> The goal of the project is not to produce an encyclopedia with content
> that is free for some people for some uses.
But that's exactly what's happening as long as
all the focus is on U.S. laws. Fair use won't
protect you if you're publishing Wikipedia derived
content in Denmark. Nor will Bridgeman v. Corel.
Recently a picture of the Lindisfarne Gospels
taken from the British Library website became
a featured picture even though the BL explicitly
claims copyright on it and that claim may well
hold up in a British court.
>> In my opinion there's nothing wrong with Wikipedia
>> using that image even if non-encyclopec down-stream
>> users can't. I'm sure they would allow a Wikibook
>> too if you ask them. If you can get them to release
>> it under CC-BY that would of course be great. And
>> if you can get a PD image of a z-machine which is
>> as good as this one I salute you.
>
> Well, the policy of Wikipedia disagrees with you,
> and has for a fairly long time.
I know. And I will abide by it. But I will also argue
that it should be changed.
>> No-one in this thread has suggested we break the law.
>
> Fair enough. Pardon my tunnel vision, because the vast majority of
> images being canned right now are not cases where we have been given
> permission and in those cases people are suggesting we break the law.
Fair enough. I'm sure this is a stressful job
and I applaud you for doing it.
> As I said, if the images are not tagged it is impossible short of
> having someone read all of the image texts and removing a lot of
> images that are free but left untagged.
Agreed. But if we properly tag everything the
technical problem is a minor one.
> Downstream work which is visable to you, there is a lot of substanital
> downstream work which isn't useless and in any case we are not
> providing freedom if we exclude even the stupid mirrors.
I don't want to exclude stupid mirrors or anyone else.
If a neo-nazi wants to publish Wikipedia content modified
to a nazi POV that's fine with me as long as she respects
the GFDL.
But I hope you'll agree that we have a visibility problem
here. We're losing the excellent Eastern Yellow Robin.jpg
because its author won't release it for use outside of
Wikipedia, due to concern about stupid commercial mirroring.
We should by all means try to highlight the positive reuse
that the GFDL allows.
> With permission isn't a lame excuse, it's a good one.. but it's still
> not one we can always accept.
I'm arguing that in many cases it is
no worse an excuse than the U.S.-specific
legal niceties currently tolerated.
Regards,
Haukur
Maury Markowitz wrote:
> More recently I went back to the article and found all the images
> deleted. The deleter added a note, but as far as I can tell did so
> AFTER deleting them ( I can't get history on the image itself, of
> course).. He stated I should have tagged them differently. Yes, well,
> thanks for that, maybe someone should have told me that in the month
> between me uploading them and them being deleted so I could have
> actually DONE that.
As the person who deleted these images, I'll explain that I did so based
on the policy that newer images tagged with the {{copyrighted}} template
(i.e., Wikipedia-only permission) should be deleted on sight. The reason
I added the note to the image talk page after deleting is because I did
not even discover it had a talk page until Maury complained about the
deletion (use of talk pages for images is exceptionally rare). I am
sorry that I missed that fact, as I would not have deleted the images
based on the information there.
The template involved is the one that Maury used himself, and it warned
about this potential deletion at the time that he used it. Arguments
against images of this kind have been brought up for quite some time,
and various announcements have been made and advertised in many places
to discourage their use. I think it's worth noting that the talk page
for the template has this note from Jimbo: "We should keep this message
around, so that people will use it. This will ensure that we can find
these images and promptly delete them." This statement was written on 18
Feb *2004*.
> What's particularily baffling is that the deleter suggested I simply
> re-tag them to PermissionAndFairUse. This strikes me as absolutely
> rediculous. First of all, why are these OK and not ones used with
> permission?
I was trying to be helpful and provide some information that would allow
Maury to restore the images, which I hope he still has access to. So
long as we allow fair use images (not everyone agrees that we should),
the fact that we have permission bolsters our claim to fair use. Thus
even when the permission by itself is too limited for our needs, it is
very useful to note that we have permission.
> And if these are OK, why didn't it say so in the warning on the
> Permission tag?
As has been noted, many people who really want some particular image on
Wikipedia are quick to claim fair use when they really don't have a
basis for it. So I think this is not done in the interests of not
advertising this dubious escape hatch too widely.
--Michael Snow
>> Wikipedia has passed the stage of being comparable
>> to other encyclopedias you can access at no cost.
>
> It's an encyclopedia. It's always comparable.
I meant "comparable" in the sense "about as good".
> ... and just as is the case for any other encyclopedia, the world
> doesn't end because we can't include some images.
Certainly. Nor will the world of our downstream users
if they can't use every single image Wikipedia itself
can. They can't do that anyway because fair use only
applies in the U.S.
>> This argument is getting a bit tired. Do you have an
>> [[IBM 360]] in your backyard? Do you have a [[Z machine]]?
>
> Funny you should ask that...
> I don't actually have a IBM360, but I have at various times had a
> number of large vaxen, and a few flavors of PDP.
> I've also had in my garage at various times, an airport style x-ray
> machine, several multiwatt lasers, the complete line of NeXT
> computers, a large optical jukebox, several hundred Sun workstations,
> and many other things.
>
> So, no, I don't have a IBM 360, but people have a lot of equipment
> that you wouldn't expect.. If not at home then at work... I'm willing
> to bet some other Wikipedia user does, but they aren't likely to shoot
> pictures of it if there is already an unfree image on the page.
I'm sorry - this was a typo for [[IBM 1360]] which
is the machine in question if you're following the
thread. It's nice that we have free pictures of the
IBM 360. And it's nice that you have had lots of
stuff in your garage at various times.
> and the Z machine is a
> perfect example of something where we can probably get a grant under
> CC-BY or GFDL.
Have you followed the discussion on the permission
for the Z-machine picture? By all means, go ahead
and ask them to release it under CC-BY.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Zmachine.jpg
Currently the image information page has a license
which says:
"encyclopedia articles are fine. We only require a
credit in the form, 'Courtesy, Sandia National Laboratories,'"
In my opinion there's nothing wrong with Wikipedia
using that image even if non-encyclopec down-stream
users can't. I'm sure they would allow a Wikibook
too if you ask them. If you can get them to release
it under CC-BY that would of course be great. And
if you can get a PD image of a z-machine which is
as good as this one I salute you.
>> > If Wikipedia isn't getting enough photographs, we should reach out and
>> > encourage more photographers to join our community. A lack of content
>> > isn't an excuse to break the law.
>>
>> No-one is suggesting we do.
>
> Yes, actually people are... or rather there are some suggesting that
> images they've found on the internet should be acceptable for us to
> use.
No-one in this thread has suggested we break the law.
>> It is a simple matter for downstream users
>> not to include images tagged used-with-permission.
>> Wikipedia articles very rarely rely on the images
>> in their main text.
>
> Actually, it's a pain in the butt to remove the images because of the
> way we store the tagging.. once you mix in the inconsistency of the
> tagging it becomes impossible.
It's a straightforward technical problem.
It's not "impossible", it's not even really
that difficult.
> The vast majority of the images going up on WP:PUI are images that are
> likely copyvio for even for us to use.. and are not examples of used
> with permission.
And it's good that we're removing those. I'm only
concerned with used-with-permission images here.
>> And I can sympathise with people who don't give a
>> rat's toenail for the current downstream users,
>> much as I believe in the GFDL.
>
> Sympathize as much as you like. Preserving freedom downstream is a
> goal of the project.
Yes. One that I am aware of and agree with.
> Downstrem users doesn't just refer to random
> useless mirror on the internet, but also refers to people publishing
> printed works, and to other sister projects like wikibooks.
Yes. Unfortunately most downstream use up to this
point has been useless mirroring.
> I brought up fair use because it is almost universally the response to
> complaints that images are unfree.
It shouldn't be and we agree on that.
>> And, sadly, it seems that Jimbo's fatwah against UWP has
>> increased the number of far-fetched rationalizations for
>> fair use on Wikipedia.
>
> I'm am strongly against abuse of fair use. I haven't noticed WP:PUI
> accepting images as fair use which shouldn't be... can you cite some
> examples?
No. But your comment above indicates that you are aware of
the tendency of people to claim fair use when they're told
that they can't use an image - including a used-with-permission
image.
Regards,
Haukur
I would like to point out that this discussion (regarding the chess
championship anyway) has already been had at [[Wikipedia talk:Chess
championship]], and, much more importantly at [[Wikipedia:Votes for
deletion/Chess championship]] where the community decided that it
should stay. This should settle the matter for the time being as these
sort of decisions should be made by the consensus in the community.
However, this being wikipedia, I understand that a vote that should
settle a matter is seldom the end of the discussion I will provide the
view from someone who does play games on the wiki.
We have seen many times that great contributors leave the project
because of the sometimes excruciating difficulties this sort of
project brings (we had one recently, if anybody recalls). Almost
universally for these users they leave because of the air of
hostility, the endless arguments and the general incivilty that,
despite our best efforts, still cripple the project.
> "You are a hypocrite" is a personal attack. "You seem to apply a
> lenient standard to yourself and a strict standard to others" is a
> description of behavior, particularly if you cite examples.
Those mean the exact same thing! You just gave the definition of a
hypocrite. You're making a meaningless distinction here and I
seriously doubt you follow your own logic. Are you saying you've
never called someone a troll or accused them of using sock puppets?
Can you honestly say that you've been using a very long-winded,
politically correct version of a troll accusation?
And I do give examples, but you seem to keep ignoring that repeatedly
because it suits you to ignore it.
You REALLY do not have the authority to make an arbitrary distinction
like that as it's outlined in *zero* policies.
> There are
> several policies which do require you to be Mr. Nice Guy in addition
> to general exhortations about Wikiipedia:Wikilove: Wikipedia:No
> personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility.
...such as? Give an example if you're going to make a claim. Oh
wait, you can't give examples when you're *wrong* :-/
> All the
> rest of Wikipedia is open to you including all the policy
> discussions.
Wrong, users who are well-liked and admins/arbitrators are not subject
to this rule. David Gerard himself, under that silly logic,
personally attacked me in my very own injunction against personal
attacks. Who held him responsible?
> You are subject to a personal attack parole for one
> year. Just don't do it. You are by no means done here.
The only possible way for me to do it would be to either not
contribute or just not call people out on bad behavior, since you guys
obviously are not enforcing on personal attacks, but rather content
and arguments you don't like..
----------------------------------------------
Nathan J. Yoder
http://www.gummibears.nu/http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key
----------------------------------------------
Fastfission wrote:
>Tables of contents are, to my knowledge, generally considered easily
>and unquestionably covered by fair use clauses -- there is no
>"creativity" that goes into simply compiling a list of what your
>encyclopedia has in it, and in the end this is essentially just
>citation information, which of course is never considered copyrighted
>(how could you attribute if you could not cite?). If one is to be
>copyright paranoid (something which I somewhat support in some
>circumstances), there are plenty of more dodgy uses of fair use in
>Wikipedia than this.
>
>
If you want to claim fair use for this list, please review and analyze
the fair use factors and tell us how this list qualifies for fair use.
Fair use is analyzed on a case-by-case basis, so you can't really just
say glibly that a particular type of content is always fair use. It's
the *use* that matters much more than the nature of the original content.
There *is* creativity involved in a list of what an encyclopedia
contains, quite specifically due to the selection process involved in
determining what subjects go into the encyclopedia in the first place.
I agree that we have lots of dubious claims of fair use, but that
doesn't make this one okay.
--Michael Snow
Yes, because accidentally forgetting to trim a bunch
of quoted text is exactly the same thing as calling
someone a "fascist hag". Duly noted.
Skyring skyring at gmail.com:
Hmmm. Six lines of post and a couple of a hundred of
quoted material.
Perhaps you should examine the log in your own eye,
brother, before
pointing out the speck in another's!
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
> The "scientific" formulation of "life helps like," as I've heard it,
> is simply "symptoms to diseases are actually signs of the immune
> system attempting to work. Rather than stifle them, one should
> encourage them." So, for example, when you have a cold, rather than
> take medicines to force your runny nose to stop running, one should
> take things which encourage the nose to run more: the running is a
> sign of the nose trying to purge out whatever you caught, and blocking
> it up only prolongs the disease period itself.
>
> Now I'm not saying that's correct at all as a medical model but
> formulated *as such* you can see why it was not dismissed as total
> quackery by my professors. Of course the diluted aspect is clearly
> pure unscientific nonsense.
Yes, I see. I suppose that's a fairly typical
introduction to homeopathy. It sounds sort of
plausible and somewhat interesting. Here's a
sample pro-homeopathy article that starts like
this:
http://www.betterhealthchannel.com.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Homeopath…
"Homoeopathic medicine deliberately mimics or provokes the symptoms of a
patient's disease to strengthen the body's ability to heal itself."
Sounds plausible but read a bit further down
and see the actual basis of the method:
"Modern homoeopathy was founded in the 18th Century by a German physician,
Dr Samuel Hahnemann. He believed that:
* Disease stemmed from a disturbance to the energy field of the body,
which he called the 'vital force'.
* The best cure could be achieved by using 'energised' medicine.
* As the size of the dose decreased, the potency of the substance increased."
Anyone familiar with science or medicine should
be raising eyebrows at this point - but the best
is yet to come.
"These medicines then undergo a progressive series of dilutions, which
includes shaking the bottle between each dilution.
...
After the twelfth dilution, the homoeopathic medicine goes beyond what is
called 'Avogadro's limit' and there is no discernible trace of the
original substance left in the medicine."
Note that this is from a *pro-homeopathy* article.
They freely admit that the purported medicine is
completely diluted out of the solution. They claim
that it works anyway:
"Although conventional scientific methods cannot explain how they work,
many clinical trials have found homoeopathic medicines to be effective in
treating a range of disorders."
Science can indeed not explain how something like
that would work. If someone did prove it to work
it would be a huge development in physics, chemistry
and medicine. A Nobel prize would be guaranteed.
But it hasn't been proven to work, despite their
claim to the contrary. In *properly conducted*
clinical trials it fails every time. But in studies
conducted by homeopaths it always seems to work
- and how could it fail to work with these kinds
of criteria:
"Sometimes, symptoms get worse before they get better. This may be a sign
that the medicine is working, and that the body is strengthening its
efforts to fight the disease..."
So, if you get better it's working and if you get
worse, well, it's probably working anyhow.
And look at these homeopaths' attitude to boring
old conventional medicine:
"According to the homoeopathic philosophy, conventional drugs that
suppress symptoms are only driving the disease deeper into the body."
Of course they have the requisite disclaimers about
consulting with your regular doctor but they're still
giving out harmful medical advice.
- - -
But don't take my word for it. Read this homeopathy
page for yourself (it's short) and then tell me if
there's still doubt in your mind as to the pseudoscientific
nature of the discipline and whether you think it is
reasonable for an encyclopædia to entertain such doubts
in its category system.
Regards,
Haukur
P.S. Full disclosure, I came upon this article from
http://www.randi.org/jr/070105quality.html#1
I think that if a field of inquiry, or a theory if you will, is to be called "pseudoscience," then it has to be explained by what criteria it is distinct from "real" science or protoscience. And then the rebuttal from those who believe it is real science must be presented as well.
The argument for creationism (which I don't buy) is that the fossil record and other physical evidence leaves unanswered questions in the "theory" of evolution. Hence, they argue, you can't reject creationism as a valid form of scientific inquiry. The fallacy is that if one explanation doesn't explain everything, then all other explanations are equally valid.
I think it is important to have an article about pseudoscience, but it would be more interesting and readable, and less contentious, if we omitted examples altogether. Tom Cruise recently characterized psychiatry as a "pseudoscience" and would undoubtedly list it as an example here. There'd be a big argument, and the article wouldn't improve much.
Greetings,
I am a member of the NY Assn of Black Journaists. I may have to update my
membership but I would like to share this with nyabg.org.
Cassandra Wimbs
