User talk:Jimbo Wales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas
  • A proposal to gradually offer both wikitext and VisualEditor to new accounts
  • Discuss proposals for celebration of the upcoming 5 millionth article on English Wikipedia
  • An RfC for a banner alert campaign on the threat to Freedom of Panorama in Europe
  • An RfC for a four-day delay period for deleting abandoned AfC submissions under G13
  • An RfC to permit trusted non-admins to close TFD discussions with uncontroversial delete outcomes
  • A proposal to forbid IPs from participating in the RfA process.
  • A proposal to elevate WP:BRD to guideline status
  • An RfC on "edit in Wikidata" links, for templates using Wikidata

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

SOPA-like issue (Freedom of Panorama issue at EU parliament)[edit]

The London Eye, blacked out to show the effect of removing section 62 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, which allows the photography of buildings in the UK

Since you were instrumental in making the community aware of the Wikipedia:SOPA, I wonder if you aware of - and what is your take on - the commons:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama_2015 and Wikipedia:Freedom of Panorama 2015 issues? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't look like as potentially severe an issue as SOPA even though it is still significant. Dustin (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Britain has got it right and does not impose the sort of restrictions that some continental countries have in this area. Although the European Parliament is largely a talking shop, it is worrying that Britain could be dragged down the same road as the continental countries if this proposal became law across Europe.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Limiting the monopoly of Wikimedia[edit]

So it appears that Wikimedia, the American monopoly, was one of the reasons behind Jean-Marie Cavada's amendment to limit freedom of panorama across the European Union (mentioned by @Piotrus above). Certainly he devoted quite a long part of his official position on the matter to criticize Wikimedia's—and, it appears, Creative Commons's—requirements that works be editable and usable for commercial purposes.

I can't read any French, and it seems that his message gets lost during automated translation, but certainly being named as a reason for this amendment is quite interesting. That said, I think it would be useful if we were provided with an English translation of this statement so as to allow a productive discussion if anyone wishes to have one. odder (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Both Wikipedia & Wikimedia Commons don't hesitate to remove content that volatiles a particular countries freedom of panorama copyright laws. So jean-marie cavadacase is moot. So why discuss a journalists confused interpretations of WP?--Aspro (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
@Aspro: Cavada is not a journalist: he is an MEP who has tabled an amendment which would remove Freedom of Panorama from those countries in the EU which have it - most of them, including the UK. JohnCD (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. He should do his homework then and not let lobbyists do his thinking for him so that he ends up sounding like a parrot.--Aspro (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Don't try to pin any requirements on Creative Commons. They offer a variety of licenses you can choose from:
  • CC Zero (CC0): The author or licensor waives as many rights as legally possible, worldwide.
  • Attribution (BY): Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform the work and make derivative works based on it only if they give the author or licensor credit.
  • Share-alike (SA): Licensees may distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs the original work.
  • Non-commercial (NC):Licensees may copy, distribute, display, and perform the work and make derivative works based on it only for noncommercial purposes.
  • No Derivative Works (ND): Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform only verbatim copies of the work, not derivative works based on it.
Its your choice which to use. but CC0 and CC BY-SA are the best choices if you want your work to be used on Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for this valuable lesson in Creative Commons licencing, @Guy Macon, but let me suggest that you might have chosen the wrong audience for your lecture. To bring this discussion back on topic, however, let me clarify that I think Cavada represents a group opposed to the idea of allowing commercial reuse of works visible in all CC licences without the -NC clause.
I do believe that I have chosen the right audience -- the person who wrote the words "Creative Commons's requirements that works be editable and usable for commercial purposes". That's clearly wrong as the existence of CC NC and CC ND proves. It is your choice which CC license to apply to your works. CC has no requirement that a work be editable or usable for commercial purposes -- but Wikipedia does. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be interesting to get a better understanding of this position and the reasons behind his taking it. (Is it just to protect the interest of architects? Is it an example of anti-Americanism? Opposition to multi-billion corporations (which, incidentally, the Wikimedia Foundation, and certainly not the Wikimedia movement, are not)? odder (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
That's a confusing post - Attribution is required for all Creative Commons licences (i.e there's no CC-SA licence as your post accidentally implies) with the exception of their No Rights Reserved/Public Domain dedication/declaration (aka the CC0 licence). There are also a number of scenarios where a Creative Commons licence cannot be used, such as screenshots of open source software, and there's a wide range of non Creative Commons licences that we welcome with equally open arms (but maybe a bit of a groan) like the old GFDL licence. Hell, there's even the Do What the Fuck You Want to Public License. The choice of licence will not affect the use of your work on Wikipedia either, and to suggest otherwise is also wrong. The best image to illustrate an article should (and almost always will) be chosen regardless of licence. Users must be comfortable releasing their work under the licence they're most comfortable with, and if they prefer a licence other than the Creative Commons licence, they'll be in no way disadvantaged for doing so.
The best licence from our point of view (as free and open source people) is one which requires attribution and forces derivative works to be released under an equally open licence, so we can make use of those derivative works - i.e the CC BY-SA licence OR something like the GFDL licence. The CC BY-SA licence is normally the easier to use, but there's no best choices if you want your work to be used on Wikipedia. Nick (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
There certainly is a CC-SA license. It is at [ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sa/1.0/ ]. It is what CC calls "retired" (and pretty much everyone else calls "deprecated") but works exist that are licensed under CC-SA, and in the case of the licenses that were only retired because of inadequate demand. you can still choose them if that's what you really want to do.
Your claim that "The choice of licence will not affect the use of your work on Wikipedia" is also incorrect.
License Compatibility with Wikipedia (For text only; Please see Wikipedia:File copyright_tags for licenses allowed with files)
Licenses compatible with Wikipedia Licenses not compatible with Wikipedia
Creative Commons Licenses
CC BY (all versions and ports) CC BY-SA 4.0 NOTE:
CC BY-SA 1.0, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 CC BY-NC
CC BY-NC-ND
CC BY-ND
CC BY-NC-SA
Other Licenses
GFDL and CC BY or CC BY-SA Any GNU-only license
NOTE: According to the WMF legal team, CC BY-SA 4.0 is not backwards compatible with CC BY-SA 3.0. Therefore, mixing text licenses under 3.0 and 4.0 would be problematic, however files uploaded under this license are fine.
BTW, if anyone is confused by the two different spellings of license/licence used on this page, "In British English, Canadian English, Australian English, Irish English, and New Zealand English the noun is spelt licence and the verb is license. The spelling licence is not used for either part of speech in the United States."[1] --Guy Macon (talk) 04:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
That's as unclear as your previous post - can you please just stop with the dubious licence advice which is confusing and unhelpful.
That the choice of licence will not affect the use of your work on Wikipedia is absolutely correct (in this case I made a distinction between an image being uploaded and an image being used to illustrate an article) you made it appear that if images were uploaded with a licence other than CC0 or CC BY-SA, so the GFDL licence, CC BY, FAL etc you wouldn't see your work being used. That's not the case, as I made clear, there's a number of other equally free licences which are acceptable, and media files used to illustrate an article will not be chosen based on the licence. I did think it was clear than Non Commercial and/or Non Derivative licences can't normally be uploaded (as the File Uploader won't normally allow such work to be uploaded) but there are circumstances in which they can also be used.
We accept, for example, dual licensed images and there are a number of images which have a GFDL licence and a Non Commercial and/or Non Derivative Creative Commons licence (see File:US-power-strip-rotated.jpg for an example). It's also quite common to allow re-users to choose either CC BY-SA and CC BY-NC licences, so anybody wanting to use an image for commercial purposes if forced to release a derivative work under a free licence, but a private user isn't, they only need to Attribute the original author.
We also accept images licensed under a Non Commercial and/or Non Derivative licence under a claim of Fair Use, where necessary, but that's exceedingly rare.
It's perhaps worth mentioning that the deprecated CC-SA licence is absolutely fine for Wikipedia as it does not limit commercial use and prevent derivative works, but it's absent from your table. GFDL and CC BY or CC BY-SA isn't a licence, it's two licences together, what is known as dual licensing (I licence all my images this way) and end re-users of work can choose which licence they're going to follow. They don't need to use both licences if they don't want to do so.
Finally, it's worth mentioning the existence of other licences not mentioned anywhere in this discussion, such as the UK Open Government Licence, which allows both text and images to be used on Wikipedia, as it's compatible with the CC BY-SA licences. There's a decent guide on Commons - see our licence guide. Nick (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
To create a better perspective: Wikipedia is intended to be a free encyclopedia. Free according the Definition of Free Cultural Works. Romaine (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
.................Americans also don't spell spelled as "spelt." Carrite (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
update: Le Figaro says that (fr) Mr. Cavada just left his party (Nous Citoyens - 13.800 militants) to create some new political entity. --g (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Example[edit]

Let's see if I got this right (illustrating with example):

High resolution photograph of building in country without Freedom of Panorama Current situation: Publication of photograph in US without prior consent of the building's architect? Current situation: Publication of photograph in the country where the building is situated? When the original Reda proposal gets accepted by the EU When Cavada's amendement proposal gets accepted by the EU
Example image (building situated in Belgium) Allowed (when ignoring legislation in Belgium, a country without Freedom of Panorama) Not allowed without prior consent by the architect of the building Belgium (within an indeterminate timespan) obliged to update its legislation with Freedom of Panorama, removing red tape to (re)publish the image everywhere Status quo, no obligation for Belgium to extend its laws with Freedom of Panorama

(I didn't choose the example image randomly: it is the EU building in Brussels: when the EU wanted to make a letterhead with a logo based on the form of that building, the architect refused, which he could according to the copyright provisions in Belgium) --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note that the bluelink in the lower left corner of the table would become a redlink soon when Aspro's "Both Wikipedia & Wikimedia Commons don't hesitate to remove content that volatiles [violates?] a particular countries freedom of panorama copyright laws." is correct. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Whoops. Over reliance on my spelling chequer --Aspro (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED violation?[edit]

Is it a violation of WP:INVOLVED for an administrator to revdel content off their own talk page (or should it be)? I think so. I just stumbled upon a deletion log that showed an editor has been doing that. A reason given recently was "RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material". (This is NOT related; it's coincidental that both are about possible WP:INVOLVED violations.)--Elvey(tc) 07:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

If you don't give me a link to the actual thing you are talking about, how am I to evaluate it? It is not automatically a violation, depending on what it is that's being revision deleted. Certainly I would like anyone under any circumstances to get rid of "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" as quickly as possible. If the material is somehow borderline for that designation, then it would likely be prudent for an admin to get someone else to take action. But even in that case, if it's just annoying material, then I don't see what the problem is. We are not a wide open free speech platform, and aggressive behavior of all kinds should be cleaned up quickly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
In general, admin tools can be used on pages where one is involved if they're not involved in the specific question and the correct answer is blindingly obvious. So, (as Jimbo notes), it's hard to know without the specific case, but if IPs were replacing my userpage with

WilyD is the king of the dickbutts

for example, it'd be fine for me to protect my userpage, or whatnot, because it's just vandalism, and not an issue which requires judgement in which I'm involved. No conflict, no question of whether my "involvedness" is influencing the outcome. WilyD 09:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
If you ran into that same bit of vandalism targeted at me on my userpage, you would of course revert (anyone would) and possibly block the user or even protect the page, depending on what else is going on, but would you revdel the vandalism? I think not. On the other hand, if the vandalism included my social security or credit card number, I would expect it to be revdeled on sight by the first admin who notices it.
Could we have a vague description of the general sort of thing that was revdeled in this case? No details, just something like "personal information" or "unfounded accusation" or "cursing/insulting". --Guy Macon (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Interlinking between Wikipedia, WikiCommons and Wikisource[edit]

Is the interlinking between Wikipedia, WikiCommons and Wikisource a core goal? The current trend at Wikisource is to remove all links to Wikipedia to give a distraction free experience for the reader. It seems like it is removing one of the most valuable aspects of having the three projects on a common platform. Should a text naming General Foo of Fooville be linked to the person and the location in Wikipedia? How can we balance the reader who desires a "clean experience" versus the reader who wants to be informed? There are so few editors at Wikisource that a single person can determine policy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

When I visit Wikisource, I very much appreciate links to Wikipedia, and I did not know of a trend to remove such links. When I visit a physical library, I do not consider one section to be a distraction from another section. If I have a business on Main Street, I do not consider another business next door on Main Street to be a distraction from my business—in fact, there can even be a synergistic relationship between them.
Wavelength (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I found a current discussion at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium#Linking_to_Wikipedia, that is, s:Wikisource:Scriptorium#Linking to Wikipedia (version of 07:35, 30 June 2015).
Wavelength (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
That is my discussion that I started. An editor with admin rights is removing links and enforcing it with a block. See here for example and also see here. There are a dozen others that were deleted just today. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • So the question us, do we want to promote inter-connectivity between projects, or are we going to allow each project to become a walled garden with only internal links? Imagine if Wikipedia severed all connections to Wikicommons images or Wikisource texts, what would the utility of that be? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)