On 2 March 2014 20:50, Chris McKenna <cmcke...@sucs.org> wrote: > On Sun, 2 Mar 2014, Mark wrote: > > On 3/2/14, 5:31 PM, Chris McKenna wrote: >> >>> There seems to be a disconnect between what Commons sees as it's >>> mission: To be a repository of Free media; and what other projects see as >>> Commons' mission: To be a repository of media for use on Wikimedia projects. >>> >> But since the other Wikimedia projects should be producing free-content >> encyclopedias, this is no disconnect: Commons should host Free media, and >> the other projects should include Free media. Otherwise the other projects' >> content cannot be reused externally, and they are not free-content >> encyclopedias. >> > > You've missed the point. Commons is not at present a reliable source of > media, Free or otherwise, because media gets deleted because once someone > alleges that it is not free it gets deleted if the original uploader cannot > prove it is free, regardless of the merits of the allegation. >
As someone with OTRS access I beg to differ > The Foundation has said "do not delete images that *might* be unfree under > URAA unless there is a takedown notice" yet the images continue to be > deleted. > "or without such actual knowledge of infringement" The reality is that the Resolution:Licensing_policy: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy Is still the standard we work to. The relevant section is "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." Individual projects can file an Exemption Doctrine Policy to get around that however commons is explicitly banned from doing so. This is entirely irrelevant to the attitude at Commons. English Wikipedia > is Free according to the definition it uses, which is essentally "Free for > practical purposes as an Encyclopaedia" and that is applied reliably. Nope. Probably the closest to an actual description of the English wikipedia position would be "free in the US unless certain record and film companies decide to become as lawsuit happy as they are commonly portrayed" and even that isn't done consistently. > In contrast, Commons is arbitrarily and inconsistently Free and appears to > be prioritising point making over being a practical media repository. You > are free to disagree about en.wp's choices, but this does not excuse the > attitude of Commons to the Wikimedia community. > You are aware that most commons bods are active on other projects? -- geni _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
