The Killing Fields

From Wikitruth

Jump to: navigation, search

[edit] A Minor Announcement

We got tired of coming up with good illustrative photos, so here's some good advice instead.
We got tired of coming up with good illustrative photos, so here's some good advice instead.

It's couched in boring language, the quiet and logical statements of recently-elected board member Kat Walsh (Mindspillage), explaining how to prepare Wikipedia for its future, it will move towards open content. The letter is filled with the phraseology one expects a board to have:

The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to develop educational content under a free content license or in the public domain. For content to be "free content", it must have no significant legal restriction on people's freedom to use, redistribute, or modify the content for any purpose.

It is therefore vital that all projects under the Foundation umbrella use these standards, not only because of our desire to enable the creation of free reference works, but also because of our commitment to allow those works to benefit everyone who wishes to use and reuse them. Because of this, all media we allow on our projects must be free for all users and all purposes, including non-Wikimedia use, commercial use, and derivative works. (Some media may be subject to restrictions other than copyright in some jurisdictions, but are still considered free work.)

— Kat Walsh

Assuming you don't fall asleep and drive your car off the road trying to read it, it all sounds pretty understandable and reasonable. Free works for all! Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation projects (Wikipedia, Wikiquote, the occasional Bomis Girl) are to adhere to a uniform, open license to ensure that it will not restrict the distribution and re-use of content. Normally this sort of language comes from the hairy piehole of a technological hippie instead of a delicious little bobbin, but it's nothing new or to freak out about.

Except, of course, this basically says that Fair Use is not necessarily a good reason to have an image on Wikipedia.

In fact, if you interpret it a certain way, this basically says fair use is no longer compatible with the goals and policies of the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia.

And, you see, the issue is that at this point there are thousands of photographs, images and text passages on Wikipedia citing Fair Use. Literately thousands.

[edit] Fair Use for Retards

If you don't pay much attention to the doctrine of Fair Use, then this probably isn't all that interesting to you. And we freely admit that in a land of transsexual fascist administrators, Soviet-style disappearing of information, backstabbing of previous collaborators to diminish them, and tits, this sounds pretty dull.

But Fair Use is one of the cherished doctrines and policies of many an academic and critical organization. In a nutshell, it says that you can quote or reference a copyrighted work, even reproduce it to some extent, to provide illustration or a basis for comparison and contrast. Fair Use allows for the quoting and referencing of copyrighted works, so that they may be compared and contrasted by people seeking to enhance knowledge. Essays use passages from copyrighted statements to prove a point. Web pages and books use images that are copyrighted to illustrate a point. News organizations quote speeches or songs or whatever they need to let their audience understand the context of what's being discussed. It's pretty important stuff.

Wikipedia has, for the last 5 years, utilized Fair Use to get some of the growth it has today. In fact, it's sometimes veered deep into plagarism and outright theft of others' works to get where it is. How much easier it is to exponentially grow when you're exponentially stealing! But efforts were being made to weed out all these yoinked jewels and replace them with actual original work. Debates raged over what could be kept and what had to be thrown out since, you know, it wasn't Wikipedia's. Fair Use was held up as a standard and a reason to use pieces of others' works, and to use screenshots, photographs and so on.

Now, with Wikipedia the central source for so much information, all the Fair Use is going away.

[edit] Goodbye, Arrivederci, Avoir, Adiós

In the ensuing conversation now taking place on the Administrators' Noticeboard, it's quite obvious where things are going to go.

See, Wikipedia doesn't do subtle. It does Stalking, it does Petulance, it does Astounding Dumbass, and it does Anal Sexless Librarian, but it doesn't do subtle. And this is kind of a subtle issue.

Amount of time after this discussion came out on the Wikipedia mailing list before Administrator/Jelly Roll Cyde started wholesale deleting images by the truckload? About an hour.

If you tell Wikipedians to trim some fingernails, the nature of the Wikipedia environment is that someone will start chopping off hands. And after you go "Hey, slow down, Tex, that's gone too far", they'll switch to just chopping off fingers and everyone's happy at the compromise.

We think the whole problem is captured beautifully in this quote:

This whole thing looks like it may become a huge disaster (if it isn't already - Cyde is already deleting images with no warning or discussion that I can see), while I can see the appeal of wanting all free media it certainly makes "free" the higher priority than "good". As far as I'm concerned, this is a huge blow for wikipedia and instantly eliminates any possibility of wikipedia being as good as the top commercial encyclopedias. It simply isn't possible for wikipedia to display the same images that "real" encyclopedias do, and wikipedia will suffer for it. Wikipedia will have virtually no photos other than "homemade" ones and ones taken before 1920 or so. Additionally, this edict is extremely vague and the criteria listed are so widely open to interpretation to be almost meaningless. "historically important photographs and significant modern artworks" basically means there's no criteria to judge photos beyond endless arguments that will mostly be "seems historical/significant to me". I'd second the question about whether text is included, if it is it would likely mean no quotes from any copyrighted literature of any kind, regardless of how short. I think this has the potential to cause a major shift, with content about virtually all pop culture (really any article about any copyrighted material) getting relegated to second class status and editors interested in those topics moving to other more specific wikis.
— Milo H Minderbinder (17:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC))
Strap yourselves in, kids... Wikipedia's trimming down!