[WikiEN-l] defining Free Encyclopedia

Fri Aug 20 20:36:51 UTC 2004

> 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"

If we're not 100% sure that the image is fair use, we shouldn't be using it
anyway.  By permission only images are not allowed on Wikipedia.

> 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.

And some of us think that we can but we shouldn't.

> I think most folks embroiled in the Image:TrangBang.jpg dispute really
> don't care that much about the underlying and wider aspects.

You're probably right, but to some extent that just means it's more
important that we resolve these wider issues in a content-neutral fashion.

> 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).

Of course I'm not offended.  It *is* something that I particularly care
about.  I wouldn't have brought it up when I ran for the board if it wasn't.
I just think this situation is an excellent example of why we need it.

> 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.

Really?  Do you feel this way?  Because the way I see it, we don't have any
existing rules.  In fact, we've resorted to listing an image on a page which
is meant for articles precisely because we don't have any existing rules for
this sort of thing.

> 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.

I don't know if I will find motivation to define things or not.  I've
brought it to the mailing list because I think there's a chance some people
here will find the motivation, though.  If not, I'll be ignored, and no harm
is done.

But the fact that both sides think the rules are already on their side is my
point.  This isn't something we should be arguing about.  We should all be
on the same side here.  The only way to get everyone on the same side is to
come together and make a decision.

> 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.

I see it as one of the best opportunities.  Go figure.

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

And we'll continue to go in circles until we get together and make a
decision.

> - Jens

Anthony