from_name: Gareth Owen

body:
"Andrew Lih" <alih at hku.hk> writes:

> I don't want to let this stand without comment.  What is your source for
> the fact that China "blocks much of wikipedia"?

I was under the impression that certain subject matters were blocked as a
matter of course.
Can http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989
be accessed?

Incidentally the following is a perfect example of an image used under Fair
Use provision : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tianasquare.jpg
I think wikipedia would be much worse without it.
--
Gareth Owen
"It's not a human or civic right to edit wikipedia."
                                 -- kq cuts to the core of the banning debate


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Richard Stallman

subject: [Wikipedia-l] What would Richard Stallman say?

body:
    We are faced with an issue of convenience versus freedom when we talk
    about licensing images.  Because we are a nonprofit charitable
    organization with an educational mission, we can easily get non-free
    licenses to use images.

This is easily done, but doesn't achieve the goal of building a free
encyclopedia.  There is no help for it; to make a free encyclopedia,
one must stick to materials that are free.

      Because we are a nonprofit charitable
    organization with an educational mission, we can make heavy use of the
    doctrine of "fair use" in the US.

When applicable, this may be a good solution.

      Clause 7 of the license permits us to combine
    independent works, even proprietary works, and this clearly includes
    aggregating images and articles stored on the same server.

This is permitted in the sense that it won't violate the GFDL.  But
when the other work is not free, this is not a solution--not if the
problem is how to make a better free encyclopedia.  Including non-free
images, whether done legally or not, results in a non-free
encyclopedia.

    If that means less images for now, then it means less images for now.
    It also means that we have a very strong incentive to develop free
    alternatives.

Hear, hear!

In many cases, people can creatively find ways to take new photos.

Another idea is to criticize the organization that stands in the way
of using the image desired.  For instance,

  The Foobar company stands in the way of our including a picture of this.

This text, with no link and no details about the image, would name and
shame the Foobar company, but would not help Foobar sell copies of the
image.


from_name: Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen

subject:
nonfree.wikipedia.org (was Re: [Wikipedia-l] What would Richard
	Stallman say?)

body:
IMO, something like this is acceptable - but I would also like to see the
images wrapped with a notice of some kind (a small table?), so visitors know
immediately that they are not inherently part of the article.

And also to produce an incentive for Wikipedia authors to find free
alternatives when it's possible.

-- Daniel

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Optim wrote:

> if I understood well, you suggest having a
> database of fair use images which can be
> hyperlinked from Wikipedia articles but they will
> never be inline.
>
> If I understood correctly then I agree! According
> to my moral standards this is ok. However I
> cannot talk about the law because IANAL.
>
> --Optim
>
>
> --- Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 2004, at 21:08, Delirium wrote:
> > > There is the aggregation defense that has
> > been alluded to, but I think
> > > inserting an image in-line in an article is
> > clearly making it part of
> > > the article as one work, not merely
> > distributing it on the same
> > > medium.  If all the images were on separate
> > pages (as in an appendix,
> > > perhaps), then that'd be another matter.
> >
> > On that note, a question for the folks who
> > aren't willing to give up
> > "fair use images": would an 'appendix' system
> > be acceptable to you?
> >
> > What I'm envisioning is an associated site to
> > which non-PD non-GFDL
> >
> but-probably-ok-under-fair-use-for-a-non-profit-encyclopedia
> > could be
> > uploaded and linked _from there_ to Wikipedia
> > article names. The page
> > display on *.wikipedia.org could see when
> > there's an associated page
> > and include a more or less prominent link to
> > the photo/media page. (For
> > those familiar with Ward's Wiki, this would be
> > similar to how
> > SisterSites links work.)
> >
> > To summarize:
> > * images which can only be justified as "fair
> > use" (for some uses, in
> > the US only) would not be uploaded to Wikipedia
> > itself, embedded in
> > Wikipedia articles, or included in basic
> > Wikipedia page/media dumps
> > * but those images could be made available
> > through Wikimedia's sites
> > (for acceptably fair use, in the US) and
> > hyperlinked to Wikipedia
> > articles (not inline)
> > * redistributors who determined the images were
> > ok could still take them
> > * redistributors who might not be able to use
> > them don't have to mess
> > with it
> >
> > Would this be acceptable from legal, moral, and
> > other standpoints?
> >
> > -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
> >
>
> > ATTACHMENT part 1.2 application/pgp-signature
> x-mac-type=70674453; name=PGP.sig
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
> http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


list: wikien-l

from_name: Abe Sokolov

subject: [WikiEN-l] Hector vs. VV/RickK proxy flame wars

body:
I?ve been trying unsuccessfully to keep the recent changes list from looking
lik this: HectorRodriguez's reversion of VeryVerily's additions to [[mass
murder]], RickK's reversions of HectorRodriguez's reversions,
HectorRodriguez's reversions of VeryVerily's reversions of HectorRodriguez's
reversion, RickK's reversions of HectorRodriguez's reversions of
VeryVerily's reversions of HectorRodriguez's of [[Manuel Noriega]],
[[Panama]], [[History of Panama]], [[Communist Party of France]], [[Saddam
Hussein]], [[mass murder]], and countless other articles.

In effect, RickK and VV have been automatically (and arbitrarily) reverting
every single edit by Hector, subjecting him to a policy of auto revert
reserved only for hard-banned trolls - a recipe for edit wars. On a positive
note, RickK showed signs of agreeing to change his tactics in a recent edit
to the Saddam page, which addressed content issues without the ad hominems.
VV, however, still feels no need to defend his edits with counter-arguments
backed up by factual evidence on the talk pages. He calls Hector a vandal,
which he feels is sufficient reason to delete any edit by this user. When I
try to give him advice for avoiding edit wars, he attacks me incessantly and
refuses to contemplate his own biases.

Someone else has to put a stop to these silly ideological proxy battles. I
keep on failing to steer the discussion toward content issues.

See my comments on [[Talk:Saddam Hussein]], [[Talk:Manuel Noriega]], and
[[Talk:Mass murder]] for further details.

User:172

_________________________________________________________________
Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee when you click here.
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikitech-l] can't view Wikipedia with Safari

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

> On Feb 18, 2004, at 13:46, David Friedland wrote:
> >I get the following error while trying to view Wikipedia in Safari:
> >
> >
Sorry- we have a problem...

> >
> >
The current access rules don't allow this request.

> >    The most likely reason is that your User-Agent is blocked:
>
> Safari certainly isn't blocked; it's my primary browser!

Yeah, me too.


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Preservation of context.

body:
You may reasonably expect the other party to also defend their edits.

Fred

> From: Sascha Noyes <lists at pantropy.net>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:36:51 -0500
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Preservation of context.
>
> On Wednesday 18 February 2004 04:22 pm, Plautus Satire wrote:
>> I really despise having to appeal to the masses just to use wikipedia as
>> any other person is doing right at this very moment. Having to continually
>> and constantly defend each and every single edit, no matter how trivial, is
>> really tiresome. What is causing all "the problems" on wikipedia? Is it
>> people like me?
>
> Yes
>
>> Or is it the frustration I'm sure many have endured of
>> being banned and moderated for hurting somebody's feelings with the truth?
>
> No. This is precisely the wrong attitude. If what constitutes the "truth" is
> under contention, then simply stating that you are the bearer of the supreme
> and only truth will lead nowhere except reversion wars. What is needed is
> backing up with evidence and citations. Which you seem to describe as
> "constantly defend each and every single edit".
>
> Best,
> Sascha Noyes
> --
> PGP key: http://www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc (KeyID:4990287E)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Three or four problems (Plautus)

body:
Plautus,

1. I figured out today why your posts were being "held for moderation".
It's because you've been e-mailing them to the following addresses:

  English at mail.wikimedia.org;
  Wikipedia at mail.wikimedia.org

Please use wikien-l at Wikipedia.org instead.

2. If there's a choice between preserving context and /quoting someone
out of context/ I'm sure you know which is the better choice. But you
can also simply add your comments at the end of the talk page. Like, "I
think this article should mention beanbag chairs more prominently!" Why
bother to quote others at all, if it's bringing trouble you way?

3. No one has a "right to instantly revert" -- with the possible of
exception of the edits of a hard-banned user. Try to avoid tit-for-tat
thinking: it won't get you anywhere.

4. You wrote, "Having to continually and constantly defend each and
every single edit, no matter how trivial, is really tiresome." If this
has been your experience lately, why not try something that has always
worked for me? Take some time to think about how other contributors
might view your proposed edit; then word it so that they would be
unlikely to object to it. It's not easy to work this way, but it pays
off in the long run.

Best wishes,

Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040220/5b4113dc/attachment.htm


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikipedia-l] free maps?

body:
On [[en:Talk:James Cook]] someone asked for a map of his travels. I could
make such, but I would like to have a map to start from. Are there somewhere
maps available that can be used for cases like this? Would it be an idea to
have a map collection somewhere on Wikipedia to work from?

Andre Engels


subject: [WikiEN-l] Preservation of context.

body:
Without doing hours of research into what Evercat is talking about, I think
that you should while editing talk pages ensure that the posts by others
still make sense (or as least as much as they ever did) when you are done.

Fred

> From: Plautus Satire <plautus at shaw.ca>
> Reply-To: plautus at shaw.ca, English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 21:22:30 +0000
> To: English at mail.wikimedia.org, Wikipedia at mail.wikimedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Preservation of context.
>
> It seems there is a proven effective tactic that was used once already to get
> me banned and is now being used again. Evercat is insisting that I must
> preserve all the context in every message on every talk page when I insert
> material. I must not only defend my own positions now but also protect and
> defend the positions of others. I have had many posts broken up by the
> responses from others. Do I have a right to reversion all of their edits then
> ask for their immediate banning if in ten minutes they are still trying to put
> THEIR OWN COMMENTS in context?
>
> I really despise having to appeal to the masses just to use wikipedia as any
> other person is doing right at this very moment. Having to continually and
> constantly defend each and every single edit, no matter how trivial, is really
> tiresome. What is causing all "the problems" on wikipedia? Is it people like
> me? Or is it the frustration I'm sure many have endured of being banned and
> moderated for hurting somebody's feelings with the truth?
>
> Honestly I have to say if the sorts Evercat is complaining about are bannable
> offenses, Evercat, show your evidence here. Let us all see what you're so
> uptight about, before you get me banned again.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [Wikipedia-l] free maps?

body:
engelsAG at t-online.de (Andre Engels) writes:

> Are there somewhere maps available that can be used for cases like this?

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/docs/refmaps.html

--
Gareth Owen
"I love the wikipedia, but sometimes I get the impression that certain people
 on this list are very bored, and so argue about something when there's really
 bugger all to argue about. Edit some articles, for god's sake." -- LP


body:
They just admire excellance.

Fred

> From: erik_moeller at gmx.de (Erik Moeller)
> Reply-To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: 20 Feb 2004 18:31:00 +0100
> To: wikitech-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] can't view Wikipedia with Safari
>
> Jimmy-
>>> Safari certainly isn't blocked; it's my primary browser!
>
>> Yeah, me too.
>
> I can't help but be amused that two of the strongest advocates of GNU
> purity in recent days - Brion and Jimbo - are using a nonfree operating
> system.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik (Debian GNU/Linux user)
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] Preservation of context.

body:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Sascha Noyes wrote:

> On Wednesday 18 February 2004 04:22 pm, Plautus Satire wrote:
>
> > Or is it the frustration I'm sure many have endured of
> > being banned and moderated for hurting somebody's feelings with the truth?
>
> No. This is precisely the wrong attitude. If what constitutes the "truth" is
> under contention, then simply stating that you are the bearer of the supreme
> and only truth will lead nowhere except reversion wars. What is needed is
> backing up with evidence and citations. Which you seem to describe as
> "constantly defend each and every single edit".
>
I think this is a postive direction for Wikipedia to move: providing
sources & backup for not only the opinions or judgements presented here --
but also for the facts. Spend a little time in alt.folklore.urban, & you
will see how off-the-cuff surmises can morph into statements "everyone
knows"; study almost any social science in depth, & you will see how
a thesis thrown out by one writer will become a fact in another's paper.

One of the open secrets of 20th century print encyclopedias is that the
material in them was often outdated or incorrect. But since the target
audience was the school kid either looking to find the population & chief
industry of Boise, Idaho, or looking for text to copy into his report
on Flatworms, no one cared.

Even if this process is slower, we can be proud that the result will be
more accurate.

Geoff


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: What would Richard Stallman say?

body:
"Michael Snow" <wikipedia at earthlink.net> schrieb:

> I know that we carefully say that "All text is available under the terms
> of the GNU Free Documentation License", without saying anything about
> the images.

I also see another reason why I want to get rid of this: I see several
copiers who copy Wikipedia articles, keep them under GNU/FDL, but copyright
their layout. Whether this goes against the GNU/FDL or not, it certainly
goes against the _spirit_ of the GNU/FDL. I would like to speak up against
it, but currently I feel we are very weak there, because we do something
very similar ourselves. I would want to change this text to "This article
is available..."

Having said that, I think requiring that the image must be usable for
anyone might be overdoing it. I would say, the article including the image
should be usable for anyone. That is, having the image with a text equal
to or derived from the Wikipedia text should be ok, just taking the image
alone out need not be.

The very least we should do is to flag those images that are not under the
GNU/FDL, not only on the image page, but also on the using page.

Andre Engels


subject: [WikiEN-l] Irismeister again

body:
I protected that talk page. I think this is the first time a talk page
has been protected.

You know, Theresa, if you just didn't answer Iris this thing would have
fizzled out. You don't see me in any edit wars, do you?

Okay, I have a long-running dispute over global warming with a few
folks, but we've managed to keep it fairly good-natured... Did you see
the full page ad in today's New York Times by Al Gore?

Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
	-----Original Message-----
	From: KNOTT, T [mailto:TKNOTT at qcl.org.uk]
	Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 10:34 AM
	To: English Wikipedia
	Subject: [WikiEN-l] Irismeister again

	Irismeister has just been extremely unwelcoming to new users on
the page [[reflexology]]. See the talk page for details. We should ban
him for this alone (without all the other stuff). Being rude to newbies
is inexcusable IMO

	Theresa

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040220/9f0eeda5/attachment.htm


subject: [Wikipedia-l] free maps?

body:
"Gareth Owen" <wiki at gwowen.freeserve.co.uk> schrieb:
> engelsAG at t-online.de (Andre Engels) writes:
>
> > Are there somewhere maps available that can be used for cases like this?
>
> http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/docs/refmaps.html

Ah yes, that's definitely the kind of thing I'm looking for.

Although for Cook the map I want is not there - I need one of the whole
Pacific, or a world map with the split in the Atlantic or in the Indian
Ocean/Asia.

Also, a version without borders would be nice for historical maps, and a
version with less or no text as a base map in general. But I have bookmarked
this one, thanks!

Andre Engels


subject: [WikiEN-l] Irismeister again

body:
I think the situation is calmed down now. I unprotected the page.

Ed

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040220/b925cc2e/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Irismeister again

body:
I'm looking, gimme a chance! I can only read 300 wpm, and then I have to
type replies and click the mouse...

I've been followed around, too. It can be creepy, but I finally figured
out how to deal with it (e-mail me privately for details on my
super-secret stalking-stopper strategy ;-)

Uncle Ed


from_name: Sean Barrett

body:
> If each wikipedian took 10 pictures of the interesting things he visits, I'm
> sure we would not need nonfree pictures any more.

No matter how many pictures I take of the interesting things I visit,
I will never take a picture of Bob Keeshan (1927-2004) -- and you will
not find a free picture of him.


from_name: Sascha Noyes

body:
On Friday 20 February 2004 09:51 am, Gareth Owen wrote:
> Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> writes:
> > Nicolas Weeger wrote:
> > > What about for instance book covers?  They are definitely not
> > > something you can usually have under a free licence. But fair use
> > > probably applies (since the cover isn't the book itself).
> >
> > What would the "fair use" status of a book cover be in Great Britian?
>
> For book and CD covers, its extremely unlikely to be considered Fair
> Dealing http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/services/elib/papers/pa/fair/intro.html
>
> "Posting on a network:
>    Posting of part or all of an electronic publication on a network or WWW
>    site open to the public is not fair dealing and the permission of the
>    rightsholder should be sought in all cases."

This strikes me as strange. Under what protection do we (or anyone else) post
short excerpts of copyrighted works? See eg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Defamation_League

Best,
Sascha Noyes
--
PGP key: http://www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc (KeyID:4990287E)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] free maps?

body:
engelsAG at t-online.de (Andre Engels) writes:

> Although for Cook the map I want is not there - I need one of the whole
> Pacific, or a world map with the split in the Atlantic or in the Indian
> Ocean/Asia.

A little bit of photo-shopping of this might do...
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/maps/zn-map.gif
--
Gareth Owen
"Wikipedia does rock.  By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
 are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] free maps?

body:
engelsAG at t-online.de (Andre Engels) writes:

> Also, a version without borders would be nice for historical maps, and a
> version with less or no text as a base map in general. But I have bookmarked
> this one, thanks!

The best maps I've found are at http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/world.htm

"All maps and graphics created by Graphic Maps, a d/b/a of the Woolwine-Moen Group,
 unless otherwise noted or linked, and use of same for any application
 whatsoever (with the exception of outline maps) requires written permission."

>From this, I'd say that the outline maps are acceptable, but they don't do oceans.

I could imagine something like this
http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/europe/euoutl.htm
being useful, though.
--
Gareth Owen


from_name: Nick Reinking

body:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 06:31:00PM +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
> Jimmy-
> >> Safari certainly isn't blocked; it's my primary browser!
>
> > Yeah, me too.
>
> I can't help but be amused that two of the strongest advocates of GNU
> purity in recent days - Brion and Jimbo - are using a nonfree operating
> system.

Hey, I'm also a MacOS X user.  I mean really, you've got a mostly free
browser, a free kernel, tons of free BSD utilities, with a nice stable
GUI.  Just because we would like everything to be free doesn't mean we
have all day to tinker with our computers.  :)

--
Nick Reinking -- eschewing obfuscation since 1981 -- Minneapolis, MN


subject: [WikiEN-l] Preservation of context.

body:
On Wednesday 18 February 2004 04:22 pm, Plautus Satire wrote:
> I really despise having to appeal to the masses just to use wikipedia as
> any other person is doing right at this very moment. Having to continually
> and constantly defend each and every single edit, no matter how trivial, is
> really tiresome. What is causing all "the problems" on wikipedia? Is it
> people like me?

Yes

> Or is it the frustration I'm sure many have endured of
> being banned and moderated for hurting somebody's feelings with the truth?

No. This is precisely the wrong attitude. If what constitutes the "truth" is
under contention, then simply stating that you are the bearer of the supreme
and only truth will lead nowhere except reversion wars. What is needed is
backing up with evidence and citations. Which you seem to describe as
"constantly defend each and every single edit".

Best,
Sascha Noyes
--
PGP key: http://www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc (KeyID:4990287E)


body:
On Friday 20 February 2004 09:33 am, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Sascha Noyes wrote:
> > Have a look at [[My Lai Massacre]], [[Donald Rumsfeld]], etc. There
> > are plenty of historical events that have copyrighted pictures,
> > where there is no possibility of replacing them with free
> > ones. (Unless, of course, you have a time machine)
>
> Your point is a valid point, however I'd say that a handful of "fair
> use" images of extreme historical importance is a red herring.

Not at all, it is a compromise.

> What I
> mean is, there are a few of those, and they may be cases where we come
> down on the side of relying on fair use, but they aren't relevant to
> the central issue.

I see two factions here. The "no fair use" faction, and the group that wants
to allow fair use. As far as I can tell, the "no fair use" insists on getting
rid of every single fair use image, which would include the examples that I
and others have named. (My Lai massacre, Tinament Square, etc.) The pro-fair
use group seems to want to offer a compromise: Only use fair use images for
circumstances where GFDL images are impossible.

>
> I'm much more concerned about images like this:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_Barrymore

Yes, but as I see it we have already opined that as a compromise we should
only keep fair use images which are not attainable by any other means. A
picture of a living actress does not fall into this category. Under the
compromise, all such images would be deleted.

> That's a non-free "fair use" image of Drew Barrymore that suppresses
> demand for a free alternative.  And a free alternative is almost
> certainly possible.  Drew Barrymore is a famous actress who regularly
> makes public appearances.  She surely has a PR firm with access to her
> and to images of her that could be released under a free license.

Agreed, hence our restriction to historical images.

> Think about where we will be 10 years from now.  Will we have a large
> and free encyclopedia with tons of non-free images?  Or will we have a
> large and free encyclopedia with a massive collection of free images?
> How can we get to where we want to be?

Only using fair use images that are not attainable under the GFDL invalidates
this argument, because if we don't allow fair use images for these
circumstances there won't be any image depicting these events. (Eg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tianasquare.jpg) Or do you really think
that this should be depicted as a sketch? That would seem farcical to me.

> I think that the answer lies in not using non-free licenses or
> excessive "fair use" exemptions as a crutch.  That crutch will prevent
> us from ever getting to where we want to go.

It is not a crutch for historical images; for others I agree

Best,
Sascha Noyes
--
PGP key: http://www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc (KeyID:4990287E)


from_name: Charles Matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] Reversion Wars and Point of View

body:
Fred Bauder wrote

>An additional issue is to
insist that an article which falls along a left-right cultural and political
spectrum include material which authentically sets forth both viewpoints.

My observation is that disputed articles are typically badly written (as
well); that is, neglected as articles in the point-scoring.  This can be
deplored by everyone.  'Balance' is a journalistic concept. Not in itself a
recipe for quality.

Charles


subject: [WikiEN-l] Preservation of context.

body:
> > I really despise having to appeal to the masses just to use
wikipedia
> > as any other person is doing right at this very moment. Having to
> > continually and constantly defend each and every single edit, no
> > matter how trivial, is really tiresome. What is causing all "the
> > problems" on wikipedia? Is it people like me?
>
> Yes

To be precise, it's other contributors' reactions to people like you.
You're rubbing people the wrong way. Start at the head and stroke
backwards toward the cat's tail; stop about half way along the arch of
the back, and you'll do just fine. You can also try saying, "Nice
kitty."

> > Or is it the frustration I'm sure many have endured of
> > being banned and moderated for hurting somebody's feelings with the
truth?
>
> No. This is precisely the wrong attitude. If what constitutes the
"truth" is
> under contention, then simply stating that you are the bearer of the
supreme
> and only truth will lead nowhere except reversion wars. What is needed
is
> backing up with evidence and citations. Which you seem to describe as
> "constantly defend each and every single edit".

Yeah, besides I'm the one who's the bearer of the supreme and only truth
-- and you don't want to tangle with ME! (Just kidding, by the way ;-)

Lighten up, everyone...

Uncle Ed


subject: [WikiEN-l] New fair use guidelines

body:
Erik,

Thanks for setting this up. I hereby nominate you for Bureaucrat status.

Oh, you already have it? Well, then I want to offer my "stamp of
approval" ...

Uncle Ed


subject: [Wikipedia-l] New fair use guidelines

body:
On Friday 20 February 2004 11:54 am, Erik Moeller wrote:
> In accordance with the recent discussion on the wikipedia-l mailing list
> and Jimbo's pronouncements on the matter I have created
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use

It would seem imprudent to carry out the process of evaluating whether
specific images should be allowed under fair use without having come to some
kind of consensus.

Best,
Sascha Noyes
--
PGP key: http://www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc (KeyID:4990287E)


from_name: KNOTT, T

subject: [WikiEN-l] Irismeister's legal threat

body:
Advice noted. I'm sorry that I have let this guy get to me. I will refrain from speaking to him in the future, because I can't control my anger when he is around.

What happens now ? I can't go through mediation with him, he winds me up too much. Is anyone else prepared to go through that stage of conflict resolution ?

Theresa

-----Original Message-----
From: Jimmy Wales [mailto:jwales at bomis.com]
Sent: 20 February 2004 01:10
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Irismeister's legal threat

The course of action I recommend to everyone is to leave a crystal
clean paper trail so that the arbitration committee can ban this guy
with a clean conscience if he misbehaves.

His "lawyer" contacted me (from France, so I'm not really worried
about it), but made no specific legal threats other than the typical
lawyerly hints and tone.

It's very important, as a matter of justice and transparency, that we
not ban Irismeister for behavior that others commit against him.  This
is one of the biggest reasons why Usenet-style flaming is so bad
around here -- it deprives us of one of the cleanest reasons we have
for getting rid of bad apples.

In a real anarchy like Usenet, where getting someone else kicked out
is impossible, the only known solution to jerks is to yell at them in
the hopes that they get some sense.  (This solution doesn't work at
all, but that doesn't keep people from trying it.)  Around here, the
solution is to greet them with respect, love, and sincere attempts to
help them achieve whatever rational goals they may have.  And this
leaves us a nice clean and simple paper trail for banning if they just
can't behave.

--Jimbo

James Rosenzweig wrote:

> I have been talking with Irismeister for several days
> now, partly (I admit) in an effort to get him to talk
> to me instead of insulting Theresa, and partly because
> his edits to [[Iridology]] were POVing that page again
> (and his comments in the article's talk page seemed to
> be false).  After he made comments which seemed
> contradictory, I admit I said that he either needed to
> admit he didn't mean his 2nd statement, or else admit
> that he had been a liar in making his original
> statement.  My patience was wearing thin, I admit.
> You may judge whether I have acted wrongly.
>
> At any rate, he just posted this at [[Talk:Iridology]]
> -- "His Quackness is back and will let gentle,
> knowledgeable lawyers deal with the libel and slander
> off Wiki, having gathered all necessary material,
> addresses, and hard evidence, thank you :-) Nobody
> calls a doctor a lier without some very serious
> consequences, trust me !"  I have to assume I am being
> implicitly threatened with legal action.  I thought
> that I should notify this mailing list of the threat
> for information's sake, to warn others who attempt to
> converse with Irismeister, and to announce to those
> who care that I won't be talking to him anymore.  I
> would ask that the matter be forwarded to the
> Arbitration Committee, but fear that doing so might
> constitute legal evidence of harassment (IANAL).  You
> can assure me he's making the whole thing up, but I
> don't have the money or time to risk it.
>
> James Rosenzweig (Jwrosenzweig)
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
> http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [Wikipedia-l] New fair use guidelines

body:
I think this is excellent, and I support it fully.

Erik Moeller wrote:

> In accordance with the recent discussion on the wikipedia-l mailing list
> and Jimbo's pronouncements on the matter I have created
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use
>
> This page serves as a discussion page for debating whether an image or
> other file can legitmately be considered fair use, and whether all
> alternatives have been exhausted. Images and other files that may be
> eligible should not be used until there is consensus on the page to do so;
> on the other hand, they should not be deleted until there is consensus
> that they are not eligible for fair use.
>
> Image pages that have undergone due process should be tagged with
> {{msg:verifieduse}}.
>
> All pages which are currently tagged with {{msg:fairuse}} (many older ones
> link to [[fair use]] instead) should undergo due process on this page to
> determine whether their status as fair use is justifiable. If so, they
> should be tagged with {{msg:verifieduse}} instead, if not, they should be
> deleted and efforts should be made to seek free alternatives.
>
> Whenever a previously fair use image is deleted, a link should be added to
> [[Wikipedia:Requested pictures]].  Images without any copyright
> information should either be deleted or undergo the fair use process.
>
> No newly uploaded images should be tagged with {{msg:fairuse}}.
>
> This post is also cross-posted to the Village pump.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


body:
Touche.  :-)

Erik Moeller wrote:

> Jimmy-
> >> Safari certainly isn't blocked; it's my primary browser!
>
> > Yeah, me too.
>
> I can't help but be amused that two of the strongest advocates of GNU
> purity in recent days - Brion and Jimbo - are using a nonfree operating
> system.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik (Debian GNU/Linux user)
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Delirium

body:
Sean Barrett wrote:

>>If each wikipedian took 10 pictures of the interesting things he visits, I'm
>>sure we would not need nonfree pictures any more.
>>
>>
>
>No matter how many pictures I take of the interesting things I visit,
>I will never take a picture of Bob Keeshan (1927-2004) -- and you will
>not find a free picture of him.
>
>
However, it may not be impossible to acquire one eventually.  As
Wikipedia gets more famous, the estates of famous people may start to
dislike the fact that that person's biography has a conspicuous lack of
an image, and consent to GFDL-licensing an image to fill the gap.  If we
fill it in with a fair use image, that removes the incentive.

-Mark


from_name: Gabriel Wicke

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Image caching problems

body:
Purging committed to CVS. I'm not sure if scaled versions of images are
deleted at all currently, but propably i'm just missed something.
--
Gabriel Wicke


from_name: Brion Vibber

body:
On Feb 20, 2004, at 09:31, Erik Moeller wrote:
> I can't help but be amused that two of the strongest advocates of GNU
> purity in recent days - Brion and Jimbo - are using a nonfree operating
> system.

Yet, strangely, I feel no urge to copy Apple code into Linux and
redistribute it for the sake of convenience.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040220/bc66dd56/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Stan Shebs

body:
Delirium wrote:

> Sean Barrett wrote:
>
>>> If each wikipedian took 10 pictures of the interesting things he
>>> visits, I'm
>>> sure we would not need nonfree pictures any more.
>>>
>>
>>
>> No matter how many pictures I take of the interesting things I visit,
>> I will never take a picture of Bob Keeshan (1927-2004) -- and you will
>> not find a free picture of him.
>>
>>
> However, it may not be impossible to acquire one eventually.  As
> Wikipedia gets more famous, the estates of famous people may start to
> dislike the fact that that person's biography has a conspicuous lack
> of an image, and consent to GFDL-licensing an image to fill the gap.
> If we fill it in with a fair use image, that removes the incentive.

Maybe, maybe not - a site that wants to drive traffic will have an
incentive to
keep the pics out, and readers unaware of all this will just go to the site
directly, blow off WP.  It would "game the system" :-) better to have the
fair use picture up for a long time, get lots of visitors, then announce a
campaign to replace with a licensed picture, give the estate a chance to
offer
a licensed picture as an alternative to the fan's snapshot showing him
picking
his nose while going into the Mustang Ranch. :-) If you don't have such a
picture already, Photoshop/GIMP is very helpful...

As they say, Be Bold!

Stan


body:
Delirium wrote:

> However, it may not be impossible to acquire one eventually.  As
> Wikipedia gets more famous, the estates of famous people may start to
> dislike the fact that that person's biography has a conspicuous lack
> of an image, and consent to GFDL-licensing an image to fill the gap.
> If we fill it in with a fair use image, that removes the incentive.

To add on to this, not only does it remove the incentive, but it hampers
us as well.  If we have to completely gut our encyclopedia by removing a
large percentage of its images before we're allowed to publish a paper
or CD-ROM version in the EU, that's not good.

(This doesn't apply to less borderline things that would be "fair use"
and/or "fair dealing" under most jurisdictions, or at least a large
percentage of them.)

Remember, Wikipedia is not synonymous with wikipedia.org--the end goal
is not just producing a website.  But the website is what people work
on, so if the website has all these great images that can't be used in
the paper version, then the chances of the paper version ever actually
looking decent start to look slimmer, 'cause nobody even notices the
lack ("hey, the article online it looks fine to me").  If the website
has conspicuously missing images, people will be much more likely to
notice that something needs to be done to fill the gap.

(Again, not including things like the Tiananmen Square photo, which I
agree we should use.)

-Mark


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Let's separate user and talkpage databases from
	article database

body:
>By having separate downloadable files for
>articles and userpages/talkpages, we give the
>ability to downloaders get only the material they
>are really interested in: The articles. I see no
>reason why somebody would want to download all
>userpages and talkpages, except if he/she is
>interested to research how Wikipedians
>communicate with each other etc. In reality I
>don't see any need to have userpages and
>talkpages downloadable, so such downloadable
>files could not exist at all.
>
>
>
I think this is a great idea.  After downloading the database, one of
the first things I did was delete all the pages except the articles.  I
kept around the original database, so that I'd have the talk page
information, though.  The only problem is it seems to be a bit of work.
Right now the developers just run mysqldump, I assume.  To strip only
certain information would be (slightly) more work.  And I'm not sure the
developers want to do work to make life easier for forks.

>We could just have a downloadable file for
>Articles and another one for the whole database
>(Articles+Userpages+Talkpages). Actually I just
>want to make sure that "accidental"
>copying/downloading/redistribution of userpages
>and talkpages will not happen again.
>
>
In the longer term, I'm working on cleaning out the database even more.
For instance, once you've removed the wikipedia: namespace you're left
with a ton of broken links.  Also there are no references to wikipedia
in the text.  The history files are huge, and the only real information
you need from them is the author's "name" and the year, and I'm working
on stripping this down to that information only, turning 16 gigs into
maybe 100 megs (probably even less since I'd imagine the vast majority
of the history is on meta pages like votes for deletion).  Images are
another problem, there's no real way to download them except send a bot
through wikipedia's server.  This problem is perhaps a longer term
solution, but once I'm done I'll be able to provide a db dump.

Anthony


from_name: Gareth Owen

body:
Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> writes:

> For famous people, I think it's generally not true that contributors can't
> take pictures of them.

Thats true.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Otway for example (small
values of "famous", sure), but it only goes so far.

We don't want a drawing of the protester in front of the Tiananmen tanks.

We don't want a sketch of Dolly the Sheep, but she doesn't make a lot of
personal appearances these days (would a clone do?)

Must we really wait the 100 odd years until these fall into the public domain?

We now know what RMS would say, and he seemed more positive about Fair Use
provision than it has been suggested he would be.
--
Gareth Owen
"Wikipedia does rock.  By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
 are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
Brion-
> To summarize:
> * images which can only be justified as "fair use" (for some uses, in
> the US only) would not be uploaded to Wikipedia itself, embedded in
> Wikipedia articles,

That's unacceptable. The whole point of fair use images is to illustrate
articles. Links are not illustrations.

This issue has the potential to split the community and both sides would
do well to seek some middle ground. That middle ground has been clearly
defined. Use fair use when nothing else is available, clearly flag images.
I find it quite bizarre that the GNU advocates are acting in the same
bullyish members as the RIAA is about "copyright violations". There lies
no salvation in extremism.

Regards,

Erik


body:
Jimmy-
> If the things that no longer exist are old enough, then any existing
> photographs will be public domain.  For things that are more recent,
> illustrations provide an excellent alternative.

Not really. Do you want to substitute the photo of Mother Teresa with
Charles Keating with an "illustration", a drawing? Not only would that be
extremely silly, it would probably be seen as a derivative work and
therefore still copyrighted. And it would give the upper hand to those who
want to get rid of this image, and other images like it, for political
reasons, give them yet another instrument of censorship.

Jimbo, Jimbo, Jimbo. When did the GNU bug bite you and turn you into a
zealot? We should subject each fair use image to an examination process in
which we seek to determine whether we can obtain an image by other means.
If that is so, we should try everything -- request permission, create our
own image etc. -- and leave the article without an image in the meantime.
This examination should be a group process like votes for deletion. For
example, I could upload an image and provide contact information, and
someone else would try to request permission from that person.

If everything else fails, however, it would be extraordinarily stupid not
to make use of the exemptions which copyright law explictly grants us (and
to those who keep claiming that no equivalent law exists in other
countries -- that's simply not true, most copyright laws have exemptions
for scientific and educational use, e.g. Sec. 51 of the German copyright
code). It would be a slap in the face of those who have been lobbying for
broader fair use provisions.

This process is without alternative. Anything else *will* split this
community.

Regards,

Erik


body:
Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> writes:

> Nicolas Weeger wrote:
> > What about for instance book covers?  They are definitely not
> > something you can usually have under a free licence. But fair use
> > probably applies (since the cover isn't the book itself).
>
> What would the "fair use" status of a book cover be in Great Britian?

For book and CD covers, its extremely unlikely to be considered Fair Dealing
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/services/elib/papers/pa/fair/intro.html

"Posting on a network:
   Posting of part or all of an electronic publication on a network or WWW
   site open to the public is not fair dealing and the permission of the
   rightsholder should be sought in all cases."

http://www.cla.co.uk/media/general-digitisation.pdf
"Fair dealing in the digital environment is yet to be defined by the courts,
 and it would be unwise to assume that any digital copying is fair dealing."
--
Gareth Owen
"Wikipedia does rock.  By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
 are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)


body:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:

>On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 02:09:36PM -0800, Stan Shebs wrote:
>
>>Maybe, maybe not - a site that wants to drive traffic will have an
>>incentive to
>>keep the pics out, and readers unaware of all this will just go to the site
>>directly, blow off WP.
>>
>
>When did the aim of Wikipedia changed from producing free, neutral and high quality
>content to getting as much traffic as possible to certain website ?
>
I'm not sure what you're saying, but "free, neutral and high quality
content"
is kind of pointless if it has no actual readers. I don't know about other
editors, but I'm not doing this to entertain myself (there are easier ways
to do that with one's fingers, if you know what I mean. :-) ). In addition
to being an efficient way of conveying information, images are well-known
to be an important part of attracting and keeping readers.

We're already in competition with other online sources, and how well we're
competing governs both readership and the number of editors we can attract.
For instance, when I add stuff to WP, I'm always looking for opportunities
to add material that is available nowhere else online (only in print
previously, say), because that's something that makes WP a must-visit for
information-seekers. Images are part of that competition too, and we should
be reluctant to handicap ourselves in the race, particularly when no actual
threats have materialized (has there been even one outside demand to remove
an image?)

Stan


body:
Stan Shebs wrote:

> We're already in competition with other online sources, and how well
> we're
> competing governs both readership and the number of editors we can
> attract.
> For instance, when I add stuff to WP, I'm always looking for
> opportunities
> to add material that is available nowhere else online (only in print
> previously, say), because that's something that makes WP a must-visit for
> information-seekers. Images are part of that competition too, and we
> should
> be reluctant to handicap ourselves in the race, particularly when no
> actual
> threats have materialized (has there been even one outside demand to
> remove
> an image?)

Well, I don't really see it as so much of a race.  Sure, we'd like
people to turn to us for information, but as I see it we're just going
to so completely dominate everyone with our information that there
really is no competition.  Already most people I know IRL turn to
Wikipedia first when they want to find out "what is [x]" in summary
form, while they used to resort to googling for [x], which tends to
produce less-reliable results than the Wikipedia article (where one
exists).  Granted, these are people I know who have been influenced by
my Wikipedia-advocacy, but they wouldn't keep using it if it wasn't for
the information.  I think this will only get more pronounced as we get
more and more information and make it better- and better-presented.

So I suppose I agree in some sense with your goals, but I see it as such
a foregone conclusion that we're going to "win" that competition---and
not by a small margin either---that it shouldn't really be our main concern.

-Mark


from_name: Robert Graham Merkel

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Special Permission" flag, or not?

body:
It seems to me that the only sensible solution to the image problems we
being discussed is the tagging of images as "GNU FDL" or "fair use".

The remaining question I have is whether we should also support "special
permission" images (that are not free for use outside Wikipedia).

If the only way we can illustrate a topic is by using such images (or
other media), then I think we should do so.  Provided we have a
mechanism by which reusers of our content can avoid downloading them,
it doesn't seem to be a problem.  I do, however, recommend we accept
their use only if it is the only way to provide such images for an
article.

One point WRT "special permission" images is the minimum rights
we should require before accepting it.  Should we require the ability to
reproduce the image in paper or CD editions?  The ability to use
in other Wikimedia projects (such as history textbooks and the like)
perhaps?

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Robert Merkel
                                          rgmerk at mira.net
                                        http://benambra.org

Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.
                -- Albert Einstein
They laughed at Einstein.  They laughed at the Wright Brothers.  But they
also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
                -- Carl Sagan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


from_name: Andrew Lih

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] China WP access (was: What would Richard Stallman
	say?)

body:
> From:       Gareth Owen <wiki () gwowen ! freeserve ! co ! uk>
>>"Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen" <daniel at copyleft.no> writes:
>> It's entirely conceivable that a large country (say France) would
make it
>> illegal to access Wikipedia for its citizens

> A large country has.  China's great firewall blocks much of wikipedia.
> We *could* amend it so that its acceptable to the Chinese government.
> We *could* amend it so that its acceptable to the French government.

> Personally, I'm not in favour of that.

I don't want to let this stand without comment.  What is your source for
the fact that China "blocks much of wikipedia"?

It is actually quite well know that (astonishingly) China does NOT block
Wikipedia now, and a quick check with zh.wikipedia.org denizens confirms
this. Folks are accessing Wikipedia from Beijing, Guangdong, Shenzhen
and smaller cities/universities inside China.

I'm not a PRC apologist by any means, but let's go with what the facts
bear out.

Andrew Lih
Journalism and Media Studies Centre
University of Hong Kong


subject: [WikiEN-l] Irismeister again

body:
Irismeister has just been extremely unwelcoming to new users on the page [[reflexology]]. See the talk page for details. We should ban him for this alone (without all the other stuff). Being rude to newbies is inexcusable IMO

Theresa

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040220/cac0541f/attachment.htm


body:
Thomas R. Koll wrote:

>BTW: What is your opinion on who manages the copyrights of IP-users?
>Whe had an discussion on de: where I argued that Wikimedia Foundation
>manages the rights.
>
>
At the risk of sounding pessimistic, I don't think you're going to get a
clear consensus on this.  It's a very tricky issue: there's arguments
for and against the Wikimedia Foundation having rights to manage the
submitters' copyrights.  The Free Software Foundation, for its part,
avoids the issue by requiring that all submitters of modifications to
its software assign their copyright to the FSF, in which case the FSF
has an unquestionable right to manage the copyrights, since they own them.

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] Irismeister again

body:
Ed irismeister follows me around. Everything I edit he does. You protected the talk page but you've left his  comments in. Note that I didn't write the article a newbie did. The only reason irismeister made the comments is because he watches my user contributions. How are the new users supposed to know he is addressing me and not them ?  when he writes "This stub is incredibly puerile. It reads like a DIY manual, has no encyclopedic value"

Look at the history page Ed

Theresa

-----Original Message-----
From: Poor, Edmund W [mailto:Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com]
Sent: 20 February 2004 15:47
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Irismeister again

I protected that talk page. I think this is the first time a talk page has been protected.
?
You know, Theresa, if you just didn't answer Iris this thing would have fizzled out. You don't see me in any edit wars, do you?
?
Okay, I have a long-running dispute over global warming with a few folks, but we've managed to keep it fairly good-natured... Did you see the full page ad in today's New York Times by Al Gore?
?
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
-----Original Message-----
From: KNOTT, T [mailto:TKNOTT at qcl.org.uk]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 10:34 AM
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Irismeister again

Irismeister has just been extremely unwelcoming to new users on the page [[reflexology]]. See the talk page for details. We should ban him for this alone (without all the other stuff). Being rude to newbies is inexcusable IMO

Theresa


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Request for bureaucratship

body:
I requested bureaucratship on the Request for Admins page, and I noticed
that a few people voted to oppose -- all for basically the same reason.
I'm too hasty and unilateral.

James wrote (there):

<< Oppose because of the unilateral ban of Wik less than 7 days before
this and the writing above saying he isn't a unilateralist, suggesting a
lack of recognition of his own tendency to act in haste. Also because he
continues to advocate unilateral banning on the mailing list. Ed, please
at least be consistent in your opposition to unilateralism, through your
deeds as well as your words in all places, not just this page. Once you
are, I'll support this. Until then, I don't think you're recognising how
you really act.>>

Okay, I'm officially going on record as saying that I completely oppose
unilateral bans. If it's not an emergency or a clear-cut, utterly
unambiguous example of "pure vandalism", then the admin should not click
the temp-ban link.

We're supposed to have all agreed on a formal and transparent procedure,
i.e., the Mediation and Arbitration committees.

I've been monitoring the temp-ban page ever since I realized I was wrong
to apply a unilateral ban to Wik. (BTW, thanks to Caroline and James for
gently awakening me to the error of my ways.) I un-banned one other user
whose "case" slipped by the committees; and no one saw fit to re-ban
him, either.

Let's all avoid unilateral bans, starting with me. I can't make this any
clearer.

Ed Poor


from_name: Tomasz Wegrzanowski

body:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 06:22:04AM -0800, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> If the things that no longer exist are old enough, then any existing
> photographs will be public domain.  For things that are more recent,
> illustrations provide an excellent alternative.  If we need
> illustrations, then we should think of ways to empower artistic
> volunteers to help us by creating and contributing them.
>
> For famous people, I think it's generally not true that contributors
> can't take pictures of them.  Again, we just need to publicize our
> need and work a little harder to empower volunteers.  Almost all
> famous people make public appearances.  Movies stars appear in public
> in Hollywood, New York, Cannes, and other film festivals.  Politicians
> make speechs to public audiences.  Famous intellectuals are generally
> accessible.
>
> All famous people have an interest in publicity -- fame is power and
> money.  So if for some reason we can't get a photo from a public
> appearance, they ought to be very amenable to releasing a single
> publicity shot under the GNU FDL.
>
> We are big and getting bigger.  Millions of people see our work each
> year.  Millions of people love what we are doing, love the idea of it,
> and would love to help.  We need to give them tools and incentives to
> do exactly that.
>
> We have great tools for people who like to write.  I propose that we
> develop great tools for amateur paparazzi, amateur illustrators, and
> amateur photographers.

Right.
Long time ago I emailed RMS to get free photos of him and got some.
Pio mailed Larry Wall and got them too. Now - maybe these are not
be typical "famous people", but it's certainly possible to get
GFDL photos if you ask for them.


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikipedia-l] picture copyright check

body:
As further material in the current debate, here is the result of a more random
sample of pictures on en:. I used the first 100 pictures in the alphabetical
order starting at 'E'.

A number of pictures have not been counted:
* Wherever the same picture was uploaded twice (in different sizes), it has
  been counted only once (those are mostly unproblematic pictures, but on
  the other hand some of them contained the copyright information on only one,
  and in that case that one has been counted)
* There was a series of 'pictures' containing nothing more than country
  names written vertically. These are used in the results of the Eurovision
  Song Contest. They have been counted as only one picture.
* Six very simple maps showed the administrative subdivision of East
  Sussex. They have been counted as only two pictures.

Extra pictures have been included to make the total come to 100 again.
Of these 100:

57 seemed unproblematic, being either Public domain or GNU/FDL:

* 6 were own photographs by Wikipedians
* 4 were own drawings by Wikipedians
* 8 were presumably own drawings by Wikipedians, but not described as such
* 19 were stated to be US government material
* 3 not so stated clearly were
* 8 were stated to be Public Domain, and were so on account of age
* 4 not so stated also were
* 1 was stated to be free of copyright
* 2 were stated to be from a site, and the site states they are free of
    copyright
* 2 were believed by me to be either not copyrightable or copyrighted by the
    uploader

16 might have problems:

* 4 claimed to be fair use
* 1 was a sound file; the song is out of copyright, but what about the
    recording
* 1 is allowed for non-commercial use only
* 1 is allowed for educational use only
* 1 has permission to be used on Wikipedia, but it is not clear whether this
    includes GNU/FDL licensing
* 1 has permission to be used on Wikipedia, but explicitly no permission to
    alter or provide for distribution by others
* 7 were logos, flags or coats of arms, which I doubt are copyrightable

27 did not contain any copyright information and did not fall under any of
the previously mentioned categories. Of these 26:
* 1 might be an unmarked own photograph
* 2 might be unmarked own drawings
* 2 are still likely to be public domain from NASA
* 1 might well be uncopyrightable
* I have not made any attempt to seek out to what extent they might be
  fair use

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The list:
Own photograph:
  ECORAN32.JPG
  ECORAN42.JPG (duplicate)
  Eastern-Grey-334.jpg
  Eastern-Grey-Kangaroo.jpg
  Eastern_Reef_Egret.jpg
  Eastern_Yellow_Robin.jpg
Own drawing:
  ECClines.png
  ECexamples01.png (duplicate)
  Eadric.png
  Ear-anatomy-notext-small.png
Own drawing (not mentioned):
  EINF.gif
  ESCAustriaJ.png (presumably uncopyrightable)
  EUDofCofHere.png
  EUnit.gif (duplicate)
  EZero.gif (duplicate)
  E_with_sharp_and_C_with_b6b_figured_bass.png
  EastSussexEastbourne.png
  EastSussexNumbered.png
US government material:
  E4-CG24Cruising.jpg
  EJMcCoy.jpg
  ELWilson.jpg
  EMK.jpg
  ES-3A_Shadow.jpg
  E_4b.jpg
  E A Behring.jpg (also age)
  E_friedman_pic.jpg
  Eagle.column1.arp.300pix.jpg
  Eagle Horst 1.jpg (probably)
  Earth's_atmosphere.jpg
  Earth_Night_Small.jpg
  EarthquakeFreewayCa1989.jpg
  EarthshineDiagram.png
  East-timor-map.png
  EasternKingbird23.jpg
  EasternMeadowlark23.jpg
  EasternScreechOwl23.jpg
  EasternTowhee23.jpg
US government (not mentioned):
  Earth-apollo17.jpg
  Earth_am1.jpg
  E1-tracer.jpg
Public domain because of age:
  ENC 1-NA5 600px.jpeg
  ENC SYSTEME FIGURE.jpeg (duplicate)
  ENC plate 1-143 300px.jpg (duplicate)
  Eagleowl.JPG
  Eagleowl.jpg
  Eakins.jpg
  Eallen.jpg
  EarpV.jpg
Public domain because of age (unmentioned):
  Eadred.jpg
  Eadwig.jpg
  Earl of aberdeen.jpg
  Earlofhopetoun.jpg
Stated to be free of copyright:
  EagleAndChild.jpg
Various copyright-free (unmentioned):
  Easter_island_(Chile).jpg
  Easter_island_and_south_america.jpg
Either copyright uploader or no problems expected:
  Ear-red.png
  EastBerlinBoroughs.png

Fair use claimed:
  E.W. Bullinger.jpg
  EDSA_Revolution_pic1.jpg (news event)
  EarlJones.JPG
  EarlineWParmon.JPG
Sound file (see above):
  Earlross.ogg
Only allowed for non-commercial use:
  E-meter.gif
Only allowed for educational use (Wikipedia is already borderline):
  Ear.jpg
Permission received with unknown extent:
  ESW-pre1974.png
Permission received without further copying:
  EastGreenwichLibrary.jpg
Logo/flag/coat of arms:
  EARLlogo.jpg
  ESC1956logo.jpg
  Eafflag.jpg
  East Finland.png
  East_Turkestan_flag_large.png
  East_timor_coa.png
  East_timor_flag_large.png

Possible own photograph:
  EJ20030502020.jpg
Possible own drawing:
  East_london_line.png
  Easternvirucounty.jpg
Possibly NASA:
  Earth-mars.jpg
  East_Hills_Sol8_L256-A11R1.jpg
Possibly not under copyright law:
  Early_cyrillic_alphabet.png
Others unmarked:
  E.U._Essien_Udom3.jpg
  E803994f3zd.jpeg
  EBarak.jpg
  EBerlinerGramophoneDisc.png (1)
  EEdwardsSmall.jpg
  EF140.jpg
  ERCIYES1.jpg
  E_Cresson.jpg
  E_Hurley.jpg
  E_coli.JPG
  E_coli_o157.JPG
  E_juenger.jpg
  Eagle closeup small.jpg
  Earl_Hines.jpg (2)
  Earlepage.jpg
  EarlyParlophoneLabel.jpg
  East_Week_First_Issue's_Cover_29-10-1992.jpg
  East_Week_Re-launched_First_Issue_Cover.jpg
  Easter.jpg
  Eastern_Curlew.jpg

(1): This one too might be insufficiently artistic to be copyrightable, being
     a faithful photograph of a 2-dimensional work out of copyright.
(2): Something seems to have gone wrong here, there is no picture.

Andre Engels


subject:
nonfree.wikipedia.org (was Re: [Wikipedia-l] What would
	RichardStallman say?)

body:
This is reminiscent of the issue with restrictions on high/low
encryption in web browsers, where you had to download a separate 128-bit
crypto module vs. the standard 56-bit that the US would allow to
"export."

Perhaps a solution along those lines might be necessary. Then the
individual downloaders/distributors would take responsibility of
determining which "image pack" to go with, thereby putting the onus not
on Wikimedia, but on others.  Not a great thought, but just a thought.

-Andrew

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
> [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Hr.
> Daniel Mikkelsen
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 3:52 PM
> To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: nonfree.wikipedia.org (was Re: [Wikipedia-l]
> What would RichardStallman say?)
>
>
> IMO, something like this is acceptable - but I would also
> like to see the images wrapped with a notice of some kind (a
> small table?), so visitors know immediately that they are not
> inherently part of the article.
>
> And also to produce an incentive for Wikipedia authors to
> find free alternatives when it's possible.
>
> -- Daniel
>
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Optim wrote:
>
> > if I understood well, you suggest having a
> > database of fair use images which can be
> > hyperlinked from Wikipedia articles but they will
> > never be inline.
> >
> > If I understood correctly then I agree! According
> > to my moral standards this is ok. However I
> > cannot talk about the law because IANAL.
> >
> > --Optim
> >
> >
> > --- Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 19, 2004, at 21:08, Delirium wrote:
> > > > There is the aggregation defense that has
> > > been alluded to, but I think
> > > > inserting an image in-line in an article is
> > > clearly making it part of
> > > > the article as one work, not merely
> > > distributing it on the same
> > > > medium.  If all the images were on separate
> > > pages (as in an appendix,
> > > > perhaps), then that'd be another matter.
> > >
> > > On that note, a question for the folks who
> > > aren't willing to give up
> > > "fair use images": would an 'appendix' system
> > > be acceptable to you?
> > >
> > > What I'm envisioning is an associated site to
> > > which non-PD non-GFDL
> > >
> > but-probably-ok-under-fair-use-for-a-non-profit-encyclopedia
> > > could be
> > > uploaded and linked _from there_ to Wikipedia
> > > article names. The page
> > > display on *.wikipedia.org could see when
> > > there's an associated page
> > > and include a more or less prominent link to
> > > the photo/media page. (For
> > > those familiar with Ward's Wiki, this would be
> > > similar to how
> > > SisterSites links work.)
> > >
> > > To summarize:
> > > * images which can only be justified as "fair
> > > use" (for some uses, in
> > > the US only) would not be uploaded to Wikipedia
> > > itself, embedded in
> > > Wikipedia articles, or included in basic
> > > Wikipedia page/media dumps
> > > * but those images could be made available
> > > through Wikimedia's sites
> > > (for acceptably fair use, in the US) and
> > > hyperlinked to Wikipedia
> > > articles (not inline)
> > > * redistributors who determined the images were
> > > ok could still take them
> > > * redistributors who might not be able to use
> > > them don't have to mess
> > > with it
> > >
> > > Would this be acceptable from legal, moral, and
> > > other standpoints?
> > >
> > > -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
> > >
> >
> > > ATTACHMENT part 1.2 application/pgp-signature
> > x-mac-type=70674453; name=PGP.sig
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > >
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
> > http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wik> ipedia-l
>


from_name: Sheng Jiong

body:
Gareth Owen ??:

>"Andrew Lih" <alih at hku.hk> writes:
>
>
>
>>I don't want to let this stand without comment.  What is your source for
>>the fact that China "blocks much of wikipedia"?
>>
>>
>
>I was under the impression that certain subject matters were blocked as a
>matter of course.
>Can http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong or
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989
>be accessed?
>
>Incidentally the following is a perfect example of an image used under Fair
>Use provision : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tianasquare.jpg
>I think wikipedia would be much worse without it.
>
>
Yes, even the Chinese version of these articles is accessible. In fact,
most of the contents in these articles are contributed by Chinese
mainlanders. It is a strange misperception that the Chinese government
is blocking Wikipedia. Most contributers in Chinese Wikipedia are living
in mainland China presently.

[[User:Formulax]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] New fair use guidelines

body:
In accordance with the recent discussion on the wikipedia-l mailing list
and Jimbo's pronouncements on the matter I have created

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use

This page serves as a discussion page for debating whether an image or
other file can legitmately be considered fair use, and whether all
alternatives have been exhausted. Images and other files that may be
eligible should not be used until there is consensus on the page to do so;
on the other hand, they should not be deleted until there is consensus
that they are not eligible for fair use.

Image pages that have undergone due process should be tagged with
{{msg:verifieduse}}.

All pages which are currently tagged with {{msg:fairuse}} (many older ones
link to [[fair use]] instead) should undergo due process on this page to
determine whether their status as fair use is justifiable. If so, they
should be tagged with {{msg:verifieduse}} instead, if not, they should be
deleted and efforts should be made to seek free alternatives.

Whenever a previously fair use image is deleted, a link should be added to
[[Wikipedia:Requested pictures]].  Images without any copyright
information should either be deleted or undergo the fair use process.

No newly uploaded images should be tagged with {{msg:fairuse}}.

This post is also cross-posted to the Village pump.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Wikipedia-l] New fair use guidelines


body:
On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 12:53:38AM +0900, Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
> If each wikipedian took 10 pictures of the interesting things he visits, I'm
> sure we would not need nonfree pictures any more.

We don't *need* them now either. Some claim we may *want* them, but that's
a different thing.


body:
Jimmy-
>> Safari certainly isn't blocked; it's my primary browser!

> Yeah, me too.

I can't help but be amused that two of the strongest advocates of GNU
purity in recent days - Brion and Jimbo - are using a nonfree operating
system.

Regards,

Erik (Debian GNU/Linux user)


from_name: Sean Barrett

body:
> If we have to completely gut our encyclopedia by removing a
> large percentage of its images....

I hardly think removing even "a large percentage" of our images
constitutes "gutting" our encyclopedia.  And even if it did, no one is
suggesting removing "a large percentage," just a handful of "fair use"
borderline cases.


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Some dead end pages are alive!

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

> On Feb 17, 2004, at 22:18, Rob W.W. Hooft wrote:
>
>> I am having a problem with a new wikipedia hobby: cleaning out dead
>> end pages. The problem is that a number of the entries in the list of
>> dead end pages are "#redirect" pages which are not at all dead ends.
>> As an example, at the moment of this writing, in
>>
>>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Deadendpages
>>
>> entry number 20 is [[AIBO]], which is a redirect to [[Aibo]]. The
>> latter is not a dead end page, and even if it would be, [[AIBO]]
>> should probably not be listed either....
>
> The link tables are not correct due to old and possibly current bugs.

Just wanted to confirm that current bugs in that direction still exist.
Just a few days ago I was fixing a number of double-redirects, and after
I saved various pages, they either vanished from Whatlinkshere or were
still listed as double-redirects even though they were fixed.

Timwi


from_name: Caroline Ford

subject: [WikiEN-l] New fair use guidelines

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>In accordance with the recent discussion on the wikipedia-l mailing list
>and Jimbo's pronouncements on the matter I have created
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use
>
>This page serves as a discussion page for debating whether an image or
>other file can legitmately be considered fair use, and whether all
>alternatives have been exhausted. Images and other files that may be
>eligible should not be used until there is consensus on the page to do so;
>on the other hand, they should not be deleted until there is consensus
>that they are not eligible for fair use.
>
>Image pages that have undergone due process should be tagged with
>{{msg:verifieduse}}.
>
>All pages which are currently tagged with {{msg:fairuse}} (many older ones
>link to [[fair use]] instead) should undergo due process on this page to
>determine whether their status as fair use is justifiable. If so, they
>should be tagged with {{msg:verifieduse}} instead, if not, they should be
>deleted and efforts should be made to seek free alternatives.
>
>Whenever a previously fair use image is deleted, a link should be added to
>[[Wikipedia:Requested pictures]].  Images without any copyright
>information should either be deleted or undergo the fair use process.
>
>No newly uploaded images should be tagged with {{msg:fairuse}}.
>
>This post is also cross-posted to the Village pump.
>
>Regards,
>
>Erik
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
With this in mind I ma going to create a Wikipedia Image "Tag Team" to
go round tagging unmarked images. I propose {{msg:unverified}}. Do we
want to dump all these hundreds/thousands of this page? I can't see any
other way of doing it, however.

Caroline / Secretlondon


body:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 06:31:00PM +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
> Jimmy-
> >> Safari certainly isn't blocked; it's my primary browser!
>
> > Yeah, me too.
>
> I can't help but be amused that two of the strongest advocates of GNU
> purity in recent days - Brion and Jimbo - are using a nonfree operating
> system.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik (Debian GNU/Linux user)

/me uses Debian GNU/Linux


body:
Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> writes:

> > If each wikipedian took 10 pictures of the interesting things he visits,
> > I'm sure we would not need nonfree pictures any more.
>
> No matter how many pictures I take of the interesting things I visit,
> I will never take a picture of Bob Keeshan (1927-2004) -- and you will
> not find a free picture of him.

Well, if there are any wikipedians who likes a challenge, we need a photo for
[[J D Salinger]] :)
--
Gareth Owen
"Wikipedia does rock.  By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
 are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)


subject: [Wikitech-l] Image purging

body:
Purging of images is now in CVS.

For scaled images, this depends on visiting the page containing the scaled
image once without caching, which means it is automatic for users with
session.

The image is purged whenever a new scaled image is generated which is
done whenever a link to this image is rendered. In some cases anon users
might still have to reload to get the new scaled image, but this should be
rare.

Unscaled images are purged immediately on edit, deletion or revert.
--
Gabriel Wicke


from_name: Robert Michel

body:
Salve Richard,

I fear that we wikipedia people loosing time by only clarify what pictures are
possible to use pictures with a "fair use" right, this could be IMHO
restricted by the next lawsuit.

I'm realy alarmed what's going on here in Europe (EU) to avoid a parlamental
discussion and bring "measures and procedures to ensure the enforcement of
intellectual property  rights", as fast as possible, into law.
First I thougt it would be a danger for creating software, but now after
joining wikipedia, I start to understand, that this new laws are an enemy for
creativity, progress, intellect, art, technologie, science and wealth for our
societies (Or should I say society in singular - Old Europeans, New
Europeans, Americans - there is mutch more connectionals than our Zeitgeist
and medias observe).

It is wrong to think that more restrictive EU-laws will not effect US-laws:
last hundred years copyright has only been enhanced, and mostly with the
argument that other countries do this, too and it would be necessary to
change the law for getting justive and fair chances for the national economic
(But IMHO only for big firms with own layers). So in this point we all do sit
in the same boat, too - not only by all loving to create a free encyclopedia.

To read what the industrie lobby wants, see:
 "16 February 2004
 Proposal for a  DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
 on measures and procedures to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property
 rights"
http://www.ipjustice.org/CODE/021604.html

For example:
"(13) It is necessary to define the scope of this Directive as widely as
possible in order to encompass all the intellectual property rights covered
by Community provisions in this field and/or by the national law of the
Member State concerned. Nevertheless, that requirement does not affect the
possibility, on the part of those Member States which so wish, to extend, for
internal purposes, the provisions of this Directive to include acts involving
unfair competition, including parasitic copies, or similar activities."

What "intellectual property" is, will be defined as weak as posible: it is not
defined at all!

This is a modern story of "Sisyphus": during roling the stone of free
knowledge, we (most of us) do not see, that the mountain of laws become
higher and our way more stony - or our steps is a moving stairway and it is
already moving down. ;(

Before thinking about lincense and "fair use" of pictures, we should consider
what are the difference between picutes, text and software. There was special
reasons for creating another GNU licence, the GNU-FDL, because text and
software are not the same.

-How can we ensure, that the information of the picture will stick to the
picture and make it more believable that this picture is not manipulated?
-How can be one digital signature used for the picture and the information?
-Aren`t there reasons for creating a GNU-Free_Picture/Grafic_Licence?
-Has there already been discussions about his?
-Where can I found archievs of them?

Am Freitag, 20. Februar 2004 14:42 schrieb Richard Stallman:
>       Because we are a nonprofit charitableencyclopedia
>     organization with an educational mission, we can make heavy use of the
>     doctrine of "fair use" in the US.
>
> When applicable, this may be a good solution.

What now hasn`t a lawsuit yet does not mean, it will be a right for "fair use"
in the future. There are US-lobbiees like Bob Goodlattee, or I shoud say
lobby of international corporations, which urge the EU to bring more rigorous
laws for software patents and as weak as possible for "intellectual property
rights".

> not if the  problem is how to make a better free encyclopedia.
*g* When it would be our collective aim a better free encyclopedia, there is a
way to document pictures much better than today. For example compare these
picture documentations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Donald_saddam.jpg
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Bild:Sable_Island_NASA_300x301_from_EFS_highres_STS059_STS059-216-79.jpg

IMHO a picture is more than a visuable information!

When the Wikipedia use "fair used" historical pictures to be more believable,
than would I like to disagree that the picture itself without additional
information would satisfy this.

What, When, Who, Where, Why, How.... all this informations should stick to the
picture. An wikipedia-quality-audit can help to declare all this informations
- but how can we ensure that every user outside of the wikipedia serve this
picture-informations?

And finaly, when we get an email from a museum with the authorisation to use
one picture of one work of art to use this with the terms of the GNU-FDL - is
this documentation enough? (Like your mail, it could be faked by someone). Or
should we aspire to get a signed, stamped paper GNU-FDL from a museum when we
can suspect a conflict with picture agencies like Corbi$ (The one which claim
the copy right for the "Mona Lisa")?

What action should we (Wikipedia) take in case of the imminent danger
"degradation" of the European intellectual property rights (=expanding the
right holders power)?

Thank you for your statment to use ony free pictures to build a free
encyclopedia, de.wikipedia has already an agreement to do so. ;)

Greetings from Aachen (Europe),
rob

PS:
Every 141 second is a new wikipedia article, in one of the 30 languages
(wikipedias with > 1000 articles), started in the spirit of GNU
(ok, in some languages the wikipedia consider the GNU spirit also in the case
of pictures *g*).

So a freedom-loving mind, a libertine, does not need an accolade by an
anachronous monarchy - great minds get tribute by the growing popularity and
power of their ideas.  ;)

----
Salve = Latin/Italien: "Be greeted", hi


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: New fair use guidelines

body:
Perhaps could it be a wikipedia wide discussion ?

Erik Moeller a ?crit:
> In accordance with the recent discussion on the wikipedia-l mailing list
> and Jimbo's pronouncements on the matter I have created
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use
>
> This page serves as a discussion page for debating whether an image or
> other file can legitmately be considered fair use, and whether all
> alternatives have been exhausted. Images and other files that may be
> eligible should not be used until there is consensus on the page to do so;
> on the other hand, they should not be deleted until there is consensus
> that they are not eligible for fair use.
>
> Image pages that have undergone due process should be tagged with
> {{msg:verifieduse}}.
>
> All pages which are currently tagged with {{msg:fairuse}} (many older ones
> link to [[fair use]] instead) should undergo due process on this page to
> determine whether their status as fair use is justifiable. If so, they
> should be tagged with {{msg:verifieduse}} instead, if not, they should be
> deleted and efforts should be made to seek free alternatives.
>
> Whenever a previously fair use image is deleted, a link should be added to
> [[Wikipedia:Requested pictures]].  Images without any copyright
> information should either be deleted or undergo the fair use process.
>
> No newly uploaded images should be tagged with {{msg:fairuse}}.
>
> This post is also cross-posted to the Village pump.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Let's separate user and talkpage databases from
	article database

body:
The strongest argument I would have in favor of separating databases is
that sites copying our user page take a version at a given moment. The
day after, the copy they have may not be accurate any more. We may have
changed our minds on a comment, decided to remove a picture from us. In
the worse case, the page may be copied just after a vandal wrote "you
are a jerk" (not to say worse).

And we do not have any possibility to fix that.

That is embarassing

Ant

Optim a ?crit:
> Summary: Proposal to have separate databases for
> userpages, talkpages and articles.
>
> Hello,
>
> I think it would be a good idea to have separate
> databases (or downloadable files) for userpages,
> talkpages and articles.
>
> Many Wikipedia mirrors copy userpages and
> talkpages. I don't like that. It doesn't help to
> protect the privacy of Wikipedians.
>
> Having separate databases (or downloadable files)
> will help the people who mirror our content to
> copy just what they really want (the articles)
> and not userpages and talkpages, which may
> contain information some Wikipedians (like me)
> would prefer be available only on servers
> controlled by Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> Please comment, support, oppose, criticise and
> inform us about your opinion.
>
> Thank you.
>
> --Optim
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
> http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: nonfree.wikipedia.org

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

> What I'm envisioning is an associated site to which non-PD non-GFDL
> but-probably-ok-under-fair-use-for-a-non-profit-encyclopedia could be
> uploaded and linked _from there_ to Wikipedia article names. The page
> display on *.wikipedia.org could see when there's an associated page
> and include a more or less prominent link to the photo/media page.
> (For those familiar with Ward's Wiki, this would be similar to how
> SisterSites links work.)
>
> To summarize:
> * images which can only be justified as "fair use" (for some uses, in
> the US only) would not be uploaded to Wikipedia itself, embedded in
> Wikipedia articles, or included in basic Wikipedia page/media dumps
> * but those images could be made available through Wikimedia's sites
> (for acceptably fair use, in the US) and hyperlinked to Wikipedia
> articles (not inline)
> * redistributors who determined the images were ok could still take them
> * redistributors who might not be able to use them don't have to mess
> with it
>
> Would this be acceptable from legal, moral, and other standpoints?

 From a legal standpoint, a separate site might be okay. To be safe, I
would avoid anything that allows non-GFDL images to be printed or
downloaded together with GFDL text.

It probably satisfies most moral concerns, but some purists might still
say we're being intellectually inconsistent by promoting free content
and using non-free images in any form.

 From a practical standpoint, shouldn't our energies be focused more on
finding images that qualify as free content, rather than keeping images
we can't use right now? Also, I doubt the site would get used much at
all. Many users would continue with the default of uploading directly,
even if we decide to segregate fair use images elsewhere.

Why not just tell people that if they have non-GFDL images, use an
external link? We already have quite a few of these for paintings and
other museum-type content. A lot of the pictures are from the Internet
anyway, and there are other places to host stuff besides Wikipedia.

--Michael Snow


body:
Andre Engels wrote:

>Having said that, I think requiring that the image must be usable for
>anyone might be overdoing it. I would say, the article including the image
>should be usable for anyone. That is, having the image with a text equal
>to or derived from the Wikipedia text should be ok, just taking the image
>alone out need not be.
>
Sorry, but if we start conceding that in effect, we are combining an
article with an image into a single document under GFDL, downstream
users have to be able to use the image alone. We are licensing them to
modify the document, and potential modification includes stripping out
all the text and just leaving the image. We cannot restrict downstream
modification--that's essential to copyleft.

--Michael Snow


references:
<20040219155059.GL8258@joey.bomis.com>
	<200402201901.i1KJ1KfP006633@orwen.epoptic.com>
	<r5i8yixvalv.fsf@gill.maths.keele.ac.uk>

body:
Salve!

IMHO does this crossposting make no sence.
Am Freitag, 20. Februar 2004 20:01 schrieb Gareth Owen:
> Well, if there are any wikipedians who likes a challenge, we need a photo
> for [[J D Salinger]] :)

This article does not exist in en: & de: so please go ahead and start to write
this articel ;)

> Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> writes:
> > > If each wikipedian took 10 pictures of the interesting things he
> > > visits, I'm sure we would not need nonfree pictures any more.
> >
> > No matter how many pictures I take of the interesting things I visit,
> > I will never take a picture of Bob Keeshan (1927-2004) -- and you will
> > not find a free picture of him.

As I tried to explain on wikipedia-l it is not the question which pictures you
found with google (for copy&past) and not only what pictures your find in
your personal photo album - it needs the same skills like you what to write a
book - you have to find the right people with pictures and motivate them to
contribute one or more picturs under the condition of the GNU-FDL. Be
creative, try to please the heirs, friends, colleagues, fans....

We do not have the support of one publishing house - but we are many. Till now
I have asked in two cases for data and one aerial photo - in both cases I get
friendly support.

But like the [[J D Salinger]] case, you should have good article before you
start asking for pictures. When it is an excellent article, it should be a
question of honour that someone with an own copy right, to support the
wikipedia.

With this way, we spend more time and have less photos - but everybody who has
organized a contribution from a third person has the satisfaction that this
work secure to support the wikipedia in a professional way with a real free
picture that is not in dager to become unfair by one single lawsuit.

BTW I want to remember, that I got more than I expected, I`m shure I will get
more aerial photos, because I made a new friend of the wikipedia.

And isn`t this challange, to find new friends of the wikipedia a very nice
one?
rob


from_name: Karl Eichwalder

body:
Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> writes:

> If the things that no longer exist are old enough, then any existing
> photographs will be public domain.

Yes, but does this mean we can use their files?  In Germany it isn't
allowed: the files are protected for a couple of year (Leistungsschutz:
somebody took the pain digitizing old manuscripts and you are not
allowed to reuse these files for your own project).

Let's hope archive.org will survive long enough.

--
                                                         |      ,__o
                                                         |    _-\_<,
http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/                            |   (*)/'(*)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] What did Richard Stallman say?

body:
Richard Stallman wrote:

> (Jimmy Wales wrote: We are faced with an issue of convenience versus
> freedom when we talk
>
>about licensing images.  Because we are a nonprofit charitable
>organization with an educational mission, we can easily get non-free
>licenses to use images.)
>
>This is easily done, but doesn't achieve the goal of building a free
>encyclopedia.  There is no help for it; to make a free encyclopedia,
>one must stick to materials that are free.
>
I totally agree.

>(Jimbo again: Because we are a nonprofit charitable
>organization with an educational mission, we can make heavy use of the
>doctrine of "fair use" in the US.)
>
>When applicable, this may be a good solution.
>
>(Clause 7 of the license permits us to combine
>independent works, even proprietary works, and this clearly includes
>aggregating images and articles stored on the same server.)
>
>This is permitted in the sense that it won't violate the GFDL.
>
No disrespect intended, but as far as I know, RMS is not a lawyer. By
promoting the concept of copyleft, he has certainly had a significant
effect on law, but he did have the help of a lawyer, Eben Moglen, to
write the licenses. I would not use this as a legal interpretation. For
one thing, I think RMS would concede he's not an expert in the details
of international copyright law, though he may have learned more about it
than most. Also, may I point out that in software and programming, his
real area of expertise, fair use is a much less significant concept than
for us. So I don't think we should count on RMS to tell us when it's
"applicable" that fair use is "a good solution", especially with the
non-US implications.

RMS is a good person to ask about the spirit of GFDL, and that is
important. To keep that spirit, as he says, we should use free images if
we want to make a free encyclopedia.

--Michael Snow


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia-l Digest, Vol 7, Issue 31

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

> I find it quite bizarre that the GNU advocates are acting in the same
>
>bullyish members as the RIAA is about "copyright violations". There lies
>no salvation in extremism.
>
When it comes to bullying, perhaps we should also reconsider our hasty,
and sometimes hostile, response to Anthony and McFly about GFDL and
copyright violations.

--Michael Snow


body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

> I find it quite bizarre that the GNU advocates are acting in the same
>
> bullyish members as the RIAA is about "copyright violations". There
> lies  no salvation in extremism.
>
When it comes to bullying, perhaps we should also reconsider our hasty,
and sometimes hostile, response to Anthony and McFly about GFDL and
copyright violations.

--Michael Snow

(My mistake, forgot to fix the subject line on that last one.)


body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

> Nicolas Weeger wrote:
>
>>What about for instance book covers?  They are definitely not
>>something you can usually have under a free licence. But fair use
>>probably applies (since the cover isn't the book itself).
>>
>>
>
>What would the "fair use" status of a book cover be in Great Britian?
>In Australia?
>
>I'm asking because I don't know, but I think it's relevant to the
>decision here.
>
May I suggest that we ask ourselves a different kind of question. All
the countries in question are parties to the Berne Convention for the
Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, including the US. It has much
wider acceptance, and only a few countries have not signed on. No issues
with a US-centric fair use doctrine.

Article 10 of the Berne Convention states, "It shall be permissible to
make quotations from a work which has already been lawfully made
available to the public, provided that their making is compatible with
fair practice, and their extent does not exceed that justified by the
purpose...." This can be a basis for any of us, even outside the US, to
quote text when necessary. Perhaps we could also consider images in this
context. For example, many artists and photographers have collected
works published. Can we say that selecting one picture from such a book,
to illustrate the article on that artist, is a quotation? Can we "quote"
a brief sound file from a CD? Does anyone know if Amazon.com is relying
on this kind of approach, or do they secure permission from every artist
to offer 30-second samples of five songs, as a condition for listing the
merchandise?

>Fair use is an important doctrine, and one that we should defend and
>push for as a natural right.  If fair use is legitimate, and would be
>legitimate for virtually every conceivable re-user (i.e. barring some
>silly hypothetical) we should feel comfortable relying on it if it's
>valuable and, as in this case, there is no conceivable alternative.
>
I agree that fair use is helpful, and we should push for wider
acceptance of it in the international arena. If that time comes, I am
confident that Wikipedians will quickly take advantage of the
opportunity to quickly add many images that are newly available.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040220/d1db0bbd/attachment.htm


from_name: Sascha Noyes

body:
I agree that this would be useful. I must however remind you that this has
nothing to do with privacy. If you publish something on your user page it is
_published_. Which means that it is not private.

Best,
Sascha Noyes

On Thursday 19 February 2004 10:29 pm, Optim wrote:
> Summary: Proposal to have separate databases for
> userpages, talkpages and articles.
>
> Hello,
>
> I think it would be a good idea to have separate
> databases (or downloadable files) for userpages,
> talkpages and articles.
>
> Many Wikipedia mirrors copy userpages and
> talkpages. I don't like that. It doesn't help to
> protect the privacy of Wikipedians.
>
> Having separate databases (or downloadable files)
> will help the people who mirror our content to
> copy just what they really want (the articles)
> and not userpages and talkpages, which may
> contain information some Wikipedians (like me)
> would prefer be available only on servers
> controlled by Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> Please comment, support, oppose, criticise and
> inform us about your opinion.
>
> Thank you.
>
> --Optim

--
Encryption key available from http://www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc


body:
On Thursday 19 February 2004 10:57 pm, Optim wrote:
> Wikipedia mirrors are not editable by the author.
> In Wikipedia, If I publish something and I change
> opinion, I just point my mouse to the "Edit" link
> and I change it. But you cannot do that on a
> mirror. Thus, the author losts control over his
> userpage.

Yes, I agree. I was just clarifying that this isn't related to privacy.

Best,
Sascha Noyes
--
Encryption key available from http://www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc