Wikipedia talk:Use of non-free content survey

message: Oops! Sorry. I'll remove my votes. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

message: Okay, question #1 is problematic, in my opinion, because there are several unrelated aspects to our non-free content policy. The "fair use rationale" part is noteworthy because the majority of images on Wikipedia currently are technically not acceptable because of this requirement. Others may be evaluated differently. Plus, the enforcement of our policy can be evaluated one way (too lax, in my opinion), while the design of our policy can be evaluated differently (just about right, in my opinion). – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tweaked this to make it hopefully a little clearer, but I do still want it to be broad.  Hopefully if people feel differently about different parts of current policy/application, they will highlight those differences as you just have.  Dragons flight 18:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: General perception of current policy

message: I don't like the wording of these options. The phrase "ideology" has negative connotations, in my opinion. How about these options?
*Wikipedia should be a completely free-content encyclopedia, even at the expense of comprehensiveness and attractiveness.
*Wikipedia should be primarily a free-content encyclopedia, with exceptions to promote comprehensiveness and attractiveness.
*Wikipedia should focus on comprehensiveness and attractiveness, although free content is also an important value.
*Wikipedia should be a comprehensive and attractive, even at the expense of free content.
– Quadell (talk) (random) 15:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the word "ideology" and tweaked the headings generally in the direction you suggest, though not entirely.  Dragons flight 18:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The introductory paragraph to this question is murky, unnecessarily wordy, and is editorializing.  The Foundation's permission isn't relevant here, we're asking for people's opinions.  Why not be short and to the point?  Something short and sweet: Some believe there is a natural tension between building a comprehensive encyclopedia that includes copyrighted material under fair use, and creating content that may be reused freely by others without infringing copyright laws.  To the extent a choice must be made:...Also, "attractiveness" is not the goal in opposition to "free-content."  If there is a dichotomy at all, the purpose of fair-use content is closer to "usability." Wikidemo 09:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: General philosophy on free content

message: Greetings.  As a declaration of bias, which I think is important for everyone involved in formulating this poll, I generally do not like polls, am not particularly fond of this poll (though I am willing to work with it) and support the restriction of non-free content on Wikipedia for philosophical and legal reasons.  That said, I hope everyone else formulating this poll is willing to make such a declaration, and I would like to point out that I made an edit to ; feel free to review it.  (Note also that I am not entirely certain which, if any, of the MPEG codecs are patented.)  --Iamunknown 05:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would hope that if the questions are well-posed that one couldn't tell what the writers' biases are.  ;-)  I believe the community invited to comment reflects a strong diversity of opinions so this should work out.  On the more specific issue, I tweaked your edit above.  My understanding is that the patents only apply to the process of encoding/decoding, and hence affect the viability of encoders/players and not the existence/distribution of the files themselves.  If anyone else knows differently, please correct me.  Dragons flight 19:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've done more copyedits  and .  Also, I am confused as to the section header in the latter page.  It says, "A good idea, and is about right now"; I can't seem to parse that.  Is there another way to express what you intended?  --Iamunknown 00:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first seems fine.  I've tweaked the second, in part because your final option appeared to allow for even illegal actions.  The option you couldn't parse was intended to mean that the scope of the replacement criteria need not be broader or narrower than it is now.  Also tweaked.  Dragons flight 00:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greetings 

message: The question text is very leading in a number of cases, exposing a specific POV with little to no exposure to the opposing side, when ideally preferred perspective should be granted at all.  I'd make adjustments, but after reading the initial text I believe that finding compromise language would be an exhausting effort and because of the tremendous selection bias doubt cast over this survey (due to its length, obscure subject matter, and the bias we see in most polls on our project) I seriously doubt putting in the effort to find good compromise language would be a worthwhile use of my time. --Gmaxwell 21:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't want to participate, or present examples of what you think the problems are, then that is your choice.  However, if you refuse to help, then don't expect people to take you very seriously if you complain that there isn't better data available in the future.  You often represent one of the stronger positions on free content, and I would like to be fair to your position (as all the others), if at all possible.  Dragons flight 21:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't been very willing to remove bias when I've pointed it out. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I just don't see how making an attempt to help will be a good use of my time. I see two major classes of problem with the survey as presented: Overt bias in the selection and language of the questions, which is almost certainly not resolvable without a long and drawn out argument which I have neither the time nor patience for, and a belief that results would be worthless due to self-selection bias which is a common problem with surveys on our project and which is magnified in this case by the relative obscurity of the subject matter and the verbosity of this particular survey.  Because I see the latter parts to be nearly uncorrectable, I see no reason to expect the great effort required to address the first set of issues. Together these factors combine to make the results of the survey worthless, and that will be true no matter if I participate or not.--Gmaxwell 01:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well okay.  For what its worth, I wouldn't be engaging in this exercise if I didn't expect that it would be useful.  I don't know that if I'll ever convince you of that, but I certainly hope that others will have seen it as useful once it is over.  Dragons flight 02:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could make it useful. Keep it under 400 or so words long, remove the value judgement from the explanitory text, and eliminate the selection bias. You haven't shown interest in doing these things, so I don't expect the result to tell us anything that we didn't already know. --Gmaxwell 02:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think one can accomplish anything with 400 words, I'd love to know how, because I don't  think that is enough do much of anything useful.  Even at it's current length this is still substantially shorter than either the Admin Accountability Pool or the CSD Proposal, both of which averaged over 100 participants per item.  As far as selection bias, I intend to advertise this as widely as I can get away with.  There is little I can do about self-selection bias, but I intend to make sure as many people as possible know it is happening.  As for value judgments, you still haven't said what text bothers you.  Aside from Quadell's one issue I disagree with, I've adjusted to every specific issue raised.  Dragons flight 03:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Gmaxwell about the language.  Why not simply ask the questions in as straightforward a way as possible?  I think you can eliminate most of the perceived bias and POV and simply present the options to people.  If necessary you can like to policy pages for people who need to know a little more. Wikidemo 10:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of neutrality 

message: I think the poll should add the option to disable new uploads, so there is no new non-free content and translate all free pictures to Commons.
After a year without nobody uploading non-free content I would reopen the poll. Best regards, Alpertron 19:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing options 

message: I removed the following passage from the "General philosophy of free content" section.
: The role of free content in Wikipedia can be understood in a variety of ways. On the one hand, it is the mechanism that underpins our collaborative structure; on the other hand, free content can be a positive benefit in itself. However, a natural tension arises between the goals of (i) promoting and developing free content, and (ii) building a comprehensive encyclopedia when free content equivalents are not always available.
I fully admit that I am not a neutral party, and I invite review.  I think that this passage constitutes significant editorializing, creates an extremely leading question, and generalizes inappropriately where reasonable editors may disagree.  I personally do not think that a "natural tension arises between the goals of" free content and a comprehensive encyclopedia, and I am aware of others who share similar views.
If we intend for data gathered from this survey to be relevant, we should not frame the questions with passages that present bias.  This passage did just that.  --Iamunknown 22:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully support, I would remove it from the background section also. - cohesion 01:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of passage from "General philosophy of free content"