Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

Archives

Rationale edits

Euuuw, there were significant problems in the wording. I've massaged them; the only one I think needs checking is the third one, where I've expressed what I think people intended the meaning to be. Here's the diff. Tony (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to be safe I think we should discuss this first. Personally I don't have much of a problem with the change, though the third point might not sound the same to some people. -- Ned Scott 09:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I am fine with Tony's wording. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

What a senseless revert. Don't waste my time, your time and that of everyone else with your "just to be safe" incantations. Look carefully at the changes and determine what on earth was controversial, what meanings were substantively changed. Jeeesh. Tony (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

So this Ned Scott person, whoever he thinks he is, has now reverted again and accused me (not himself) of engaging in an edit war, and of going on an "ego trip". There are unacceptable personal attacks. This arrogant person still hasn't provided any reasons that my copy-edit of the opening was not a substantial improvement. It beggars belief. WE'RE WAITING .... Tony (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Think yourself so perfect that you become so rude and insulting to others that dare question your great and glorious copy-editing? -- Ned Scott 12:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The change that I have a problem with is this "To produce a quality encyclopedia, striving to use media as much as needed for that purpose." -> "To enhance the quality of the encyclopedia through the judicious use of media."

This might seem minor to some, but "enhances the quality" gives the impression that the content itself is of sufficient quality without the non-free media. -- Ned Scott 12:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly more perfect that you are, if there are degrees of perfection as you seem to imply. I don't quite understand whether your personal accusations are some kind of young man's defensive pomposity. Please stop being defensive, and explain here why somehow I'm revert-warring but you're not; why I'm on an "ego trip", but you're not. It's all a bit much to take, frankly.

My response to your "problem" above is to ask why either phrase necessarily implies a pre-existing quality. It makes no difference which phrase is used, from that perspective. If you're still uncertain as to why the change does not introduce that undesirable meaning, can you explain it in greater detail? Tony (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Learn a little bit of patience and don't attack anyone who questions your contributions. If you can't even do that then you won't be welcome to make your chances, since you would be unable to discuss them like an adult. I don't care who you are, when you make a change to some long standing wording on one of our most hotly debated policies you need to expect that people might want to discuss things first, and that such discussion is appropriate and even encouraged. As for my concerns, I might be right or wrong, but the point is that as a Wikipedian in good standing, I have a right to say "lets just pause for a moment and look at this to be sure". That's how our system works. -- Ned Scott 03:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• OK, nothing more from Ned, and in the absence of clear reasoning, I don't see why the improved wording shouldn't be reinstated. I'll do so tomorrow, unless there's more to this. I have to say that I'm unused to having to fight to make simple, obvious changes to wording. What is there now is very sloppy. Tony (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • People are sensitive to changes in the wording of this policy. See the talk page archives for some examples. Carcharoth (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't mind sensitivity, nor scrutiny (I asked for it). But that's different from mindless obstruction. No proper reason has been provided for the reverts, and just a "let's be safe". I put it to you that it's safer to get the wording right, rather than persist with a poor opening exposed right at the top. I can see no substantive change in meaning, and no one has said that there is (well, apart from Ned's claim that" To produce a quality encyclopedia" is different, for these purposes, from "To enhance the quality of the encyclopedia". The slight shift in meaning is, frankly, inconsequential, and I don't believe this shift is as he tried to explain above. Tony (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• In all your ranting you haven't listened to a single word I've said. Take it from my original comment "Just to be safe I think we should discuss this first. Personally I don't have much of a problem with the change, though the third point might not sound the same to some people." Let me spell it out for you, my concern is how other people might interpret that third point. In the past there has been a lot of debate about that point, is the non-free media required to make a quality entry or does it just adding quality. We are not writing the policy for you, or even for me; we are writing it for the community at large. -- Ned Scott 03:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Egos aside, Tony's version is better. — Dulcem (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll resist the urge to treat Scott with reciprocal rudeness. To take his points in turn:

• "In all your ranting you haven't listened to a single word I've said."—Wrong: I've read everything you've written, and pondered for some time over the hairs you're trying to split WRT to the "enhance" phrase. No one else here has a problem with it. You have presented no clear, logical reason that the new phrase is problematic (I still don't understand your distinction above).
• "my concern is how other people might interpret that third point"—that's always been my sole concern; I'm glad it's your concern too.
• "is the non-free media required to make a quality entry or does it just adding quality"—through the mangled English (sorry) I've tried to understand your meaning; is it something to do with a distinction between non-free media just adding to existing quality rather than being the sole repository of quality. Beats me. Are you really the best person to be critiquing the wording when your English is so unclear and faulty?

I still intend to reinstate the improved wording in the next day or so, given that there's still no clear, logical argument against it. I'm not used to having to fight tooth and nail to make simple improvements to wording. This situation smacks of ownership, methinks; I'd much rather work with Ned than against him. Tony (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

To respond to your first bullet point, you still don't get it, I didn't have a major objection to the wording because I understood the meaning behind it. The concern I had was how it might be interpreted. You continue to insist that I don't like your wording personally, or that I like the other wording more. It might help if you stop making assumptions beyond what is actually stated in a message. Your second bullet point doesn't address anything at all, and your third one is just childish mud slinging.

And to respond to your last paragraph: What the hell are you talking about? Fighting tooth and nail? I asked for a simple discussion and got it. I read responses from a few people, and while I'd like more responses, they were all users who said they were fine with the wording. That's what I asked for, that's what I got, what part of that is fighting tooth and nail? I asked for a simple polite discussion, and you freaked out. Good Wikipedians don't throw a fit because they didn't get their way right away, they go "oh, well you see this is why I did so and so, and I'll listen to your thoughts on this too, and in a few days we'll see where we're at." You responded like a little kid and got upset over nothing. You're great with words Tony, but you're a spaz and an elitist asshole. Hopefully my cave man grunting was clear enough for you to understand. Had you not freaked out this would have been a non issue. Like I said before, this is a hotly disputed policy, we've had a great deal of similar discussions in the past, and it's more than reasonable to ask for caution with the wording. -- Ned Scott 09:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Your personal attacks are over the top ("spaz", "childish", "elitist asshole", "little kid"). I'll probably take action on that. Hotly disputed? The only heat I see being generated is by you. And meanwhile, we'll just sit by as you waste everyone's time with this request for comment. Tony (talk) 09:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've made an official complaint about this personal abuse. Tony (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

To return to the substantive issue here, the matter is not merely a copy-editing one. Ned Scott is correct: the proposed change in wording does alter the sense of the sentence. "To produce a quality encyclopedia, striving to use media as much as needed for that purpose" makes clear that the use of media is necessary for a quality encyclopedia. (This is, on a logical level, a debatable point, but the debate does seem to have been resolved in the statement's favor: To produce a quality online encyclopedia in the twenty-first century, media is essential.) Reading the proposed substitute sentence—"To enhance the quality of the encyclopedia through the judicious use of media"—it is easy for the average Wikipedian to infer that media is not necessary for a quality encyclopedia. The shift in meaning is neither "slight" nor "inconsequential," as Tony has argued; it is material and significant.—DCGeist (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Tony's response: Thank you for explaining what Scott was totally incapable of putting into words. I do concede that its reasonable to discuss the third point, although I still see no good reasons against adopting my suggested new wording.

There are three problems with the existing wording of the third point:

1. It undermines the entire NFC policy:

"To produce a quality encyclopedia, striving to use media as much as needed for that purpose." (My emphasis)

This is an open invitation to use as many images as editors believe are needed to "produce a quality encyclopedia", and is at odds with the notion of a highly constrained compromise between (1) the use of (non-free) content to improve quality, and (2) the often-countervailing objectives expressed in the first two rationales.

2. The binary structure of the sentence—the comma is the boundary—shifts the meaning onto creating a quality encyclopedia (much broader in scope than the goals of this policy page), with the use of media as a subsequent modification of that goal. My wording overcame this, I believe, by using "through" with neither comma nor dependent phrase to make the statement simpler and more direct.

3. The implication that media (non-free content?) are necessary for quality; many superb articles do not have non-linguistic media, and I don't think it's the job of this page to assert that non-linguistic media are essential to achieve quality. Geist is concerned that it may be "easy for the average Wikipedian to infer that media is [sic] not necessary for a quality encyclopedia; in the context of improving the quality, I hardly think this will feature in readers' minds; but to encourage them to think the opposite—that images and sound bites are an essential part of achieving quality, is just as undesirable, and possibly harmful to the compromise that this page seeks to strike.

These three reasons underlie my rewording of the third point. I see no disadvantage in its implication that quality can (and should where possible) be enhanced through the judicious use of media. You may quibble with the use of "judicious" ... please do so if apppropriate. I have a slight issue with the various use of "non-free content" and "media" in points 2 and 3. The grammar needs to be fixed at the end of my new point 1.

Before you leap to slap me down again, and in the case of Scott to claim certain rights for being a "good Wikipedian", please remember that I completely overhauled the wording of the policy in only 10 months ago, before which it was in a disorganised, poorly formatted, incomprehensible mess—go back and see for yourselves. Much of the organisation, formatting and wording in the 10 points is my work, although others—including Scott—have made significant improvements to it. Tony (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your 1st point, Tony, and I had read that sentence the same way. I also have a problem with the word "striving" here. However, I also understand the objection to your wording -- image use is necessary (or at least important) for a quality encyclopedia, it doesn't merely "enhance" it. But there's no need to choose between only these two options. How about this: "To allow the judicious use of media, in order to support the development of a quality encyclopedia." I think it avoids both problems, and it sidesteps making off-the-point claims about whether images are necessary or not. (Also, while we're on it, I'd like the section to be called "principles." Rationale sounds like it should be explaining the individual rules at a detailed level.) Mangojuice^talk 03:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, apart from my pet peeve "in order to", it sounds fine. Unsure about "Principles" as a subtitle. "Overarching principles"?"Basic principles"? After all the 10 policy elements are each principles. I'm also OK to leave it as "Rationale". What do others think? Aside from that issue, how about this:

• To support Wikipedia's mission to produce perpetually free content for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media.
• To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law.
• To facilitate the judicious use of non-free content to support the development of a quality encyclopedia.

I've changed "circumstance" to "criteria" in point 1, and "media" to "non-free content" in point 3. Comments? Tony (talk) 09:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You sicced a sic on me, Tones, but you should be aware of the trend in English toward the establishment of media as a mass noun, construed as singular (cf., data).

Overall, Tony's proposal constitutes a substantial improvement on the existing language, from the parallel construction of the three points to the specific wording of each. Concerning rationale 3, the elimination of "striving" is a particular improvement. I do think a more positive and active term than "allow" is called for, to underscore the fact that "judicious use of media" is a benefit to our mission. The goal of our policy is not only restrictive, but productive as well. A fundamental purpose of our policy page is to steer contributors away from injudicious media use and toward beneficial, judicious use. "Promote" is one possibility. I suggest "facilitate":

• To facilitate the judicious use of media to support the development of a quality encyclopedia.

—DCGeist (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've changed "allow" to "facilitate", and "media" to "non-free content" in Point 3 (as I wrongly said I'd already done). I don't really like "To ... to ...", but can't see a way around it. Tony (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That looks great. As infelicities go, "To ... to ..." is pretty minor, and—given the desirability of maintaining the parallel construction—it's certainly preferable to any alternative that occurs to me. As it stands now, the proposed rewording has my full support.—DCGeist (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Criterion 8

"Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

How exactly is this defined? To me it seems that thousands of the most commonly used types of non-free images fail this criteria. For example, how does being able to see the logo of a company contribute to the understanding of that company (unless the logo itself has achieved some special, documented significance such as Image:London2012Logo clear.png), how does seeing the cover of a book increase the readers understanding of a book (again unless the cover itself has some significance) - do you really have a greater understanding of The World According to Garp after seeing Image:According garp.jpg? The same applies to alum cover - although prehaps more of them have achieved noted status (suc as Image:NirvanaNevermindalbumcover.jpg). Images such as these definately improve the look and layout of an article, they are informative in showing the logo,cover,etc. but do they really increase understanding? Guest9999 (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

For the book covers and CD's, if you want to legally purchase the item, you kinda want to know what it looks like. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not a sales guide or a a sales catalogue, it is an encyclopaedia - the policy doesn't say the the image can be useful in any way, it says it has to "increase readers' understanding of the topic" (in my mind that means encyclopaedicly useful). To be honest I don't even think that the images provide a great help when trying to purchase an an item, knowing the title and author is almost certainly going to be enough? Guest9999 (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

NFCC#8 is the elephant in the room. Many images arguably fail this criteria, but the point is that it is arguable and highly subjective. Huge debates have shown that people just cannot agree where the dividing line is drawn. It is my opinion that NFCC#8 is unworkable in its present form and causes more problems than it solves. The more convincing argument is "identification of the subject of an article". Logos are a classic point. The general rule is that if a description of what something looks like will misrepresent or mislead (and it is important not to do that with logos), then it is better to show an image, even if it is non-free. The other "identification" argument is that "visual" people will understand and comprehend an encyclopedia article better if they have some sort of image to go with the text they are reading. This is particularly pertinent in the case of articles about people, especially people who are now dead. We are people and we respond far more to an article about a person if there is an image there of the person. Print encyclopedias don't have images due to space and printing cost constrictions, so the true amount of fair use they would engage in has never been tested, but online publications don't have those restrictions, so the true extent of fair use is being tested. I also think that "non-visual" people (those who respond more to text than to images) don't fully understand why some people find images (free or not) so necessary to a good article. None of these issues ever really gets fully addressed by either side. Carcharoth (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't seem very satisfactory, considering that this is a core policy that deals with Wikipedia fundamental principles, legal obligations and foundation mandated practices. I don't know if I'm a "visual person" - although it does seem like I am far more likely to read an article if it has an image in it - but is increased user interest a justification of fair-use. I'm sorry to beat a dead horse (or elephant) but shouldn't some more effort be put in to defining or - if necessary - expanding the criteria of the Exemption Doctrine Policy considering the issues involved. Guest9999 (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If you can get people to agree on what NFCC#8 means, or sort out some consensus on how it should be interpreted, then I will try and help out. About "foundation mandated practices", they don't always work out in practice. Unless you get widespread agreement, images will continue to be uploaded under new names even when older ones are deleted. I personally think all new images should be thoroughly reviewed by a central committee before being allowed to be used. That is the only way I think any progress will be made. Of course, I'd want to be on that committee, but then so would a lot of people. Discounting the German solution (no fair use at all), the two extremes seem to be "only a few hundred non-free pictures should exist on Wikipedia" to "several hundred thousand non-free pictures can happily exist in an encyclopedia of millions of articles". Somewhere inbetween are the "case-by-case" proponents, who have no way to measuring how many non-free images will result from a case-by-case approach. It is also not clear whether an absolute number or percentage of non-free images is a helpful approach (I think it could be in some circumstances), and what such a number or percentage should be. I think that the approach of minimal use is not a stable situation, as those wanting only a few hundred non-free images (or none) will keep pushing and pushing until the use is minimised as close to their goal as possible. For example, User:ST47 has the following text on the user page: "DEATH TO FAIR USE" and (at lower right, the banner tag across the corner of the screen): "Say NO to Fair Use. Free Wikipedia!" At least he is honest and open about his views, but I feel that this prejudices any debates and is not conducive to a collaborative editing environment. Carcharoth (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad this issue has been raised. I've never been happy with:

1. the extremely strict requirement that the second clause of CriteriON 8 conveys;
2. the qualification of only the positive aspect by "significant", an assymetry that seems not to have been thought through; and
3. the absence of sufficient detail about the boundary between "significant" and "not significant", and between "detrimental" and not detrimental".

I recollect that during the May 2007 overhaul of the 10 policy points, the second, negative clause was added under pressure from users who were dissatisfied with what they perceived as an insufficiently strong disincentive to use non-free content. I wasn't convinced that the result was acceptable to everyone, largely because of the misgivings that have been echoed here; and any rule that is impossible to interpret is a bad rule. I think it should be recast. Tony (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I also suspect that the impending 23 March deadline will result in pressure to change things the other way. Take a look at the wording of the Foundation Resolution (pity we can't edit that to make it clearer, eh?). In particular, "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." - I am still very concerned that some will interpret this as an excuse to go on a deletion rampage after 23 March 2008, deleting images on sight because of their own personal views, and insisting that their actions are "mandated by the Foundation". It is my view that practically all non-free images on Wikipedia still fail to meet all 10 criteria of our EDP (Exemption Doctrine Policy), despite the sterling work done by BetacommandBot and others. A lot more work is still needed. See WP:NFCC-C, and here and here (last two are archive pages) if you want more details. Carcharoth (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually like significantly. In this case, Fair Use of images is not dissimilar to eminent domain for real property; if we’re going to enact it (Fair Use), we need to have a very good reason to do so. Far too many articles, especially those on media (video games, films, etc.), just slap on images with absolutely no consideration of the Fair Use implications from both policy and legal standpoints. Phasing of significantly is necessary to establish a reasonably high barrier to entry. In reviewing image compliance to NFCC at WP:FAC, I’ve had no problem applying and interpreting criterion 8. As with any policy, context rules the day. I’m not necessarily opposed to a tweaking of the criterion, but verbiage maintaining the aforementioned barrier to entry is very much needed. These criteria are inherently troublesome, as proper analysis requires some degree of Title 17 understanding, which, frankly, is generally not a reasonable expectation. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 13:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• So why not do the simple thing and lop off the second, more recent clause. That would take us back to the older version, which is less troublesome:

Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.

To those who might object, I'd say (1) let's remember that in practice this criterion has to be combined with the effect of the nine others—don't read it as a stand-alone; and (2) it could be argued that the removal of very few NFC files on WP would be detrimental to readers' understanding of the topic, and (3) the rationales of the policy, particularly the third one, are expressed in very positive terms, and should be reflected by positive language wherever possible in the policy. To talk of detriment to readers' understanding comes too close to the paternalistic. We provide a service, yes? Tony (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Tony1 said "any rule that is impossible to interpret is a bad rule" That's an interesting argument, and would seem to make sense but for the history we've experienced here. We have a very large number of editors who have worked with fair use images in uploading, editing, tagging, deleting and questioning. There's a dizzying array of viewpoints on the fair use issues. Depending on one's relative position within the spectrum of opinion on this topic, there are sometimes very, very wide gaps of opinion on the matter. Achieving a better worded policy is, I think, impossible given this situation. Criterion 8 is indeed the elephant in the room. My own opinion is that eventually that elephant is going on a rampage, and large swaths of fair use images are going to be deleted. We've already had large numbers of images deleted for failure of other criteria. It will take time, but there will come a time when the status quo will significantly curtail usage of fair use images via criterion 8. It took time for the status quo to change to non-acceptance of album covers in discographies. There was massive debate over the removal of the covers. There's still debate at times. But, the community has by-and-large accepted this interpretation of policy. Eventually, criterion 8 will also see some general understanding of its meaning, and there will be a large scale back of fair use images. Sometimes, the best written policies aren't the ones easily understood, but the ones that lend themselves to wisdom. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. There is also a conflict between various positions. I think the three most common positions are: the free content mission message, the educational message, and the legal exposure message. The latter (the legal exposure argument) is less than some people make it out to be (remember that the legal exposure should be measured by fair use criteria, which are more lax than our non-free use criteria), but there is still an argument that massive overuse and insufficient control and review of the processes, will lead to legal exposure eventually. In actual fact, book covers and album covers do not result in a large legal exposure, but they do degrade the "free content mission". I won't even try to defend any educational aspect of book or album covers, but I will note that first edition covers are often of historical interest, produce the least legal exposure (if you accept a non-free image at all), and will be the first of the relevant images for "covers" to become public domain (as compared to a cover of an edition published this year). I would support a restriction to first edition covers only, as that is more defensible under fair use and non free use. Finally, those taking the free content mission stance should, in my view, take a more lenient approach to historical images (those that are 50-70 years old), many of which have very little legal exposure and may in any case be public domain. It seems pointless arguing over a historical image where no-one has claimed copyright and no-one is likely to do so. We should also be making more effort to make a note of when non-free images will fall into the public domain and bequeathing such image research efforts to those who will be editing Wikipedia when that happens. This will help the free content mission, but sadly I haven't seen much effort on the part of those supporting free content to encourage this type of documentation of "soon to be public domain" images. Carcharoth (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I would qualify that. WP has never had a "free content only" mission. I find it very dubious that removing "covers" would produce any significant new free content. But on the other hand making WP a less complete resource is likely to make WP less attractive to editors, and ultimately lead to less creation of WP's most important new free content -- namely good article text. Jheald (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• I would actually like to write up a document covering the various stances on the non-free and fair-use spectrum, with some of the more common arguments. Any ideas for a title? Carcharoth (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Long story short, I just think we should just change it to "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding or identification of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.". ViperSnake151 00:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I like that. Grk1011 (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the second part—the negative statement that puts the onus on uploaders to demonstrate how absence damages—that will give self-appointed over-zealous NFC police the right to take down just about any NFC in the whole project. You watch. Tony (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the word "educational" better. It includes both "understanding" and "identification", and is part of the WMF stated mission. — Omegatron 00:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Tony, you make some really important points here. The truth is that, despite the existence of the non-free content criteria, a lot of Wikipedia users are basically on an obsessive mission to remove non-free content. Furthermore, it is an unfortunate fact that many of these individuals are not using using any actual policy to guide them as the proceed to delete one image after the next.

From what I can tell, some of these users seem to get a kick out of taking down material that other people have put a great deal of work into. They then expect people to come begging to their talk pages. Definitely a power thing. Girl80 (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I can definitely see that. When make pages for greek artists, I sometimes upload an album cover to serve as their pic until someone uploads a free image of them. I know that there is a policy against that in the infobox, but instead of moving the picture down in the article to where it is being talked about, it is always deleted by someone. When people delete things because of a use violation, they should try to see if the image fits "legally" someplace else first. Grk1011 (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I definitely see that. This attitude seems to be most popular among people who have only been here a year or two. They probably see the policies and think this is the way it's always been done. It has the word "freedom" in it, so it must be something good that should be defended, right? Yet it actually results in greater restriction, discord, and makes the project less comprehensive for our readers.

In my opinion, if no free media can be found, we should allow media that isn't released under a free license, as long as we have a legal right to reproduce it (such as getting permission from the photographer, as we used to require when I first started editing). If you want to avoid lawsuits, relying entirely on fair use is the last thing you should do.

We should focus on usefulness and legality, not on ideological/political considerations like "free culture". It's not Wikipedia's job to "fight against copyright". It's our job to educate and inform the world. Some editors are part of "the free culture movement", and others (such as myself and some of the project's founders), are not. — Omegatron 23:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• So what new wording are you proposing, Omegatron? And I see the word "educational" above, which looks good, but where would it fit into the wording of Criterion 8? Tony (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Non Free content and Portals

Are non free images allowed in the articles that are represented on portals? Portal:R&B and Soul Music What is the advise in this regard. The image is for the self same article that the fair use clause was written. What is the protocol? SriMesh | talk 02:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

They are not allowed. There were a couple of attempts to create amendments, but none passed. The main page portal is considered an exemption because it is located in the article namespace. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Album covers

I see many featured articles with album covers in them even though those articles are not specifically about the albums but rather the artist or even the music genre instead. Someone's been telling me that this is a violation of wiki policy over at my talk page here. Can anyone help me clear this up? I believe the use of a single album cover on the folk metal page qualifies under fair use since that's the very first album of the genre and it's discussed at relative length in a passage where quotes from Allmusic.com and Rockdetector.com are provided concerning the album in question. If this is a violation, and all the other use of album covers on those featured articles are also violations, then I will certainly be more than willing to remove the album cover from the folk metal article. As it is now, I do not see why I have to do so when so many articles have gotten away at being featured articles while using album covers when they are not about the album in question. --Bardin (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but the wiki policy concerning albums covers seems a little to escessive. Everyone knows that the record companies and the artists themselves dont mind if their covers are used. Its not like we're stealing the layout or selling counterfeit cds with the covers, we are simply using them to describe the people who made them. We would have to have some sort of monetary gain for there to be a problem. Grk1011 (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You make an excellent point, Grk1011. On the one hand, we do not want to have blatant copyright violations that might have some real implication. For instance, I think that we can all agree that it would not be acceptable to upload a high-quality file of an entire song. After all, this could result in a loss of profits if people decide to borrow the file rather than going out and buying the album. We should also be careful about images for which the source is not known. However, since album covers are widely distributed and since no monetary gain could conceivably result here, there are no real-world legal issues here. At the same time, if you happen to be on the paranoid side, yet another option here is to reduce the resolution a bit. Good luck with your album cover.Girl80 (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that these are very strong points and maybe we should change the policy regarding album covers. Grk1011 (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think the point is entirely being missed. Wikipedia's policy on content is driven towards free content. Whether or not something is legal to be used isn't really a central concern. Our policies are intentionally a superset of the law. In particular, we allow and even encourage commercial use of our content. Record companies most certainly would have concerns if we liberally used album covers all over the place and then our content was re-used by a commercial entity. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hammersoft, Other than for legal concerns, there is no fundamental reason for why we should prefer free content over non-free content. Although you may oppose fair-use rights as a result of your own personal ideological beliefs, they do in fact exist both in the U.S. and on Wikipedia. Let's keep it that way.

The primary goal of Wikipedia is to produce high-quality articles for people to read, understand and enjoy. At the same time, I agree that we do not want Wikipedia to get sued or anything. For instance, it would be REALLY bad to steal written material from the Encyclopedia Britannica and then paste it into a Wikipedia article. In fact, someone COULD really sue over something like this. For that reason, I agree 100% that the issue of free content is very important. But let's not get utterly paranoid.

By the way, can anyone actually envision a scenario whereby someone would get sued over a low-quality image of an album cover on an internet site? What a joke! Are we are living in Nazi Germany here? Can you find me an example of a court case that involved someone being sued in the United States over the use of an album cover on the internet? I challenge you to find anything remotely similar. Girl80 (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should read and understand our m:mission. "develop neutral educational content under a free content license" --Hammersoft (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a fundamental reason why we should prefer free content over non-free content: It's the third of the five pillars that describe the fundamental goals of Wikipedia. Also, Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL, which says that anyone can use it for any purpose; non-free images are in contradiction of this license. —Bkell (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but once again, there is no gain by someone using a tiny image of an album cover. Let's think about the possibilities...Someone makes counterfeit cds and wants to sell them, o wait, the image is way too small to be real...someone uses the pic on their website to sell their old cd, they have the cd themself, so tehcnically they could just upload it...you go to an article on wiki and its about a singer, but there is no picture, you have no idea what this person looks like, maybe dont even know if they are a man or woman (esp with foriegn artists), the album cover in the infobox would tell all of that...Just because wiki doesnt own a copyright, doesnt mean that they are violating a copyright by using the picture. I fail to see the monetary gain. Like another user said, lets see some court cases. We're not talking about all non-free images, solely album covers. Plus, its not like people steal album covers as if they were song files. It's just a picture! Grk1011 (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Grk1011 above makes some important points about the need for being reasonable here. Let's use some common sense here.

I agree with you 100% that the issue of "free content" is important and that the material on Wikipedia should not "infringe on copyright," as Pillar #5 says. Furthermore, as I explained above, the use of album covers is not going to infringe upon copyright laws in any conceivable way. At least, not in any modern country where people have freedom of speech!

It does not say anywhere in the five pillars that we must always "prefer free content over non-free content." On the contrary, Pillar #1 makes it clear that Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia. Since encyclopedic quality and free content are often competing values, there is no reason to say that one is always preferred over the other. After all, it would be impossible to have an encyclopedia if users were not allowed to quote a published source or to say something that might offend some company somewhere. I think that the best solution is often to find some kind of middle ground. On the other hand, being paranoid about fair use not only dimishes educational value, but it also has no real-world benefits (e.g., avoiding a lowsuit). Girl80 (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Stamp 4 image

Should this image Image:Stamp4EUFam.jpg, used in Stamp 4, more appropriately be a candidate for fair-use because the uploader clearly does not have the right to assert a PD on it? Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

1972 Door b-side in "public domain"?

Reverted this as an audibly obvious hoax. Turns out this is The Doors, just without Jimbo. This 7" b-side has been out of print for over 25 years, and Internet Archive lists this as "public domain". Is this possible? How would I find out? I reported this to archive.org as a hoax because I find it hard to imagine WEA letting copyright lapse on potential collector bait. Now I doubt myself. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I trust that the archive.org people know how to determine the status, so watch their page for a while in case they made an unlikely mistake. I did not find mention of the copyright/licensing status of Tree Trunk/Treetrunk on the Doors' official site, but it is possible there was a publicity stunt type of event a while ago. I won't try to compare the value of the audio to the value of a collectible vinyl record (currently several copies are $9-15 with one under $40). -- SEWilco (talk) 04:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)