[Foundation-l] Copyright issues of wikimedia projects

[Erik Moeller]

Daniel-

>> 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?

Yes, of course. The hypothetical sentence above would be in that article.  
In an encyclopedic biography, one single event in a person's life will  
often be just one sentence. A Wikinews article on that same event, on the  
other hand, could be very detailed.

> 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

Yes, but even in these cases, the individual news items are much shorter  
than the respective Wikinews articles would be. The [[John Kerry]] article  
is a good example:

"On March 11, after meetings with Democratic superdelegates in Washington  
and with former opponents Howard Dean and John Edwards, Kerry accumulated  
the 2,162 delegates required to clinch the nomination."

This one sentence in the article would be a fairly long article on  
Wikinews: [[Kerry meets with Dean, Edwards; clinches nomination - March  
11, 2004]]. This would include concession quotes, details on recently  
finished contests, photos from the events etc. If you already think the  
article about the campaign is overloaded now - imagine if all that other  
stuff would be added, too!

> 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.

I see your point, but I think this fear is justified only in the sense  
that some Wikipedia contributors may choose to spend their time on  
Wikinews instead of Wikipedia; this argument can be used against any new  
project. The tasks themselves are very different - and, if we use fully  
compatible licenses (which of course I also would hope for if at all  
possible), any useful information can be copied back and forth.

> When the pressure on Wikipedia to start including dictionary entries reached
> a certain point ..

Yes, I fully realize where you're coming from. Our past is however not  
necessarily representative for our future. While pressure alone is a good  
reason to consider starting a spin-off project, it is not the only reason  
for the Wikimedia Foundation, with its focus of creating free educational  
content. The reason it *was* the only reason in the past is that the  
organizational identity of Wikimedia is developing as we write this.

The difference here is that while we have clear rules against original  
research/reporting on Wikipedia, the *pressure* to do it regardless is  
much lower and will probably always remain so.

For every new project, we should answer a few questions:
- Is this within our mission to educate?
- Can this be usefully done using a wiki?
- Will we be able to reach a critical mass?
- Can this be better done within an existing project?
...

The question "Is there pressure from an existing project to do this?"
serves to underscore the project priority, but even if there was pressure  
from our existing projects to do something like, say, build a Micronation  
Wiki, that doesn't necessarily mean that we would want to do it (although,  
given the example of the conlangs, this seems to be increasingly the  
case).

> 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."

It is prudent, and it is not what I was referring to as dangerous. What I  
refer to as dangerous is a position where we *only* start a project when  
the pressure from existing projects is too high. Perhaps one should  
substitute "pressure from existing projects" with "pressure from the  
community". I absolutely agree with you that there should be a clear and  
visible interest from the larger Wikimedia Community in a Wikinews  
project. Any overlap with existing projects is important. And the question  
whether Wikinews should be launched may be a first test case for a newly  
defined voting process for new projects.

> And those people who are being stopped from doing original reporting will
> clamor for either letting them do so in Wikipedia

Therein lies your fallacy. I - and others, I believe - would never  
advocate original reporting in Wikipedia because I do not want to harm  
Wikipedia. Plausible arguments can be made that dictionary defs, source  
documents, quotations etc. belong in an encyclopedia. Encarta has a source  
library, for example, and it has a built-in dictionary. But no plausible  
argument can be made that an encyclopedia should do original reporting a  
la CNN, the New York Times or Linux News.

Thus, while I am actively advocating a news project, I would *never* use  
Wikipedia as my platform of advocacy. It is not closely related enough to  
justify that. This ties in to my point above that pressure from an  
existing project alone may often be sufficient, but it is not *necessary*  
to start a new one.

> Then advertise the idea for Wikinews to see if there are enough people to
> start such a project.

I will do this as soon as the Wikimedia Commons is launched (unless  
someone else preemtps me, of course). One project at a time..

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

I agree that we need to gauge if there's interest before we do it.

> 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.

My goal is to find a good balance between building free educational  
content and exposing people to said content. Obviously each of these  
components is important. The best way to serve this goal may be a copyleft  
license, but in an instance where we can gain tenfold exposure by adopting  
a non-copyleft license, this is something I think we must consider.

I am not opposed to copyleft per se. I just don't want to subscribe to a  
dogma. The copyleft vs. attribution-only debate is older than this thread,  
and there are good arguments on both sides.

> We are, by far, the largest user of the GNU FDL so I for one am willing to
> work with the FSF

So am I, of course, and I believe everyone else in this discussion as  
well. A new version of the FDL or an FCL has the potential of tremendously  
improving our current situation. There are reasonable people in the FSF  
and I hope they will listen to our side of the story. Let's just not  
assume the FCL will become a reality and prepare for the case that it  
won't. A free content license migration clause for new projects would be a  
good start - we can get rid of that clause if it turns out to be  
unnecessary.

Regards,

Erik