[Foundation-l] Copyright issues of wikimedia projects

[Daniel Mayer]

--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> ...
> Such developments, in Wikipedia, would often be summarized down to one  
> paragraph or even one sentence ("Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai was killed by  
> unknown assailants on May 30, 2004 [1]"), where the Wikinews article would  
> contain as much detail as possible, quotes from all relevant parties  
> (which we can freely copy from outside sources), speculation about the  
> future impact etc.

Wouldn't Wikipedia want an article on Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai so that we could
give a detailed summary about him? We have already done that with [[Nick Berg]]
and the article about conspiracy theories over his death. I would not like to
see that effort be directed to another project. 

But I concede that many of our other articles which cover current history are
overloaded with what I consider to be needless detail on current events (often
quickly exceeding 30KB, such as the John Kerry article and the article on his
campaign). So, I do see a point in starting Wikinews to lesson the effect of
people giving too detailed of summaries. But we do need a balance and we do
need to be careful when contemplating starting something like Wikinews.  

>....
> I see no such jeopardy. Wikinews and Wikipedia are highly complementary.  
> Where they do similar things - synthesize information from outside sources  
> - they do it with a different level of detail and with a different goal.  

Wikipedia's goal is more expansive than a news reporting service; we must
present all relevant sides to an issue. I'm just not convinced yet that our
recent history update capability has reached the critical mass needed to start
Wikinews yet. So while original reporting would probably start on a Wikinews
project soon after it is started, I fear that that would draw too many people
away who are now working on keeping Wikipedia up-to-date. So while I agree with
much of what you say, I disagree that this would not harm Wikipedia at this
point. 

> ....
> > If and when we get a
> > problem with people giving first hand reports, then we can seriously think
> > about starting Wikinews, IMO.
> 
> That would be a fatal mistake, based on the assumption that people will do  
> stupid things which are clearly not allowed and not wanted on an  
> encyclopedia. 

When the pressure on Wikipedia to start including dictionary entries reached a
certain point we started Wiktionary, when people started to create textbooks in
Wikipedia we started Wikibooks, when quote lists started to get out of hand we
started Wikiquote (although a quote book on Wikibooks may have been a better
idea). Each project thus far has been an organic outgrowth of our flagship
project - Wikipedia. I do believe that Wikinews should follow the same path,
but will leave open the possibility that a future project will be unrelated to
an existing one - its adoption will not need to be looked at with as much
scrutiny. 

Even Wikipeople (a geneology database and memorial) will affect an existing
project - the Sep11wiki. But in that example the Sep11wiki will be transformed
into another project that hopefully will be viable on its own. 

> We should not just start projects to deal with problems on  
> Wikipedia, we should also start them when there is a clear, separate goal  
> which is within the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Not problems, but a loss of focus. Encyclopedias are supposed to cover just
about every imaginable subject, but do so in a certain way. When aspects of
that coverage get in the way of our mission, then we should think about
spinning off a daughter project to cover the topic in a different way. That is
how our current projects started. 

> An "If and when we get a problem" mentality for starting new projects is  
> very, very dangerous. Please think about whether that is really the  
> position you want to adopt.

I most certainly do not want to harm Wikipedia or its sister projects in any
way. If I think that starting a new project is premature, that it would harm a
still developing aspect within Wikipedia or another existing project that we
want (such as updates to recent history articles in Wikipedia), then I will
oppose it until such time as that aspect seems to have matured enough to be a
project on its own without harming the parts we want to keep within the
existing projects. 

Doing so at the right time will ensure that the aspects of that project we want
to have in existing projects will remain viable. Doing so too early, or
creating a project with a very limited scope (such as the Sep11wiki), will
either result in the failure of that project, or the harming of that aspect of
Wikipedia. So yes, I do see any new project through the prism of what it will
do for Wikipedia and other existing projects. I see this as being prudent, not
as being "very, very dangerous."

> ...
> That may well be the case, if you set the limit "We will start Wikinews  
> when people start reporting original news on Wikipedia". That would,  
> however, be a very silly thing to do. In fact, if that is the limit we set  
> for starting Wikinews, it may very well never come to pass, because any  
> attempts at original reporting on Wikipedia will be stopped so quickly  
> that no significant trend to do so can ever develop.

And those people who are being stopped from doing original reporting will
clamor for either letting them do so in Wikipedia or to start Wikinews. They
will form the core group of people needed to start such a project. That is
organic growth. 

> The question we should ask is of course not "When will people start  
> original reporting on Wikipedia?" but "Can we find enough people already  
> to do useful original reporting on Wikinews?". I believe we can. Take a  
> look at Indymedia, which, like Wikipedia, is an international project. It  
> has a far higher traffic ranking than Wikipedia - about 4000 - yet it  
> manages to be present at major world events.

Then advertise the idea for Wikinews to see if there are enough people to start
such a project. We could then have a Wikimedia-wide vote on whether now would
be a good time to start such a project, or if we should wait a while so as not
to run the chance of harming Wikipedia's ability to stay up-to-date.

>...
> You don't need a large pool of journalists to be useful, a small but  
> growing pool is already good enough. If in our first weeks our original  
> reporting only covers Linux conferences, kernel releases and baseball  
> events, that doesn't matter. That's how Wikipedia started out - we didn't  
> wait until we had people from all fields of knowledge.

Starting small is fine, starting too early is not. We need to determine if now
is a good time to start such a project. 

> > Free content is not free when it cannot be freely copied back and forth
> > between the source and the derivative work.
> 
> It's not that simple. When dealing with licenses, you're dealing with a  
> mix of freedoms which can be balanced and juggled to reach various goals.

My goal is to help put a representation all human knowledge under terms that
ensure its freedom. That goal is not served when we use licenses that allow for
non-free derivative works. 

> That's because in a New York Times article, you have no other choice - you  
> can't just say "Oh, and if you want to know more about who that cleric is,  
> check out Wikipedia" because people can't easily get to Wikipedia from the  
> printed newspaper. Wikinews would include background information, but it  
> would be typically a summary of Wikipedia - "Nizamuddin Shamzai was a pro- 
> Taliban cleric who had called for a holy war against the United States;  
> see the Wikipedia article for details." Thus it would be somewhere between  
> "no background information" and "the level of background information of a  
> good printed newspaper article."

I guess Wikinews could get by with just summarizing the background and
providing a link to the Wikipedia article. Thank you for making the distinction
clear. 

> > "Any document licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License version 2.0
> > or any later version that does not contain Invariant Sections, Front-Cover
> > Texts, or Back-Cover Texts, can be licensed under the GNU Free Content
> > License version 1.0 or any later version."
> 
> That's all nice and good, but it doesn't address the main problem - all  
> existing documents which meet these conditions would be affected. How many  
> of these documents are there? I have no idea. Do you? Unfortunately, there  
> is no central registry of FDL texts. I believe that the FSF will only  
> agree to such a change if we can demonstrate that no harm to existing  
> materials will result.

We are, by far, the largest user of the GNU FDL so I for one am willing to work
with the FSF on this and will not just assume they will say no. There is also
always a public comment period as part of any FSF license change. 

>...
> Even if we start with the FDL or FCL, we may want to have a clause in our  
> submission standards that states that content may also be licensed under  
> any other free content license (as in free distribution and free  
> modification) chosen by the Wikimedia Foundation in the future - a kind of  
> "opt-out" clause for the copyleft principle if it can be shown to hurt us  
> more than it helps us.

If legal, I would support that but would use the FSF's definition of free
content. 

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/