[Foundation-l] a new free image!

[Robert Horning]

Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 3/1/07, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
>   
>> The idea that each one of the 200 or so
>> "active" Wikimedia projects will each have to submit some sort of "EDP"
>> to legal counsel, overcoming language and local legal issues too, seems
>> to be something so absurd as to be unworkable as well.
>>     
>
> There is absolutely no requirement for any project to develop an EDP.
> They may simply not use any kind of "fair use" material until they do
> so. Some may never want to do so.
>
> The requirement to work directly with WMF counsel in the process is
> not in the current draft resolution. However, we will probably try to
> form a volunteer team (committee or workgroup) that coordinates this
> process.
>   
This is effectively banning fair use from all but the absolutely most 
active projects and mandating that there is no fair use.  It also 
doesn't deal at all with existing content which has claimed fair use and 
has been a part of the Wikimedia culture from nearly the very beginning 
of Wikipedia, right or wrong.  This also adds a major requirement for 
those smaller projects that are for the most part still struggling to 
even get participants at all.

The language issues are something that is going to be very substantial.  
I don't know how many WMF counselors (or attorneys) that speak 
Indonesian or Thai, but trying to come up with such a policy seems that 
it would offer several cultural problems that translation may not 
completely catch.  This isn't quite as simple of a proposition as is 
being suggested here.

In addition, what would happen if a project allows fair use (the admins 
don't delete the content and are insisting on keeping it in the 
projects) but hasn't submitted this EDP?  Is the WMF prepared to "pull 
the plug" and kill the project completely?  That seems to be the threat 
that is offered here, and is certainly something very confrontational in 
nature that goes against the traditional tone of the relationship 
between the WMF and individual projects.  Particularly when this is a 
policy that is coming from the top down and is a change in the rules 
from what has been traditionally permitted in the very recent past.  I'm 
not saying that the WMF can't do this in a legal sense, but this sort of 
roughshod micromanagement of individual projects is the sort of thing 
that kills project communities, especially when there are additional 
language and cultural barriers that would make this issue even more 
complex to deal with.

Wikibooks has survived, rather poorly unfortunately, this exact sort of 
micromanagement from the top and still hasn't recovered the previous 
momentium it had before some massive culling of content that has taken 
place over the previous year.  And that was for Wikibooks-specific 
content policies.  I see this becoming a major issue if it is not dealt 
with on a grass-roots level first involving a great many people from all 
of the major Wikimedia projects.

-- Robert Horning