don't try to understand it. Either accept it, or move on.
Дана Tuesday 16 June 2009 18:21:38 Anthony написа:
The same way "anyone can edit" works: magic fairy pixie dust.
Now, that was trolling. Anyone can edit, and it does work. It doesn't mean "you can edit anything in" but it isn't supposed to.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yuwrote:
Дана Tuesday 16 June 2009 18:21:38 Anthony написа:
The same way "anyone can edit" works: magic fairy pixie dust.
Now, that was trolling. Anyone can edit, and it does work.
And this will work in exactly the same sense.
Дана Tuesday 16 June 2009 18:39:11 Anthony написа:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yuwrote:
Дана Tuesday 16 June 2009 18:21:38 Anthony написа:
The same way "anyone can edit" works: magic fairy pixie dust.
Now, that was trolling. Anyone can edit, and it does work.
And this will work in exactly the same sense.
No it won't.
2009/6/16 Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu
Дана Tuesday 16 June 2009 18:39:11 Anthony написа:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk@eunet.yu wrote:
Дана Tuesday 16 June 2009 18:21:38 Anthony написа:
The same way "anyone can edit" works: magic fairy pixie dust.
Now, that was trolling. Anyone can edit, and it does work.
And this will work in exactly the same sense.
No it won't.
Why not?
2009/6/16 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org
2009/6/16 Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu
Дана Tuesday 16 June 2009 18:39:11 Anthony написа:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk@eunet.yu wrote:
Дана Tuesday 16 June 2009 18:21:38 Anthony написа:
The same way "anyone can edit" works: magic fairy pixie dust.
Now, that was trolling. Anyone can edit, and it does work.
And this will work in exactly the same sense.
No it won't.
Why not?
By the way, if you really believe it won't work, and you want to start a fork, I'm in.
2009/6/16 Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu:
Please don't view this as trolling, because it is a honest question. The new notice says that "you hereby agree that such credit is sufficient in any medium".
No it says "Re-users will be required to credit you in any medium, at minimum, through a hyperlink or URL to the article you are contributing to" which is both actively misleading and not an actual release. It is also longer than your version.
Mere fact that this statement is there shows that, without contributors' agreement, such credit would not be sufficient (or else you wouldn't ask for it, given that you don't ask for agreement on a number of other details). So, given that there are hundreds of millions of edits prior to this notice where people haven't given their agreement that this credit is sufficient, how is this actually going to work?
It doesn't but Erik appears to hope that enough hand waving will make the issue go away.
Not that the conversation isn't worth having, but you should be aware that we've been over every single one of these points at length on this list.
The WMF hosted version is considered a stable copy - it's safe to link to and you have every reasonable assumption that it will continue to exist. If it ceases to exist it's reasonable to assume that someone else will host a stable copy and that redirects will be setup on all of the WMF domains to the new stable copy. Honestly though, this is an apocalypse scenario, in which case the stable copy is the least of your concerns. You seem to be advocating what I consider to be an extremist point of view - that all re-users should include the list of authors. The goal of the WMF is not to give every person access to the list of all authors of the potentially re-used piece of free knowledge they are looking at. It's the knowledge itself that is important, and requiring a list of authors is a serious burden that gets in the way. The hyperlink clause, reasonable to the medium and means, is a more reasonable approach.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Jiri Hofman hofmanj@aldebaran.cz wrote:
Hello everybody, I hope, it is never too late to discuss these things. Today, I have noticed the Commons added following text under the edit window:
"Re-users will be required to credit you, at minimum, through a hyperlink or URL to the article you are contributing to, and you hereby agree that such credit is sufficient in any medium."
I was and I am a fan of switching to CC-BY-SA 3.0. However, I am not a fan of this violation of freedom which Wikimedia declares for its projects.
It is true, a similar statement is present at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update . But this change was not discussed at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers as I can see (it was shortly discussed at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers/Opposi...). Also it was announced nowhere (as far as I know) that this policy will be advertized in this explicite manner. I feel to be cheated. I was voting for an easier implementation of freedom. I was definitively not voting for the end of freedom. And this statement means the end of freedom.
Why end of freedom? Just imagine, the Wikimedia will have closed the business. Everybody, who used links to provide a sufficient list of authors, will be in troubles immediately. Yes, everybody can download dumps. But will this be enough? No. For example it will not be possible to easily update just published paper books (for example textbooks for children at schools). The publisher will not be able to use the freedom, he could think he enjoyed. Yes, the publisher can always exactly follow the license. But then Wikimedia should not even suggest that something less than exact following of license could be enough.
Similar, may be more understandable problem: just imagine, the article which was reused, is deleted in the Wikimedia project. The list of authors will be lost in a very similar way like in a case of Wikimedia shutting down completely.
Just another problem: imagine, the Wikimedia foundation will get into financial troubles. This can happen very easily (I hope it will not happen soon). All the reusers who have thought linking to Wikimedia site was sufficient, will be pushed under a serious threat. They can be blackmailed: "give to Wikimedia foundation money or you can close your business based on CC-BY-SA licensed content."
And one problem more: what about works of third parties? If somebody issues his work under CC-BY-SA 3.0, how could anybody insert it into Wikimedia projects when Wikimedia allows to re-use it and not to follow the original attribution manner specified by the author? Either nobody could insert the works of the third parties into Wikimedia projects or Wikimedia would explicitely allow to violate the third party's rights given by license the third party have chosen.
What is a freedom if it cannot be guaranteed for ever in all conditions? It is not a freedom anymore. I am an author of quite many texts in Wikimedia projects. I can hardly accept my work could be misused in such a way. I do not allow to attribute my old works in this way. And I will be not willing to continue working at, for example, Wikipedia if this becomes a common policy there.
I understand this does not have to be a big problem at Commons - the image descriptions are usually not the most important part of the articles. The media (image, video, sound) is. And if I understand it well, the authors of the media must be still attributed directly. However, I see it as a major problem in case of Wikipedia and similar projects.
I understand re-using the texts inside Wikimedia project is complicated if the attribution means a list of writers. But we should deal with this. It's a challenge. We can show the world the collaborative authors can get appropriate credits.
Please, do not apply this policy there. It will be a serious hit into a face of freedom. It can mean the authors will not be willing to contribute so much anymore. It can mean the Wikimedia foundation will be discredited. It can mean the people will not be willing to make donations to the Foundation. It can lead to the end of Wikimedia projects.
Best regards, Jiri Hofman
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/6/15 Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu:
The WMF hosted version is considered a stable copy - it's safe to link to and you have every reasonable assumption that it will continue to exist.
The project as a whole to an extent. Individual articles not really.Their habit of being moved merged deleted or otherwise messed with means that they can hardly be considered stable.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 3:05 PM, genigeniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/15 Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu:
The WMF hosted version is considered a stable copy - it's safe to link to and you have every reasonable assumption that it will continue to exist.
The project as a whole to an extent. Individual articles not really.Their habit of being moved merged deleted or otherwise messed with means that they can hardly be considered stable.
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Very true! Plain and simple: URLs on the internet are horribly unstable and make for terribly inaccurate attribution. Cool URLs may not change[1], but I think the majority of the internet missed the memo and are content using non-cool URLs :)
-Chad
Hoi, There is only one way to cite a Wikipedia article with a reasonable chance of success and that is by referring to the permalink. Thanks, GerardM
2009/6/15 Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 3:05 PM, genigeniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/15 Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu:
The WMF hosted version is considered a stable copy - it's safe to link
to
and you have every reasonable assumption that it will continue to exist.
The project as a whole to an extent. Individual articles not really.Their habit of being moved merged deleted or otherwise messed with means that they can hardly be considered stable.
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Very true! Plain and simple: URLs on the internet are horribly unstable and make for terribly inaccurate attribution. Cool URLs may not change[1], but I think the majority of the internet missed the memo and are content using non-cool URLs :)
-Chad
[1] http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Gerard Meijssengerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, There is only one way to cite a Wikipedia article with a reasonable chance of success and that is by referring to the permalink. Thanks, GerardM
Which of course renders the historical wikicode through the current parser with current templates, current stylesheets, current image versions, etc., etc. ;-)
-Robert Rohde
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikip...
"We're sorry, access to * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&action=history* has been blocked by the site owner via robots.txt. " Smart..
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:05 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/15 Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu:
The WMF hosted version is considered a stable copy - it's safe to link to and you have every reasonable assumption that it will continue to exist.
The project as a whole to an extent. Individual articles not really.Their habit of being moved merged deleted or otherwise messed with means that they can hardly be considered stable.
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
You are misinterpreting me. I do not want the re-users should include the list of authors. I want we fully accept conditions of CC-BY-SA which guarantees the work will stay free even when everything else collapses.
No, the work itself is not the only important thing. Also the way how rights of authors are treated and the fact the work will stay free for ever are important. There is no way how to separate these three things. If you think otherwise, you did not understand CC-BY-SA.
By choosing a free license, the WMF accepted that its goal is not just providing works but also keeping these works free and caring about the minimal rights of authors.
The fact that the chosen license demands a proper attribution was one of the major reasons of Wikimedia projects' success. Even when so strange license as GFDL was chosen.
BTW: This policy will not be acceptable for most of the articles because they are already created and all their current authors would have to agree with it which is unlikely. I have to ask: Why this is comming? Will it help to make things easier? No, it will make things only more complicated.
Jiri
On Monday, 15. June 2009 21:26:23 Brian wrote:
Not that the conversation isn't worth having, but you should be aware that we've been over every single one of these points at length on this list.
The WMF hosted version is considered a stable copy - it's safe to link to and you have every reasonable assumption that it will continue to exist. If it ceases to exist it's reasonable to assume that someone else will host a stable copy and that redirects will be setup on all of the WMF domains to the new stable copy. Honestly though, this is an apocalypse scenario, in which case the stable copy is the least of your concerns. You seem to be advocating what I consider to be an extremist point of view - that all re-users should include the list of authors. The goal of the WMF is not to give every person access to the list of all authors of the potentially re-used piece of free knowledge they are looking at. It's the knowledge itself that is important, and requiring a list of authors is a serious burden that gets in the way. The hyperlink clause, reasonable to the medium and means, is a more reasonable approach.
Well, either I am misinterpreting you, or you are misinterpreting the CC-BY-SA. This is a great overview: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-March/050953.html
That's all I have..
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Jiri Hofman hofmanj@aldebaran.cz wrote:
You are misinterpreting me. I do not want the re-users should include the list of authors. I want we fully accept conditions of CC-BY-SA which guarantees the work will stay free even when everything else collapses.
No, the work itself is not the only important thing. Also the way how rights of authors are treated and the fact the work will stay free for ever are important. There is no way how to separate these three things. If you think otherwise, you did not understand CC-BY-SA.
By choosing a free license, the WMF accepted that its goal is not just providing works but also keeping these works free and caring about the minimal rights of authors.
The fact that the chosen license demands a proper attribution was one of the major reasons of Wikimedia projects' success. Even when so strange license as GFDL was chosen.
BTW: This policy will not be acceptable for most of the articles because they are already created and all their current authors would have to agree with it which is unlikely. I have to ask: Why this is comming? Will it help to make things easier? No, it will make things only more complicated.
Jiri
On Monday, 15. June 2009 21:26:23 Brian wrote:
Not that the conversation isn't worth having, but you should be aware
that
we've been over every single one of these points at length on this list.
The WMF hosted version is considered a stable copy - it's safe to link to and you have every reasonable assumption that it will continue to exist.
If
it ceases to exist it's reasonable to assume that someone else will host
a
stable copy and that redirects will be setup on all of the WMF domains to the new stable copy. Honestly though, this is an apocalypse scenario, in which case the stable copy is the least of your concerns. You seem to be advocating what I consider to be an extremist point of
view -
that all re-users should include the list of authors. The goal of the WMF
is
not to give every person access to the list of all authors of the potentially re-used piece of free knowledge they are looking at. It's the knowledge itself that is important, and requiring a list of authors is a serious burden that gets in the way. The hyperlink clause, reasonable to
the
medium and means, is a more reasonable approach.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Дана Monday 15 June 2009 22:02:09 Brian написа:
Well, either I am misinterpreting you, or you are misinterpreting the CC-BY-SA. This is a great overview: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-March/050953.html
Actually, I find that overview to be rather poor.
1) It says that "The "attribution by link" option was explicitly made available to authors in CC-BY-SA 2.0", but it was only made available in addition to the attributing the author by name, not instead of it. "Authors also have the option to not supply an author name" but they don't actually have to excercise that option and most people haven't done so.
2) & 3) says that "As long as authors consent to terms of use requiring attribution by hyperlink, such attribution is consistent with moral rights. Such consent has already been given for existing edits", however no such consent has ever been given. To the contrary, a number of printed copies of Wikipedia content that have already been made go to great lengths in order to print lists of authors who wrote the texts in them.
It seems my notice will not be taken in account. OK, I can live with that.
I would like to propose at least one thing which, I hope, can be easily accepted. Let's add a notice to "Terms of Use", warning re-users they should possess a list of authors (for example a database dump) even when they give credits by linking to re-used page for a case of its deleting or disappearance. I feel this can ensure in a reasonable way that the content can stay free even when articles are deleted or WMF closes its business. It seems to be fair to both, authors and re-users. Nobody is forced to keep dumps or lists of users but if someone does not do it, it can mean problems to him. Just a warning that freedom costs and expects something.
Is it possible to add it?
Jiri
Hoi, This would be acceptable when you are shooting on a fixed target. Given the huge amount of changes it is too much to ask for. Thanks, GerardM
2009/6/16 Jiri Hofman hofmanj@aldebaran.cz
It seems my notice will not be taken in account. OK, I can live with that.
I would like to propose at least one thing which, I hope, can be easily accepted. Let's add a notice to "Terms of Use", warning re-users they should possess a list of authors (for example a database dump) even when they give credits by linking to re-used page for a case of its deleting or disappearance. I feel this can ensure in a reasonable way that the content can stay free even when articles are deleted or WMF closes its business. It seems to be fair to both, authors and re-users. Nobody is forced to keep dumps or lists of users but if someone does not do it, it can mean problems to him. Just a warning that freedom costs and expects something.
Is it possible to add it?
Jiri
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I do not understand. About what changes are you talking about? When an article is re-used, it is the fixed target at that time, of course. Everybody can keep the list for the safe of its own business. The WMF should not foreshadow the re-user will be safe with links to WMF's sites for ever. The WMF will not be here for ever.
Jiri
On Tuesday, 16. June 2009 13:22:30 Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, This would be acceptable when you are shooting on a fixed target. Given the huge amount of changes it is too much to ask for. Thanks, GerardM
2009/6/16 Jiri Hofman hofmanj@aldebaran.cz
It seems my notice will not be taken in account. OK, I can live with that.
I would like to propose at least one thing which, I hope, can be easily accepted. Let's add a notice to "Terms of Use", warning re-users they should possess a list of authors (for example a database dump) even when they
give
credits by linking to re-used page for a case of its deleting or disappearance. I feel this can ensure in a reasonable way that the content can stay free even when articles are deleted or WMF closes its business.
It
seems to be fair to both, authors and re-users. Nobody is forced to keep dumps or lists of users but if someone does not do it, it can mean
problems
to him. Just a warning that freedom costs and expects something.
Is it possible to add it?
Jiri
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
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org