[WikiEN-l] Image:TrangBang.jpg (was defining Free Encyclopedia (originally Image:TrangBang.jpg and other copyright confusion))

Fri Aug 20 15:30:59 UTC 2004

> Message: 10
> Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:38:12 -0400
> From: "Anthony DiPierro" <anthonydipierro at hotmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] defining Free Encyclopedia
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>  "Anthony DiPierro" <anthonydipierro at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Well, the email has been sent already, so why don't we see what they
>> reply with?  I hardly see how any kind of permission (or refusal) 
>> from AP
>> could [be] bad for us: It clarifies our options, but we don't /have/ 
>> to
>> avail of them if we don't want.
>
> First of all, refusal wouldn't clarify our options.  If the image is 
> being
> used in a way which is fair use, then it's fair use regardless of 
> whether or
> not AP has refused to allow us to use it.

Ok, fair point. But if they refuse it would be a strong indication to 
us to maybe only "go against them" once we got 100% agreement and a 
rock solid case as regards our legal standing -- neither of which would 
apply given the dispute. So this *would* resolve it in telling us "yea, 
it may still be fair use, but it's really too hot to handle". None of 
us, I think, would want to make the Wikipedia /ask/ for a lawsuit.
Besides, even the Associated Press is aware of fair use legislation and 
I don't have reason to believe that they would maliciously exaggerate 
their rights. Maybe I'm naive and overly optimistic in that.

> Secondly, clarifying our options
> doesn't resolve the dispute.  Having options is exactly the reason we 
> have
> the dispute.  If we didn't have any options, we wouldn't have a 
> dispute.

Ack. War of words. What I mean is that some people think we CAN include 
the pic under fair use and and some people think we CAN'T.
Once we know whether we realistically (ie. w/o asking for a lawsuit) 
can include the picture that should for all intents and purposes remove 
one of these alternatives (or alternating views if you prefer).

>> Besides, the root of the problem _as I perceive it_ is that this is a
>> proxy political dispute:
>
>> The very people pushing hardest against that picture's use and for its
>> removal on copyright grounds made edits that would seem to hint at a
>> political affiliation which might make them feel uncomfortable about
>> this picture. (That's not a judgment, just an observation.)
>
> That's certainly not the *root* of the problem.  It may be why the 
> problem
> came to light in this particular instance, but the root of the problem 
> has
> nothing to do with these details.  The root of the problem is that we
> haven't decided what it means to be a *free* encyclopedia.  This needs 
> to be
> resolved in a way which provides objective criteria for inclusion.  
> We've
> started along on that path, but we've still got a long way to go.
>
> Incidently, this is somewhat analogous to the problem of deciding what 
> it
> means to be a free *encyclopedia*.  We're farther along with that
> definition, and have already come up with somewhat objective criteria 
> at
> [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]].  But we still resort to
> [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]], still have ongoing inclusion 
> disputes, and
> people still abuse the abiguities for political purposes.
>
>> My motivation was to settle the copyright situation, yay or nay, so
>> people can THEN deal with it.
>
>> If we first wanted to wait till we had agreement, we'd wait till
>> kingdom come.
>
> I don't think that's at all the case.  I'm probably one of the biggest
> objectors to having non-free images on Wikipedia, and I've come a long 
> way
> toward accepting some non-GFDL images as being "free enough".  I 
> actually
> think the majority of the problem is a lack of understanding rather 
> than
> diametrically opposed viewpoints.
>
> I think we can come to an agreement on what it means to be a *free*
> *encyclopedia*.  It would probably speed things up to organize the 
> effort,
> and that's why I proposed as part of my platform when I ran for the
> Wikimedia board to start a committee with the task of defining those 
> terms
> by community consensus (i.e. what the term means to us).  I think a
> definition of the term "Free Encyclopedia", similar in concept and 
> spirit to
> the GNU Project's definition of Free Software (see
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html), formed by the community 
> as a
> whole and ratified by the board, would *be* an agreement, and I think 
> it
> could be reached.  Maybe I'm just overly optimistic.

I think most folks embroiled in the Image:TrangBang.jpg dispute really 
don't care that much about the underlying and wider aspects. Please 
don't see this as a personal attack of any sort, but it is my 
impression that the general establishment of firm *free encyclopedia* 
definitions and attendant ground rules is something that /you/ 
particularly care about (I would have written "pet project", but I 
don't mean to offend). I think you're going to find that most parties 
to the TrangBang image dispute will claim that the existing rules are 
totally clear and sufficient, only the *other side* is so politically 
skewed that they misinterpret the rules towards their ends, consciously 
or not.
I don't think you're going to find huge motivation for the wider 
"defining Wikipedia" policy initiative as you seek pursuing it -- not 
among the parties to this dispute anyway, because either side thinks 
the rules are already on their side and would perceive any 
"(re-)definition initiative" as a policy change initiative that could 
work against them.

For these reasons, if it's the wider policy initiative that you care 
about, then this dispute IMHO is among the absolute worst opportunities 
to push for it -- *even if* you're right and the rules aren't clear and 
need improvement.

(btw. the image is now up again, so we're going round in circles)

- Jens