[Foundation-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation website

Sun Nov 13 08:24:20 UTC 2005

Anthere wrote:

> Angela wrote:
>
>> On 11/9/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I no longer think an uneditable wiki is the best way to present the
>>>> Foundation to the world.
>>>
>>> I'll let other people make that decision.
>>
>> I'd like to know if anyone still thinks it is a good idea, and if so
>> why? It clearly doesn't present an official view, so where is the
>> benefit in it being uneditable? 
>
To whatever extent there really is official policy it makes sense that 
it is uneditable, but there should be ample opportunity to comment that 
is directly linked from the uneditable pages. 

> Incidently, if you read Traroth report,  It says
>
> 1) Le Louvres is a famous french museum; hosting art, with most of it 
> much much older than 100 years old, so likely to be considered owned 
> by humanity
>
> 2) Le Louvres has started forbidding taking pictures from this art
>
> 3) Only photographers authorized to take picture of art will be Le 
> Louvres photographers, so ALL photos will be under cp. Which means 
> that unless you go to Paris and pay the entrance, all this artwork 
> will be only visible through work under copyright. None will be free 
> to use.
>
> 4) And Traroth concludes he does not think art and freedom will gain 
> much of this;
>
> Now, on another note, compare it to Jimbo's speech at Wikimania, about 
> freeing 10 things...
>
> How different is that ? How unofficial is it to try to push so that 
> people are free to take pictures of famous paintings 500 years old ?
>
> To me, there is no difference. What Jimbo said in his Wikimania speech 
> is exactly what Traroth says about what is happening in Le Louvres; 
> The only difference is that Jimbo was speaking generally, while 
> Traroth is taking an example. But if the Foundation agrees that what 
> Le Louvres is doing (ie if the Foundation public view is that 
> forbidding access to old painting is just fine) then I must say I do 
> not agree with the Foundation public view at all.
>
> I will go further in saying that Jimbo's public speech does not fit 
> either with the Foundation position.
>
> Then, if neither Jimbo's nor my position are the positions of the 
> Foundation... how do we define what the official position of the 
> Foundation is ? 

Isn't that the function of the Board?  The Board can and should support 
a policy of "freeing" the art and the museums, and explain what that 
means in general terms.  It should avoid taking that into great detail 
because of the wide variety of country specific or project specific 
circumstances that can exist.  The wonder of NPOV is that it is very 
difficult to pin down in a way that can be applied the same way to all 
projects; at the same time it has been a key factor in Wikipedia's success.

When it comes to the Louvre situation it shoudl not be up to the 
Foundation to take a specific stand about those circumstances, but it 
can take the position in principle that photographs of portraits that 
have themselves gone into the public domain in the relevant country are 
not copyrightable.  The French association may be able to elaborate this 
further in relation to what its members may do in France, and what ways 
of circumventing unjust rules are acceptable.  If I visit France, and 
choose to sneak a camera into the Louvre, I can still do so at my own risk.

> Now, there is another important point.
> Traroth position on Le Louvres issue is clearly supported by Wikimedia 
> France. Similarly, other people are currently working to free some 
> information, such as the people working on the ESA images issue. Most 
> of these actions are linked with the French and/or German associations.
>
> Should we also remove all descriptions of what the german and french 
> associations are doing from the WMF website, upon the principle that 
> those actions are not official views of the Foundation ? Does that 
> mean what the associations do are contrary to the Foundation goals ? 

Not at all.

> I am quite worried of what you seem to imply in saying that this 
> article does not reprensent our official view, because it represents 
> my view and quite probably the view of at least one chapter. If we 
> remove everything but only what Jimbo's words, then, I agree, there is 
> no sense in that website. 

Whole Foundation views are not just about your or Jimbo's words.  It is 
always a problem when an organization has one key leader whose words are 
so influential that they will be taken as absolute truth or duty.  He 
becomes trapped in his role as an idol. and must be careful with his 
words lest some idiot take a ridiculously extreme interpretation.  This 
is why it's even more important for the Board to take a collective 
representative position.

Ec