[Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
70 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

Yann Forget-3
Hi,

Some Commons contributors like to ask impossible requirements, and
threaten to delete files if these are not met. We have now a case of
famous pictures from the government of Israel and Israel Defense
Forces.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#Files_and_pages_that_were_deleted_by_User:Fastily_that_I_am_aware_of_them
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beba_Idelson_Ada_Maimon1952.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abba_Hushi_1956.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aharon_Meskin_-_Ben_Gurion_-_Israel_Prize1960.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Avraham_Shlonsky_1952.jpg

These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured
pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia. These files have already been
deleted and restored 3 times. When the URAA issue was not convincing
enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication
details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can
understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they
were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition,
publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in
Israel.

After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a
delete-only account:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Yann
There, more contributors argue on this issue.

By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these
contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will
lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons.
Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is
gone.

Instead of looking for a reason to destroy these files, they should
try to find a reason to keep them.

Regards,

Yann

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

Lodewijk
Hi Yann,

While we can have a different discussion about methods used and tone
applied, if I understand correctly the core argument/discussion point here
is the question whether US law applies to Commons or not; more
specifically: whether a picture that is (likely?) not in the Public Domain
in the US, but is in the public domain in its 'source country' should be
considered 'free' or not.

This is a returning discussion, and I'm always confused what exactly the
answer is to that. The discussion is equally valid for any content project
actually - all being hosted in the US. It would be good to have a more
fundamental answer to it, and then follow it.

Whether or not the nominating account is a 'delete only' account etc. is
less relevant to this discussion. The core question remains the same. It is
a bit technocrat, I know.

I thought this question was already put for the WMF legal team as a
question, but I wasn't able to find so quickly whether a useful reply
resulted from that consultation.

Lodewijk


2014-06-17 1:34 GMT+02:00 Yann Forget <[hidden email]>:

> Hi,
>
> Some Commons contributors like to ask impossible requirements, and
> threaten to delete files if these are not met. We have now a case of
> famous pictures from the government of Israel and Israel Defense
> Forces.
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#Files_and_pages_that_were_deleted_by_User:Fastily_that_I_am_aware_of_them
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beba_Idelson_Ada_Maimon1952.jpg
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abba_Hushi_1956.jpg
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aharon_Meskin_-_Ben_Gurion_-_Israel_Prize1960.jpg
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Avraham_Shlonsky_1952.jpg
>
> These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured
> pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia. These files have already been
> deleted and restored 3 times. When the URAA issue was not convincing
> enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication
> details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can
> understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they
> were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition,
> publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in
> Israel.
>
> After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a
> delete-only account:
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Yann
> There, more contributors argue on this issue.
>
> By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these
> contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will
> lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons.
> Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is
> gone.
>
> Instead of looking for a reason to destroy these files, they should
> try to find a reason to keep them.
>
> Regards,
>
> Yann
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

Yann Forget-3
Hi,

2014-06-17 15:07 GMT+05:30 Lodewijk <[hidden email]>:
> Hi Yann,
>
> While we can have a different discussion about methods used and tone
> applied, if I understand correctly the core argument/discussion point here
> is the question whether US law applies to Commons or not; more
> specifically: whether a picture that is (likely?) not in the Public Domain
> in the US, but is in the public domain in its 'source country' should be
> considered 'free' or not.

No, the issue is not US law. The issue is the ridiculous requirements
coming from some contributors.

The issue is that these contributors use the US law as a pretext
asking for deletion again and again, when there is no reason to doubt
that they were published. Looking at their demands, it seems that they
would ask anything based on any law.

> This is a returning discussion, and I'm always confused what exactly the
> answer is to that. The discussion is equally valid for any content project
> actually - all being hosted in the US. It would be good to have a more
> fundamental answer to it, and then follow it.
>
> Whether or not the nominating account is a 'delete only' account etc. is
> less relevant to this discussion. The core question remains the same. It is
> a bit technocrat, I know.

The same user first argue for deletion because of URAA, and when it
was not successful, ask again for deletion using another reason.
Actually, this account does not produce anything useful. The only
contributions are requests for deletions on controversial cases like
this one.
Looking for real copyright violations is useful, but arguing again and
again on borderline cases is not.

> I thought this question was already put for the WMF legal team as a
> question, but I wasn't able to find so quickly whether a useful reply
> resulted from that consultation.
>
> Lodewijk

Regards,

Yann

> 2014-06-17 1:34 GMT+02:00 Yann Forget <[hidden email]>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Some Commons contributors like to ask impossible requirements, and
>> threaten to delete files if these are not met. We have now a case of
>> famous pictures from the government of Israel and Israel Defense
>> Forces.
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#Files_and_pages_that_were_deleted_by_User:Fastily_that_I_am_aware_of_them
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beba_Idelson_Ada_Maimon1952.jpg
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abba_Hushi_1956.jpg
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aharon_Meskin_-_Ben_Gurion_-_Israel_Prize1960.jpg
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Avraham_Shlonsky_1952.jpg
>>
>> These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured
>> pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia. These files have already been
>> deleted and restored 3 times. When the URAA issue was not convincing
>> enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication
>> details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can
>> understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they
>> were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition,
>> publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in
>> Israel.
>>
>> After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a
>> delete-only account:
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Yann
>> There, more contributors argue on this issue.
>>
>> By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these
>> contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will
>> lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons.
>> Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is
>> gone.
>>
>> Instead of looking for a reason to destroy these files, they should
>> try to find a reason to keep them.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Yann

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

Tomasz Ganicz
In reply to this post by Lodewijk
The discussion about it was already performed:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAA

with final consensus that "URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for
deletion". However this consensus (a rough one) was questioned by a
small, but very active group of Commons users. Actually this group of
users - which is not easy to define - as people change their mind over
time, was quite long time creating a sort of main spirit of the
regulations of Commons, and it was very first time for quite long,
that their , somehow extreme POV wasn't accepted.


2014-06-17 11:37 GMT+02:00 Lodewijk <[hidden email]>:

> Hi Yann,
>
> While we can have a different discussion about methods used and tone
> applied, if I understand correctly the core argument/discussion point here
> is the question whether US law applies to Commons or not; more
> specifically: whether a picture that is (likely?) not in the Public Domain
> in the US, but is in the public domain in its 'source country' should be
> considered 'free' or not.
>
> This is a returning discussion, and I'm always confused what exactly the
> answer is to that. The discussion is equally valid for any content project
> actually - all being hosted in the US. It would be good to have a more
> fundamental answer to it, and then follow it.
>
> Whether or not the nominating account is a 'delete only' account etc. is
> less relevant to this discussion. The core question remains the same. It is
> a bit technocrat, I know.
>
> I thought this question was already put for the WMF legal team as a
> question, but I wasn't able to find so quickly whether a useful reply
> resulted from that consultation.
>
> Lodewijk
>
>
> 2014-06-17 1:34 GMT+02:00 Yann Forget <[hidden email]>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Some Commons contributors like to ask impossible requirements, and
>> threaten to delete files if these are not met. We have now a case of
>> famous pictures from the government of Israel and Israel Defense
>> Forces.
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#Files_and_pages_that_were_deleted_by_User:Fastily_that_I_am_aware_of_them
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beba_Idelson_Ada_Maimon1952.jpg
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abba_Hushi_1956.jpg
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aharon_Meskin_-_Ben_Gurion_-_Israel_Prize1960.jpg
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Avraham_Shlonsky_1952.jpg
>>
>> These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured
>> pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia. These files have already been
>> deleted and restored 3 times. When the URAA issue was not convincing
>> enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication
>> details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can
>> understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they
>> were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition,
>> publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in
>> Israel.
>>
>> After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a
>> delete-only account:
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Yann
>> There, more contributors argue on this issue.
>>
>> By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these
>> contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will
>> lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons.
>> Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is
>> gone.
>>
>> Instead of looking for a reason to destroy these files, they should
>> try to find a reason to keep them.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Yann
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

Fæ
On 17/06/2014, Tomasz Ganicz <[hidden email]> wrote:
> with final consensus that "URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for
> deletion"...

This is a selective quote, missing the explicit caveat that:
"Deleted files can be restored after a discussion in COM:UDR."

If the process is being followed correctly, there should be an
established specific consensus via an undeletion request, *before* an
administrator action can or should be taken.

Links:
1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAA#Close
2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests

Fae
--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

Osmar Valdebenito-3
If you take a look at the undeletion requests after the URAA discussion,
most of the images restored were deleted afterwards anyway.[1][2] The only
exception that I've seen are some German stamps that haven't been deleted
(yet).
The problem is that, at this moment, most of the people whose valid images
were quickly deleted and re-deleted are tired and have no intention to
start again defending their contributions when they will be deleted no
matter what.

[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Per%C3%B3n_Funeral.jpg
[2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2014-05#Files%20of%20Category:Ra%C3%BAl%20Alfons%C3%ADn



2014-06-17 10:31 GMT-04:00 Fæ <[hidden email]>:

> On 17/06/2014, Tomasz Ganicz <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > with final consensus that "URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for
> > deletion"...
>
> This is a selective quote, missing the explicit caveat that:
> "Deleted files can be restored after a discussion in COM:UDR."
>
> If the process is being followed correctly, there should be an
> established specific consensus via an undeletion request, *before* an
> administrator action can or should be taken.
>
> Links:
> 1.
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAA#Close
> 2.
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests
>
> Fae
> --
> [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

George William Herbert
We need an Uncommons, where the strict open license / PD rules are abandoned and we accept images as long as their fair use can be established.  And don't delete unless that fair use is credibly questioned.

Conflating and comingling our educational role with open content advocacy was always risky and is proving impossible.  Without devaluing open content, we need to separately support fair use for educational purposes, and stop letting cross-project advocacy games screw with our educational mission.

Third parties may or may not be able to re-redistribute, but we simply put it up with an explicit "reuse at your own risk".

I don't recall if the code which handles finding images at Commons can take a search path of multiple alternate image sources; if so, I would like to propose Uncommons as a project, initial central file upload default target replacement for Commons, and putting it in said search path.

This has gone on too long.


-george william herbert
[hidden email]

Sent from Kangphone

On Jun 17, 2014, at 7:47 AM, Osmar Valdebenito <[hidden email]> wrote:

> If you take a look at the undeletion requests after the URAA discussion,
> most of the images restored were deleted afterwards anyway.[1][2] The only
> exception that I've seen are some German stamps that haven't been deleted
> (yet).
> The problem is that, at this moment, most of the people whose valid images
> were quickly deleted and re-deleted are tired and have no intention to
> start again defending their contributions when they will be deleted no
> matter what.
>
> [1]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Per%C3%B3n_Funeral.jpg
> [2]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2014-05#Files%20of%20Category:Ra%C3%BAl%20Alfons%C3%ADn
>
>
>
> 2014-06-17 10:31 GMT-04:00 Fæ <[hidden email]>:
>
>> On 17/06/2014, Tomasz Ganicz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> with final consensus that "URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for
>>> deletion"...
>>
>> This is a selective quote, missing the explicit caveat that:
>> "Deleted files can be restored after a discussion in COM:UDR."
>>
>> If the process is being followed correctly, there should be an
>> established specific consensus via an undeletion request, *before* an
>> administrator action can or should be taken.
>>
>> Links:
>> 1.
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAA#Close
>> 2.
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests
>>
>> Fae
>> --
>> [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

David Gerard-2
On 17 June 2014 16:26, George William Herbert <[hidden email]> wrote:

> We need an Uncommons, where the strict open license / PD rules are abandoned and we accept images as long as their fair use can be established.  And don't delete unless that fair use is credibly questioned.


Grant to WikiLivres, add it as a foreign repo.


> Conflating and comingling our educational role with open content advocacy was always risky and is proving impossible.  Without devaluing open content, we need to separately support fair use for educational purposes, and stop letting cross-project advocacy games screw with our educational mission.


This is the root of the problem.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

Emmanuel Engelhart-5
In reply to this post by George William Herbert
On 17.06.2014 17:26, George William Herbert wrote:
> We need an Uncommons, where the strict open license / PD rules are abandoned and we accept images as long as their fair use can be established.  And don't delete unless that fair use is credibly questioned.
>
> Conflating and comingling our educational role with open content advocacy was always risky and is proving impossible.  Without devaluing open content, we need to separately support fair use for educational purposes, and stop letting cross-project advocacy games screw with our educational mission.
>
> Third parties may or may not be able to re-redistribute, but we simply put it up with an explicit "reuse at your own risk".

"reuse at your own risk" = "risky" = "no reuse for most actors"
Well done!

Emmanuel
--
Kiwix - Wikipedia Offline & more
* Web: http://www.kiwix.org
* Twitter: https://twitter.com/KiwixOffline
* more: http://www.kiwix.org/wiki/Communication

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

Austin Hair
In reply to this post by George William Herbert
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:26 PM, George William Herbert
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Conflating and comingling our educational role with open content advocacy was always risky and is proving impossible.  Without devaluing open content, we need to separately support fair use for educational purposes, and stop letting cross-project advocacy games screw with our educational mission.

This is the most intelligent thing I've seen said on this list in a while.

Austin

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

George William Herbert
In reply to this post by Emmanuel Engelhart-5



On Jun 17, 2014, at 8:37 AM, Emmanuel Engelhart <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 17.06.2014 17:26, George William Herbert wrote:
>> We need an Uncommons, where the strict open license / PD rules are abandoned and we accept images as long as their fair use can be established.  And don't delete unless that fair use is credibly questioned.
>>
>> Conflating and comingling our educational role with open content advocacy was always risky and is proving impossible.  Without devaluing open content, we need to separately support fair use for educational purposes, and stop letting cross-project advocacy games screw with our educational mission.
>>
>> Third parties may or may not be able to re-redistribute, but we simply put it up with an explicit "reuse at your own risk".
>
> "reuse at your own risk" = "risky" = "no reuse for most actors"
> Well done!

Not my problem.

Educational role.


-george william herbert
[hidden email]

Sent from Kangphone


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

Pete Forsyth-2
In reply to this post by George William Herbert
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:26 AM, George William Herbert <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Conflating and comingling our educational role with open content advocacy
> was always risky and is proving impossible.


Insightful point. (We have a similar situation with our competing values of
privacy and clear disclosure.[1])

 Without devaluing open content, we need to separately support fair use for
> educational purposes, and stop letting cross-project advocacy games screw
> with our educational mission.
>

Can you clarify -- who do you intend by "we"? If your answer is "English
Wikipedia," I think we already have a somewhat workable solution to this
complex problem: fair use is permitted in certain cases.[2] Of course, you
probably mean something broader. But the solution English Wikipedia has
chosen is available, by virtue of a WMF resolution,[3] to every Wikimedia
project. So if fair use is the issue, why not simply propose permitting it
at specific local projects?

>
> Third parties may or may not be able to re-redistribute, but we simply put
> it up with an explicit "reuse at your own risk".
>

Indeed, and copyright is not the only thing impacting whether or not
something can be reused. Personality rights, trademarks, patents, and
common courtesy are all things that might impact reuse, even for a file
that is fully in the public domain (i.e., not protected by copyright) in
every jurisdiction on the planet. "reuse at your own risk" is a principle
we can never broadly disavow.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

[1] I blogged about this topic here:
http://ournewmind.wordpress.com/2008/05/14/anonymity-and-public-service/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFUR
[3] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

Yaroslav M. Blanter
In reply to this post by Osmar Valdebenito-3
On 17.06.2014 16:47, Osmar Valdebenito wrote:

> If you take a look at the undeletion requests after the URAA
> discussion,
> most of the images restored were deleted afterwards anyway.[1][2] The
> only
> exception that I've seen are some German stamps that haven't been
> deleted
> (yet).
> The problem is that, at this moment, most of the people whose valid
> images
> were quickly deleted and re-deleted are tired and have no intention to
> start again defending their contributions when they will be deleted no
> matter what.
>

I personally kept several Argentinian flies arguing that the URAA can
not be the sole reason for deletion.

Accidentally, I have one of these FFD nomination pages on my watchlist.
Yesterday it was renominated for the THIRD time by the same user (the
second one was keep as well). And I can not act on it anymore.
Apparently, at some point the user will get an admin with a stricter
interpretation of the policies, and the file gets deleted.

Cheers
Yaroslav

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

Jeevan Jose
"Accidentally, I have one of these FFD nomination pages on my watchlist.
Yesterday it was renominated for the THIRD time by the same user (the
second one was keep as well). And I can not act on it anymore. Apparently,
at some point the user will get an admin with a stricter interpretation of
the policies, and the file gets deleted."

Could you give the DR link? We can think about topic ban him from any URAA
related DRs.

Jee


On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On 17.06.2014 16:47, Osmar Valdebenito wrote:
>
>> If you take a look at the undeletion requests after the URAA discussion,
>> most of the images restored were deleted afterwards anyway.[1][2] The only
>> exception that I've seen are some German stamps that haven't been deleted
>> (yet).
>> The problem is that, at this moment, most of the people whose valid images
>> were quickly deleted and re-deleted are tired and have no intention to
>> start again defending their contributions when they will be deleted no
>> matter what.
>>
>>
> I personally kept several Argentinian flies arguing that the URAA can not
> be the sole reason for deletion.
>
> Accidentally, I have one of these FFD nomination pages on my watchlist.
> Yesterday it was renominated for the THIRD time by the same user (the
> second one was keep as well). And I can not act on it anymore. Apparently,
> at some point the user will get an admin with a stricter interpretation of
> the policies, and the file gets deleted.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

Fæ
In reply to this post by George William Herbert
On 17/06/2014, George William Herbert <[hidden email]> wrote:
> We need an Uncommons, where the strict open license / PD rules are
> abandoned and we accept images as long as their fair use can be
> established.  And don't delete unless that fair use is credibly
> questioned.

There is no such thing as Fair Use copyright in most of the world. I
suggest we save the movement's money, by focusing on *freely reusable*
educational material. This is specified as part of the mission of the
Wikimedia Foundation.[1][2]

If you want to donate material to an "uncommons", many websites
without a strong concern for copyright already exist, there is no need
to create another. They remain unusable for serious educators, writers
or publishers.

Links
1. "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage
people around the world to collect and develop educational content
under a free content license"
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
2. However, the FDC may be more flexible in allowing Wikimedia
chapters to use their significant funds to pay for non-free projects.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round1/WMUK/Progress_report_form/Q1#Request_to_make_changes

Fae
--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

Mark
In reply to this post by George William Herbert
On 6/17/14, 5:52 PM, George William Herbert wrote:

>
>
> On Jun 17, 2014, at 8:37 AM, Emmanuel Engelhart <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 17.06.2014 17:26, George William Herbert wrote:
>>> We need an Uncommons, where the strict open license / PD rules are abandoned and we accept images as long as their fair use can be established.  And don't delete unless that fair use is credibly questioned.
>>>
>>> Conflating and comingling our educational role with open content advocacy was always risky and is proving impossible.  Without devaluing open content, we need to separately support fair use for educational purposes, and stop letting cross-project advocacy games screw with our educational mission.
>>>
>>> Third parties may or may not be able to re-redistribute, but we simply put it up with an explicit "reuse at your own risk".
>> "reuse at your own risk" = "risky" = "no reuse for most actors"
>> Well done!
> Not my problem.
>
> Educational role.
>
>
The whole mission of the movement, including its educational mission, is
*produce freely reusable content*, not just to run a website. Wikipedia
in particular is an open-content encyclopedia, which can be adapted to
many educational and other uses, by Wikimedians and third parties. If
it's not an open-content encyclopedia, for example if Wikipedia articles
make use of provincial American copyright loopholes that render them
illegal to redistribute here in Denmark, imo it has failed in its
educational mission. In my view, the fact that I (an educator not in the
United States) should be able to legally reproduce and distribute
Wikipedia articles, is part of the whole point of an open-content
educational project.

-Mark


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

Yaroslav M. Blanter
In reply to this post by Jeevan Jose
On 17.06.2014 18:13, Jeevan Jose wrote:

> "Accidentally, I have one of these FFD nomination pages on my
> watchlist.
> Yesterday it was renominated for the THIRD time by the same user (the
> second one was keep as well). And I can not act on it anymore.
> Apparently,
> at some point the user will get an admin with a stricter
> interpretation of
> the policies, and the file gets deleted."
>
> Could you give the DR link? We can think about topic ban him from any
> URAA
> related DRs.
>

Sorry, I found the link, and now I see these are two different users,
not just one. My bad.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Portales_Porcel_Olmedo.jpg

Cheers
Yaroslav

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

Todd Allen
In reply to this post by Mark
If we don't maintain the focus on free media, we may as well direct people
to a web image search, all of which is "use at your own risk" anyway, just
like our proposed new repository. Being free content is the Commons value
add over Google Images or the like. Keeping a nonfree image repository
adds... what?

Also, I don't know what "fair use can be established" means. Fair use is
established based on the particular nature of a specific use, so fair use
for what exactly?
On Jun 17, 2014 10:53 AM, "Delirium" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 6/17/14, 5:52 PM, George William Herbert wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 17, 2014, at 8:37 AM, Emmanuel Engelhart <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>  On 17.06.2014 17:26, George William Herbert wrote:
>>>
>>>> We need an Uncommons, where the strict open license / PD rules are
>>>> abandoned and we accept images as long as their fair use can be
>>>> established.  And don't delete unless that fair use is credibly questioned.
>>>>
>>>> Conflating and comingling our educational role with open content
>>>> advocacy was always risky and is proving impossible.  Without devaluing
>>>> open content, we need to separately support fair use for educational
>>>> purposes, and stop letting cross-project advocacy games screw with our
>>>> educational mission.
>>>>
>>>> Third parties may or may not be able to re-redistribute, but we simply
>>>> put it up with an explicit "reuse at your own risk".
>>>>
>>> "reuse at your own risk" = "risky" = "no reuse for most actors"
>>> Well done!
>>>
>> Not my problem.
>>
>> Educational role.
>>
>>
>>  The whole mission of the movement, including its educational mission, is
> *produce freely reusable content*, not just to run a website. Wikipedia in
> particular is an open-content encyclopedia, which can be adapted to many
> educational and other uses, by Wikimedians and third parties. If it's not
> an open-content encyclopedia, for example if Wikipedia articles make use of
> provincial American copyright loopholes that render them illegal to
> redistribute here in Denmark, imo it has failed in its educational mission.
> In my view, the fact that I (an educator not in the United States) should
> be able to legally reproduce and distribute Wikipedia articles, is part of
> the whole point of an open-content educational project.
>
> -Mark
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

George William Herbert
In reply to this post by Pete Forsyth-2
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Pete Forsyth <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Can you clarify -- who do you intend by "we"? If your answer is "English
> Wikipedia," I think we already have a somewhat workable solution to this
> complex problem: fair use is permitted in certain cases.[2] Of course, you
> probably mean something broader. But the solution English Wikipedia has
> chosen is available, by virtue of a WMF resolution,[3] to every Wikimedia
> project. So if fair use is the issue, why not simply propose permitting it
> at specific local projects?


The whole point of Commons is to serve as a central repository of shared
images for Projects to use together.  The same image on en.wikipedia and
ru.wikipedia and es.wikipedia and the dictionaries and books and travel
and...

The failure of Commons is that it's defaulting to a fuzzily defined highest
common denominator on licensing.

What we need here is another shared image repo which is defaulting to the
*lowest* common denominator on licensing.  I.e., somewhere I can stick an
image which is fair usable on en.wikipedia and make it available to all the
other projects, even if it would fail Commons retention criteria.

It is in the combination of "the only common repository" and "highest
common denominator" that Commons fails.  I have no problem with Commons
remaining as-is if we have an alternate lowest-common-denominator image
repo that will automatically be searched for images as Commons is now.


--
-george william herbert
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

George William Herbert
In reply to this post by Todd Allen
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> If we don't maintain the focus on free media, we may as well direct people
> to a web image search, all of which is "use at your own risk" anyway, just
> like our proposed new repository. Being free content is the Commons value
> add over Google Images or the like. Keeping a nonfree image repository
> adds... what?


 It allows free reuse of images which fall under the fair use criteria
between separate Projects, without directly copying them N times between
the projects, which is an obvious and self evident waste of time and disk
space.

If fair use is allowed at all, and it is, then we should support
inter-project reuse on a reasonable basis.  What Commons has become with
its copyright Stazi is no longer acceptable as a component of a project
whose educational goal has always and must remain an equally balanced part
of its total portfolio.

This is not a call to disband Commons; the project and world benefit from
that existing as is.  But we need an alternative to support the educational
mission, reasonable inter-project reuse, and end the endless deletion wars.


--
-george william herbert
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
1234