Shoombooly schreef:
This is why i
emailed to this list int he first place, to find out IF there is a
rewuirement within the foundation to encourage finding sources and
references, and if there is a rule about images that applies to all wikis.
There *is* a rule about images that applies to all
wikipedias, and it's given in the first point of the resolution on
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy .
You may be interested to know that it is the Dutch policy that is the
universal one. The English image licensing policy is only allowed as an
exception (an EDP).
I find it odd that the dutch wikipedia is bound by
Florida law, but in
its own policy thinks it is bound by Dutch copyright law, even when it
isn't!
I'm pretty sure it doesn't think that it's bound by Dutch law, but that
it finds it useful to *pretend* to be bound by Dutch law. See my earlier
mail.
No-one
has yet explained to me why that is,
I gave 3 good reasons for the Dutch policy, see my earlier mail. As you
perhaps do not remember it, you can reread it at
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-June/075184.html
and no-one has said so far whether or
nbot wikimedia is trying to get fair use permission from large corporations
to prevent legal trouble int he future.
This is a misconception about fair use: you do not need permission to
use an image as fair use, as long as you comply with the conditions
stated in the U.S. copyright law. I think I've read arguments that
seeking permission actually makes your claim weaker in one way or the
other; details escape me at the moment.
If you do not comply with the fair use conditions, you do need to seek
permission; but just permission to use an image on Wikipedia is not free
enough, and it's not easy convincing large corporations to release their
archives (which are often an important asset for them) under the GFDL or
CC-SA.
English articles of less significance might be less
well sources, but at
least most of them have some sources, the dutch almost never use sources.
This has nothing to do with the age of the wiki, but all with the attitude
of the leadership and writing staff.
I don't know if you meant that, but Wikipedia does not have a writing
staff. We're all volunteers. (At least, those few of us who are paid by
"Wikipedia" are not writing any content, it seems.)
Furthermore i read on some userpages that people feel
like "intellectuals"
are being chased away in favor of the "everyone should contribute" attitude.
Of course everyone should be able to contribute, but this way it is an
unbalanced culture of quantity over quality.
I'm not trying to scare you away or anything, but are you familiar with
Citizendium? It may be just the thing you'd like: Wikipedia, but with
strict rules on contributors and articles. Personally, I think this
removes exactly the thing that made Wikipedia a success: the ease of
entry, the acceptance of editors from a very wide range of backgrounds
with a large variety of interests. But you sound like you agree with
CZ's founder on a lot of points.
I could write dozens of
articles filled with factual inaccuracies or lies without having to quote
any sources. And unless someone saw it and was willing to fix it, it would
stay that way.
This is true. On the other hand, you could write dozens of nonsense
articles while quoting a large number of (imaginary) sources. Unless
someone saw it, recognized the sourcing as nonsense, and was willing to
fix it...
People have actually tried this and made a string of
articles
about a sport that didn't exist, hundreds of pages of bull, and it took a
year to finally figure it out, and that only because a dedicated individual
pieced it all together. The persons who pulled this prank admitted it was to
test the error-finding capability of wikipedia. This was rather innocent,
but it could happen with more serious topics.
And it wouldn't have helped to have a strict sourcing requirement, as
they would have made up some "hard-to-get" books as sources; if the
articles weren't recognized as nonsense, the sources wouldn't have
either. Unless you have a strict program of checking all references and
removing content with hard to find sources...
Maybe it's just me, but i don't think this is
a good situation.
Maybe it's just me, but these somewhat lax requirements for editing have
made Wikipedia what it is now, and I think it's a damned good
encyclopedia.
Eugene