Hi Erik: Thanks for your comment. I noticed your comment at [[1]] so hope they are related.
Yes; making proper attributions and satisfying all license requirements are a bit complicated and time consuming. See my proposal at [[2]]. I requested the help of CC team; but didn't get any response so far. I requested the help of the WMF legal; Luis Villa (WMF) commented that "Yup, I understand - it is a difficult situation, and we'd like to help. But interpreting the license obligations for the public is also tricky for us, so we're working on it. " [[3]] Any further help is highly appreciated. Regards, Jee Links: 1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peteforsyth#Some_recent_speedies. .. 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Propose_to_update_CC_license_tags_to_comply_with_the_new_wordings_in_CC_deeds 3. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LuisV_(WMF)#Attribution On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Erik Moeller <e...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > The problem is the behavior of a certain core set of Commons admins; time > > and time and time again we have it reported here, we see it on Commons. > > While not lawyers, they attempt to be extraordinarily demanding when it > > comes to "legal" accuracy. Far more than the actual WMF lawyers have > > required, incidentally. > > Yes, agreed. Deletion is frequently applied in an overzealous manner > based on arbitrary interpretations and lack of nuance. It would be > appropriate to more frequently apply tags like {{Disputed}} and to > rely more on social contact to resolve incomplete metadata, rather > than aggressively purging content in the fear that a single byte of > potentially non-free content may infect the repository. > > It is correct that I proposed Commons as a repository of freely > re-usable media -- indeed, that is a key characteristic which > distinguishes it from other sites and services, as others have pointed > out. I think it's absolutely crucial to maintain that aspect of its > identity. I worry that the creation of any kind of non-free repository > would dramatically alter the incentive structure for contributing to > our projects. Especially when negotiating releases of large > collections, it will be much harder to argue for free licensing if it > becomes trivial to upload and re-use non-free files. > > But maintaining that commitment requires that we also maintain a > capacity for nuance in how we enforce it, or we turn into a club of > zealots nobody wants to be part of rather than being effective > advocates for our cause. That includes understanding that some > situations in international copyright law are ambiguous and > unresolved, that some files may present a minimal level of risk and > can reasonably be kept unless someone complains, and that copyright on > all bits that make up a work can be difficult to trace, identify and > document comprehensively and consistently. Moreover, it should include > (in policy and application) an emphasis on communication and > education, rather than deletion and confrontation. > > In that way, the problems in the application of Commons policy are not > that different from the problems in the application of policy on > Wikipedia. It's just that Wikipedians who are used to operating under > the regime of Wikipedia's policies frequently get upset when they are > subjected to an entirely different regime. Their experience is not > that different from that of a new user whose article gets speedied > because the source cited to establish its notability doesn't quite > cross the threshold applied by an admin. > > In my view, it would be appropriate for WMF to take a more active role > not in the decision-making itself, but in the training of and support > for administrators and other functionaries to ensure that we apply > policy rationally, in a manner that's civil and welcoming. That goes > for these types of deletion decisions just as much as for civility and > other standards of conduct. WMF is now organizationally in a position > where it could resource the consensus-driven development of training > modules for admins across projects to create a more welcoming, > rational environment - on Commons and elsewhere. > > Erik > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
