[WikiEN-l] There are no pictures in Wikipedia any more

[Rich Holton]

William Pietri wrote:
> Rich Holton wrote:
>> Your question could just as easily be "What group or groups of people 
>> are prevented from learning from Wikipedia when blatant copyright 
>> violations are included?" Many authors would not care, and can always 
>> issue a take-down notice if they do.
>>   
> 
> Again, you haven't answered my question. This time you responded with a 
> straw man. I don't think any serious participant is proposing we accept 
> blatant copyright violations. I'm sure not.
> 
> If you can't name the group of people currently unable to benefit from 
> Wikipedia content because it contains non-GFDL images, could you please 
> just say so?
> 
>> We are also here to encourage the use of free licenses in the process of 
>> building a free encyclopedia.
>>   
> 
> I accept that you're here for that. I just don't think most people are, 
> and from the limited amount I've seen so far, it seems like people with 
> that agenda are trying to force other people to comply with their 
> desires by making the encyclopedia worse.
> 
Your definition of worse. Not mine. Not the Foundation's.

> Personally, I don't have any problem with the agenda of promoting 
> GNU-style freedom. Wikipedia aside, I've contributed to GPL projects and 
> will continue to do so. I'm a fan of and contributor to various 
> free-culture efforts. Free licenses are great. But not so great that 
> it's worth harming Wikipedia articles.
> 
I don't see this as a matter of promoting GNU-style freedom, so much as 
promoting one particular instance of it: A free encyclopedia (or more 
broadly, free educational material).

> And now that I think about it, I'm not sure that this current approach 
> is really doing much to encourage people to get excited about free 
> licenses. The people who were very excited about them are pleased, I'm 
> sure. But from the comments I've seen, it doesn't sound like the image 
> deletions are making anybody say, "Wow, now I see why GNU-style freedom 
> is so great!"
> 
So, because some people don't understand it, we should abandon it?

>> The Mission Statement of the Wikimedia Foundation 
>> (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement) states:
>>
>> The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people 
>> around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free 
>> license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and 
>> globally.
>>
>> When we allow people to use non-free images where a free option exists, 
>> we are "preventing" them from using Wikipedia in the way that the 
>> mission of the foundation explicitly states is a goal. We are not 
>> educating our editors in the use of free materials.
>>   
> 
> Again, this seems consistent with my view that the GFDL is a mechanism 
> to achieve an end, not an end in itself. Even if promoting the GFDL 
> license were a major goal, it would still be a goal, like the goal of 
> collecting all of human knowledge. I'm not seeing the case for harming 
> the primary goal (development and distribution of educational content) 
> in pursuit of a temporary boost to another goal.
> 
>> I am not educated in all the legal issues, but I understand that "fair 
>> use" images creates more legal issues than free licensed images, 
>> especially when you go to distributing to those who do not have access 
>> to the internet. Is distributing to non-internet connected users not 
>> also part of our goal?
>>   
> 
> Well, you're getting closer to naming some actual real-world harm. Can 
> you name people who have not received Wikipedia content because somebody 
> was unable to filter out the images tagged as "fair use" while making an 
> offline distribution?
> 
> And yes, I understand the theoretical issue. I'm just saying that I've 
> not heard of any real-world impact to balance against the real-world 
> impact of making articles worse.
> 
> 
> William
> 
> 
William,

*copied from the original context*
 > If you can't name the group of people currently unable to benefit from
 > Wikipedia content because it contains non-GFDL images, could you please
 > just say so?

Ok, I will answer your question. *I* cannot name a group of people who 
are currently unable to benefit from Wikipedia because it contains 
non-GFDL images. But then, I also cannot name a group of people who are 
currently unable to benefit from Wikipedia if it contained NO images, so 
I'm not certain that proves much.

There are many things that we *could* do that would not prevent people 
from benefiting from Wikipedia. But that does not mean that we should do 
them.

You question presumes that the most important factor is delivering 
encyclopedic content to people who want it. I disagree with that 
presumption. I, and others, believe that there are more important things 
than delivering encyclopedic content--namely the *development* and 
delivery of *free* encyclopedic content.

Let me ask you a question: How does including non-free images in 
Wikipedia help to accomplish the stated mission of the Wikimedia 
Foundation? Or are you effectively saying "screw the foundation"?

-Rich