Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Errabee

message: To everybody: thank you for your comments, and the time you took to evaluate my bid for adminship. Errabee 18:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Star Wars and Wolfenstein results could be because at one time or another you've edited an article whose name starts with those strings, followed by a colon, in the article namespace for the Dutch wikipedia.  Presumably the tool you're using is quite unsophisticated. --Tony Sidaway 12:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

message: The candidate, in his answer to one of the questions, and in other remarks, has made some statements about images, copyrights, common sense and so forth that give some of us concern. Errabee (in accordance with common practice) has also said that too much threaded discussion within the RfA itself might not be a good thing, so I suggested moving this discussion to the talk page. As I said in my oppose and other comments, I think Errabee is a thoughtful, serious candidate but I (and I believe others as well) do have concerns that Errabee will do the right thing when it comes to enforcing the policies of the WMF (which are quite clear) with respect to copyrighted images and our Fair Use doctrine. In general we expect admins to abide even if they disagree. ++Lar: t/c 12:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never said that I won't abide. I certainly won't start a wheel war restoring or reuploading images that were deleted out of copyright concerns. I've not ever been active in WP:IfD (AFAIK), and that won't change if I'll receive the sysop bit. Now one might say that that means I won't enforce policy, and you're probably right about that. However, does every admin need to be active in all corners of Wikipedia? Let admins who want to enforce policies on images enforce them, and admins who don't can do other useful things. Errabee 12:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons and Copyright 

message: I've decided to make a start with the discussion about my copyright stance here, after that was suggested by Lar.
First of all, I want to say that I think the 5 pillars of Wikipedia are a lofty goal, and that any one of us should try as much as possible to achieve that goal. However, the first and the third pillar somewhat oppose each other. In order to have a free encyclopedia, one must first have an encyclopedia. And if you'd want to have an ancyclopedia, you must include some vital articles like Pablo Picasso, Piet Mondrian, CoBrA, Marc Chagall, constructivism, Russian avant-garde and Wassily Kandinsky. And any self-respecting encyclopedia uses one or more paintings to illustrate the development of the artist (especially important for Picasso and Mondrian), or the nature of the works produced by these movements. And they are much more difficult to explain in words than for example impressionism or the works of Claude Monet. Without these, an encyclopedia can never be formed and we will play second-fiddle to Brittanica or Encarta forever.
I think Commons could play a big role in eliminating this problem; instead they chose the opposite route, a movement that deeply troubles me. Ideally, all images should be placed on Commons. There is the knowledge about copyright, it would cause less strain on the servers by having pictures only once instead on the wikipedias of all languages. Commons had (and still has) a unique opportunity to become what it should be: a repository of free images, and if these are not available, a repository with images that can be used only under certain conditions in articles that deal with the subject (possibly even explicitly named). And especially on Commons we have the knowledge to get these fair use rationales right. I'm very disappointed that they've chosen the opposite way.
Another problem with commons are the pictures people take themselves. I believe there are many copyright issues there (e.g. derivative works in photos of statues, buildings, etc). There is also no check whatsoever that a picture is indeed taken by the person who uploaded it. I could pick an image from the internet, optionally rename it, and upload it as my own. Now I'm not saying we should abandon uploading own pictures, but there is a large discrepancy in checking people's own photo's versus e.g. works of art.
To conclude: Using free images should always be our first option, but if no free image exists, fair use pictures should be allowed to be used. Otherwise our first goal of building an encyclopedia will never be reached. If all were concentrated on Commons, the upload facility could be removed from the individual wikipedia's, reducing the stress on sysops, who would never have to check images again.  So until this is realised, I think Commons is not doing very well towards contributing to the goal of WMF. Errabee 12:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Our mission is not to write an encyclopedia. It is to collect free encyclopedic content including free images. Sorry, but based on your answer I must oppose this RFA. FloNight 12:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to our key policies, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (key policy #2). And I believe there is a difference between infringing on copyrights (key policy #4) and using only absolutely free images. I think you can still use non-free images without infringing on copyright. Errabee 12:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the top this page and every one on Wikipedia, it says "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" because being a collection of free content is the main mission and can not be compromised by the inclusion of non-free images. FloNight 13:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: People who go around saying "In order to have a free encyclopedia, one must first have an encyclopedia." scare the shit out of me. -- Nick t 14:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion about copyright stance 

message: I think some examples of what I've done are necessary to get this discussion going. Occassionally, I do encounter copyright problems. This usually occurs when I'm assessing articles for GA-class or A-class. In doing these assessments, I always check if the images comply with copyright rules on this wiki. Take for example Malcolm Sargent. This article didn't have any pictures. Upon my suggestion it needed a picture for A-class, several were added under the Fair Use clause, but no fair use rationale was added. This is my suggestion  to the editor who was working on that article. See also my comments ( and ) for the editor who was working on Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.
I've downgraded an awful lot of articles for the WPBiography project (see ) because the pictures in these articles (that were rated A-class and should not have copyright issues) had copyright issues. So in my own way, I'm enforcing the copyright rules just as strictly as anyone else; even more strictly than some GA-reviewers, as I've come across several Good Articles that were promoted although there were copyright issues. Errabee 15:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're on the right track of thought. It is my opinion that many copyleft projects, like Wikipedia, become obsessed with "free" works to the point that they distort the issue all out of proportion. Fair use images, particularly when used sparingly as needed, are no impediment to either definition of free. They do not prevent Wikipedia from being distributed free (as in free beer), to consumers. Neither they do prevent Wikipedia articles from being distributed freely (as in freedom) to our readers. The only issue would be if there were intellectual property problems with the images used, however you seem to have a good grasp of the distinction between fair use and infringement. Vassyana 17:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vassyana, I believe your understanding of the project issues inherent with the use of fair use images may not be completely correct. I also believe that you and I may not agree that the WMF wants to strongly discourage fair use, but the resolution discussed below makes that amply clear to me. ++Lar: t/c 02:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, it is my opinion. You're welcome to take or leave it. :o) Beyond that, the licensing policy clearly indicates individual projects such as Wikipedia may have exemptions to the general "free-only" standard. Wikipedia:Fair Use is explicitly mentioned. I believe the Foundation and Wikipedia place stringent standards on fair use. WP also requires that free content be used when available. However, I do feel that many in the community go way too far in their copyleft thinking and interpretation of fair use. Many people act as though fair use ("non-free") is "evil" or demand standards that make it impossible to use "non-free" content. Please be aware that I have a powerful bias against both strong copyright and strong copyleft positions and a mild bias against many so-called "free" licenses and their assertions of "freedom". Just some thoughts. Vassyana 23:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some examples 

message: Copied from licensing policy. Original text is made bold, my comments are in normal font.
Whereas the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free content license,"
1. All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works' as referenced above.
::This is a bit silly, to be honest. Any media which is under a Free Content License or is otherwise free, should not be hosted on individual projects, but they should be in a central repository like Commons, so that you need only upload this once. There is absolutely no need for individual projects to host free content media.
   2. In addition, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons, each project community may develop and adopt an EDP. Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users.
::A step in the right direction. But some more has to be done here. Ultimately, there should be one repository for non-free content used under an EDP as well. Recognising that pictures used under an EDP for one country may not necessarily be under an EDP for another country, means that some kind of approval process needs to be set up along with granting access rights per project (and perhaps even per article), supported by the MediaWiki software to prevent its use on other projects.
   3. Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose.
::I can agree with this, although it is a little too restrictive for my taste. I think it's a shame that even portraits of living notable individuals cannot be used under fair use if no free alternative is available yet, but it's something I can live with. But I agree 100% that any EDP should be replaced with a freely licensed work if available. But this point addresses my concerns about the Picasso works that are definitely necessary for a complete and understandable biography of e.g. Pablo Picasso.
   4. Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if they lack an applicable rationale. They must be used only in the context of other freely licensed content.
::I agree fully.
   5. For the projects which currently have an EDP in place, the following action shall be taken:
* As of March 23, 2007, all new media uploaded under unacceptable licenses (as defined above) and lacking an exemption rationale should be deleted, and existing media under such licenses should go through a discussion process where it is determined whether such a rationale exists; if not, they should be deleted as well.
::I agree fully, if this means that the result of the discussion process can be that an exemption rationale is written for that specific media. If an exemption rationale cannot be construed, the media should definitely be deleted.
   6. For the projects which currently do not have an EDP in place, the following action shall be taken:
* As of March 23, 2007, any newly uploaded files under an unacceptable license shall be deleted.
* The Foundation resolves to assist all project communities who wish to develop an EDP with their process of developing it.
* By March 23, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable license as per the above must either be accepted under an EDP, or shall be deleted.
::The first bullet is really not necessary. Individual projects do not need hosting of free content (as per point 1), and if they do not have EDP, they have no need for hosting of non-free content. So these projects really have no need for hosting any media at all, and uploading media for these projects should be discontinued. I welcome very much the second bullet, as I believe every project needs an EDP. As such I fully endorse the third bullet. Errabee 22:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My detailed comments on the new licensing policy