Delirium wrote:
Steve Block wrote:
So that means we aren't an encyclopedia about
anything then? We're
actually an encyclopedia about what suits commercial usages? Fair
play, we have to look out for commercial users, but what is more
important here, the encyclopedia or the potential reuse of it?
We've never been *solely* an encyclopedia---we've explicitly been a
*free-as-in-freedom* encyclopedia. The *entire point* of creating
Wikipedia is to make a reusable encyclopedia, not solely to make an
encyclopedia hosted on
wikipedia.org and distributed by the Wikimedia
Foundation (if that were the goal, there would be no reason to have an
open-content license in the first place). In the case of fair use,
this is a tradeoff: We want to make as unencumbered an encyclopedia as
possible, with maximal possible reuse by anyone for any purpose,
balanced against the fact that we'd like maximal coverage of
everything as well. So, we allow fair use, but generally prefer free
sources where possible, and only use fair use where it ads something
that makes it worth the potential copyright difficulties for reusers.
You seem to have misunderstood me, which is entirely my fault, I wasn't
clear enough. What I want to know is, if as you say:
We've never been *solely* an
encyclopedia---we've explicitly been a
*free-as-in-freedom* encyclopedia. The *entire point* of creating
Wikipedia is to make a reusable encyclopedia
Then that means we can create an encyclopedia, and as long as all uses
of information qualify for encyclopedic purposes, there is no problem.
However, where you say:
So, we allow fair use, but generally prefer free
sources where
possible, and only use fair use where it ads something that makes it
worth the potential copyright difficulties for reusers.
That to me implies there is a potential conflict between creating an
encyclopedia which is reusable, and making an encyclopedia tailored to
reusers. If we are doing the latter, then I for one would rather be
renumerated for my work, thank you very much. At what point do we
censor the encyclopedia for the commercial sensitivities of reusers?
I may be missing something here, and am willing to cede that, and I
admit my language is rather strong, for which I apologise, but I draw
your attention to this quote from Jimmy Wales:
"Wikipedia is first and foremost an effort to create and distribute a
free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single
person on the planet in their own language."
Now to me, "the highest possible quality" doesn't imply that such
quality is tempered by potential reuse considerations, because, let's be
frank, what we are arguing about here is commercial reuse, isn't it?
Now, I do not see why, if the material is useable on the online
Wikipedia, it should be removed due to reuse considerations.
However, if it is decided that commercial reuse does place limits on the
material we use, then some mention of that fact should be made quite
explicitly somewhere. Unless I have really got the wrong end of the
stick. However I see no mention of the fact that Wikipedia tailors its
material to suit commercial considerations in the article at
[[Wikipedia]]. If someone can clarify that is the case, I will gladly
correct that.
Please ignore this, my apologies, I think I may well have over-reacted
ever so slightly. I wish to humbly retract this statement, since, after
further thought, can quite clearly see the error in my thinking, I
believe. Apologies to one and all for wasting time.
--
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/194 - Release Date: 07/12/05