Wikipedia talk:Use of non-free content survey

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

General perception of current policy

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)

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)

General philosophy on free content

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)

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)

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)

Disruptive changes

I strongly don't like using "disruptive" here. I think that's a judgment call that not everyone agrees with. Phrases like "can have widespread consequences" would be better. As for the section header, "Policy changes increasing restrictiveness" or something would be more neutral. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the header but not the text. I think the concept that some changes are made despite the potential for "disruption" is exactly the point here. Dragons flight 18:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

When a new policy is created and enforced, and there are noticeable consequences, opponents will call those "disruption" and supporters will disagree. I don't think this survey should decide a priori that, for example, causing the deletion of replaceable non-free photos of living celebrities is "disruptive". Causing those deletions was the intended effect, and it doesn't disrupt the workings of Wikipedia. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, many of the supporters and architects of the Foundation resolution agree it was quite disruptive, even while believing it was necessary. One of the issues to address here is how we should deal with potentially disruptive changes that are deemed to be necessary in the future. I think it strains the natural meaning of the word to suggest that deleting a 100,000 images that were de facto previously tolerated is not disruptive. Dragons flight 18:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

To add to this, I would say that more so than the deletions, per se, the disruptive element is forcing people to learn a new way of doing things and making people repair "damage" to articles and other things resulting from those deletions. Virtually anything that changes the way Wikipedia functions by eliminating previously acceptable behavior is going to be disruptive, whether or not it is also necessary. Dragons flight 18:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, but I disagree. Adding the 3RR policy was a change, but it was not disruptive. It changed to make previously accepted behavior unacceptable. People who were used to doing things one way had to find a new way of doing things. But no one would say the 3RR was disruptive. Neither is the policy prohibiting non-free replaceable images. Even if some of the supporters and architects of the resolution agree with the point of view that it was disruptive, it's still a non-neutral term, and it shouldn't be presupposed by the survey. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is negative term, but I really don't understand how you can believe it is not true that there are negative aspects to removing large numbers of previously accepted images? Dragons flight 23:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're hearing what I'm saying. Some people are of the opinion that the change was disruptive. Others disagree. It's obviously a negative (POV) term, so the survey itself should not presuppose one point of view over another. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Quadell, this is a special case because Erik and I specifically discussed the case of disruptive changes (literally using that word). That you don't believe that the changes are disruptive is well and good (and might make your answer easier), but the issue of what to do about changes widely seen as disruptive needs to be addressed. In my mind trying to ignore the view that such changes were disruptive is a larger bias via omission. I've modified the text to read "can be seen as disruptive", to allow that they might be seen a differnt way, but I'm not going to remove the word "disruptive" because I believe it is central to the point of the question (i.e. how to deal with changes that are seen negatively by many people). Dragons flight 00:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleting all those images was disruptive to the encyclopedia itself. Articles with holes, and people running around trying to delete images, or trying not to have them deleted. That was a big pain. The 3RR rule was trying to reduce disruption to the encyclopedia. -Freekee 04:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You might as well ask if "baby stabbing" is acceptable. The changes you consider disruptive were almost certainly considered non-disruptive by the people making them... "How could they think that?" you might ask... Not everyone considers the same things disruptive: A joker might find it disruptive when we remove his jokes, for example. Or you might consider it disruptive to re-tag more than 1,000 policy violating image per day, while I think that it's disruptive to impose that limit when the limit would make the work take several years instead of several weeks. And for quite a few people the words 'disruptive' are just a synonym for 'something I dislike'. I think it's safe to say that no one wants changes which they themselves consider significantly disruptive. What we all need to have is greater understanding for what our fellow editors consider disruptive. --Gmaxwell 02:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I know for a fact that at least some of the people writing the Foundation resolution knew and accepted that it would be disruptive. Disruptive is not a synonym for wrong or unnecessary. Dragons flight 03:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I hear you saying "Yes, this is a negative, POV term. But I don't see how you couldn't agree with my POV. So I won't let you change it to a neutral term." So what if some people in the Foundation agree with that POV?

The reason I don't think it's disruptive is this: the rule had been, for over a year, written clearly in policy: that non-free images could not be used if a free image could be produced to replace it. It was not enforced, but it existed, and for good reason. Uploading non-free, replaceable images was disruptive to the correct functioning of Wikipedia, according to our policy. Enforcing this policy brought our actions in line with our policy; it didn't "disrupt" Wikipedia any more than creating the Commons disrupted Wikipedia. I'm not asking you to agree with me that it was not disruptive; I'm asking you to remove non-neutral language from the survey that assume a priori that your viewpoint is correct and mine is not. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As elsewhere, I think the long introduction is unnecessary. The statement that we must remove some things immediately for legal reasons doesn't need to be made because that's not what we're surveying. I don't think we should say it is disruptive or it is not disruptive. Simply ask how quickly we want policies to be implemented, and let the survey respondent form their own opinion. Here's a sample simplification: Sometimes content policies are changed to prohibit classes of images and other non-free content that had previously been allowed, or to require new record-keeping data. In cases where there is no legal urgency to the policy change, how quickly should the new policies be applied to legacy content?Wikidemo 10:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Is this a poll? Will you include instructions? Are people supposed to sign their usernames under the answer they most agree with? Are they allowed to choose more than one answer to any of the questions? I could see the "Limited use/significance" question getting people to answer to more than one choice. It took me a bit to work out the continuum. Do you expect only signatures, or do you expect discussions? Or short answers? Will you recommend against discussion amongst respondents, but allow even long comments about the question itself? Would you consider numbering the questions, and maybe the answers? That might facilitate discussion elsewhere.

As for the questions themselves, I don't like question #1. Enforcement and policy are two completely different issues. Seriously, those have to be split. In the first answer to the second question, please remove the word "attractive." That's a leading answer. We all know that images are not allowed for purely decorative purposes, and that's a legal issue, and not a policy issue. On the other hand, there are many (many many) people who feel that content is more important than "free." The results would be skewed, when people who prefer "comprehensive" don't vote that way because of "attractive." The other questions look pretty good to me.

Oops, I forgot to sign this last night. -Freekee 16:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added some instructions. The model I have in mind is basically the Admin Accountability Poll, though I'm avoiding the pure support/oppose structure that was sometimes used there in favor of greater gradiation. I expect there to be comments, rationales, and significant clarifations associated with some "votes". As this is general survey, without the fixed consequences that a yes/no vote might have, I expect that such comments will be quite valuable.

After some thought, and given that more than one person flagged it as problematic, I have split question 1 into a policy question and an enforcment question. I also removed "attractive" as you suggested. Dragons flight 19:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. But now I must ask the point of the question about enforcement. Does Wikipedia have the capability to increase or decrease its level of enforcement? Isn't it pretty much a matter of the available volunteers? -Freekee 04:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I see it as more a matter of methodology. Do you prioritize deleting things, or do you prioritize trying to save things? If you are deleting lots of images you probably aren't filling in fair use rationales and vice versa. Other factors are how much time should be spent contacting uploaders and other interesting parties and how aggressively should bots be used to expunge problems, etc. Dragons flight 05:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It needs serious copy-editing for grammatical consistency, choice of words, and clarity. It needs to be examined from the perspetive of in-built skew. The number of questions and the wording should be as little as possible. You need to ask yourself, as a thought-experiment, how you'd react if the votes were skewed strongly this way or that way. How would you interpret it? Will it be useful data to that particular question.

Because it's so long and wordy, you might consider using a Lickert-style method, where people tick a number from, say, 1 to 9. You'd supply descriptorsfor the anchors (1 and 9) and the middle. That way, people can more easily see the extremes and the continuum. Gives them more scope for expressing finer gradations of feeling. Tony 16:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course we have to think about consistency, clarity, and skew, etc. If you have concerns about specific questions please offer them. This survey is only about half as long as the Admin Accountability Poll or the CSD Proposal, both of which had high levels of participation. I don't think the length is a significant problem. I see from your user page that you have some background in psychology. As you may know, one of the limitations of a Likert scale is that they can often be difficult to map onto practical actions. In other words, after getting a 3 or a 6 or an 8, what should one do. Decision and category based structures are more common when the hope is that the results will ultimately lead to some course of action, which is what we have here. Dragons flight 19:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed changes to a few of the questions but in my opinion all of the introductory paragraphs are too long. They try to explain things, often including extraneous details, rationales for things, and statements that could be seen as biased or editorializing. How about, instead of trying to frame every issue with two or three sentences why don't you simply ask the questions and as necessary add short, to the point phrases within the question itself. For example, the entire section:

Current policy requires that the use of non-free content be "limited" and contribute "significantly" to the articles in which it appears. While fair use can not be purely gratuitous, there are differences of opinion regarding how much use of non-free content should be tolerated. / One particular difference of opinion is the degree to which each non-free image should be discussed in detail versus merely identifying the subject of a discussion (e.g. logos, album covers, etc.) / Note: Some people may need to choose more than one option to fully express their view. If doing so, please include a note with your "vote" acknowledging this. / Though some legal restrictions must exist, in addition, I believe that in the spirit of providing free content we should generally limit the use of non-free content to:

- can be shortened to -

Which of the following types of copyrighted content do you believe should be allowed on Wikipedia, assuming they are otherwise legal?

Greetings

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 Wikipedia:Use of nonfree content survey/J; 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)

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)

I've done more copyedits here and here. 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)

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)

Lack of neutrality

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)

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)

You haven't been very willing to remove bias when I've pointed it out. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Some copyedits

Some small copyedits. (Broader thoughts maybe to follow)

• In "General philosophy", suggest

Be a strictly free-content encyclopedia --> Be a strictly free-content-only encyclopedia

• IMO, a "free content encyclopedia" and a "free content only" encyclopedia are two different things.

Done. Dragons flight 00:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Fair use rationales

Every non-free image should have a general rationale but widespread use of templates is okay

• "General" rationale sounds like the copyright tags. I think it's clearer without the word "general", if what is meant is rationales as we have them today, but generated by templates like {{album cover fur}}.

Actually your reading was different from what I intended, I've tried to clarify this and added an option in the process. Dragons flight 00:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the introductory paragraph here is too long, goes into unnecessary detail, and misses the point a little. A rationale justifies fair / non-free use. It is useless as a legal defense. How about something like: Description pages of all Although not legally required, fair-use images used under existing policies of non-free contentcurrently must contain an individualized "use rationale" justifying fair use for each and every page Wikipedia article on which it is to bethey are used to justify that there is a legitimate case for fair use and to help guide potential re-users of the articles. Such rationales are a suggestion of how a legal defense of fair use might be made and may help guide reusers, but there is no legal requirement to preemptively explain why something may be fair use. Note that we've just changed the name from a "fair use rationale" to a "non-free use rational," or "use rationale" for short. Also, please don't confuse "templates" with "boilerplates." The real issue isn't whether transclusion is legitimate but whether entire arguments may be simply transcluded verbatim or whether the users needs an individualized statement of rationale each time. Calling that a "template" confuses things because templates have functions other than transcluding arguments.Wikidemo 10:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Replacability

Replaceability (sp).

Technically, I'm not sure it is a word, regardless of how you spell it. The current text avoids that "word". Dragons flight 00:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Jheald 21:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Large-scale problems with this survey

Copyright law is byzantine and draconian, and very few people realize this. Most people have no idea that it is illegal to draw a picture of Mickey Mouse, or post a picture of Pikachu on their website, or photocopy a WWII-era photo, or copy a music CD for personal (non-archiving) use, or sing "Happy Birthday" at a party, etc. Most people are very incredulous to learn how restrictive and counter-intuitive copyright law is. In particular, the myth that "I'm not making money off it, so I can't be breaking copyright law" is extremely prevalent.

Most people are used to ignoring intellectual property law on a regular basis. I would venture to say that the average Wikipedian has copied music CDs, or downloaded MP3s, or printed a photo from a website, or downloaded copyrighted text, recently. Most people are used to clicking "I have read and agree to the terms of use" so often that it seems obvious that such terms don't apply to them.

Because of this, most Wikipedians assume that they "should" be able to do things on Wikipedia that are actually illegal and could legitimately lead to a lawsuit, such as reprinting an AP photo without critical commentary or transformative use. They see the rules against this as copyright paranoia, or wikilawyering, or putting arcane theory ahead of the practical concern of making their article on their favorite musician just as pretty as it can be.

Even if Wikipedia were to not have any image policy beyond "don't break the law" -- even if we had the minimal image policy possible -- the vast majority of Wikipedians would think that our policy was too strict. So having this survey at all, open to Wikipedians who do not understand copyright law, will guarantee that "consensus" will be to make the rules less strict, no matter how strict or lenient they are. In fact, if you polled people on whether we should be able to use news photographs to identify important events depicted in those photos, I'm quite sure that the "consensus" would lead to us getting sued.

If you understand copyright law, and you are of the opinion that we should allow non-free images to the fullest extent authorized by law, then this survey is a great way to accomplish that objective. Otherwise, it's like letting two foxes and a hen vote on dinner. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

So basically, you're concerned that you think the survey might demonstrate that the community as a whole is less commited to free content then you would want them to be? Dragons flight 18:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said. I'm concerned that this survey is inherently biased. If it were authored by someone committed to keeping the survey as neutral as possible, then that might be fixable, but you seem quite resistant to this.

If we put the Wikipedia:Five pillars up to a vote (or survey), we could show consensus that Wikipedia become a fansite and not an encyclopedia, that Wikipedia adopt a majority-point-of-view instead of a neutral-point-of-view, that we abandon our commitment to free content, etc. There's a reason these are our "pillars", and that they are not open to change. One of them states, in part, "Do not submit copyright infringements or works licensed in a way incompatible with the GFDL." Yes, we can negotiate on how to apply those principles, but not on whether we should apply them. Creating a survey that says, in essence, "Should we, in your opinion, allow works licensed in a way that is incompatible with the GFDL?", is not helpful. You put that option in people's minds, and help Wikipedia stray from its foundation.

There is very little that would cause me to leave Wikipedia. But if we jettison our core, founding principles, that would do it. And one of those is a commitment to free content. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You've only proposed one actionable change that I've resisted. If you have other specific items to address, please say so. If you are just generally opposed of asking the community what they think of free content, then I don't think I could ever satisfy you. We already have many works that are incompatible with the GFDL and yet remain because they support our mission as an encyclopedia. Our efforts to write an encyclopedia are balanced against the pursuit of free content and that balance has shifted markedly over the years. Go back to 2003/2004 and most of the discussion of free content meant no cost content and non-commercial works were welcome here. The "pillars" document itself started out as a personal essay written in 2005. That said, we aren't going to jettison free content in general. Regardless of what gets said here, we both know that's not going away. This is a survey, not policy making poll. One of the reasons for this survey is so the Board can get a greater insight into the community's acceptance and commitment to free content. It doesn't actually follow that the Board will then do what the community says they want. In fact, one possible response if a lack of comittment is expressed here is for them take steps to further reinforce the role of free content and increase communication on this issue. Dragons flight 20:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I am obviously not "generally opposed of asking the community what they think of free content". I am opposed to polling the community on whether we should abide by our five pillars or not, because nothing good can come of it. It will only create unnecessary drama, if people feel they voted and they have a right to change Wikipedia's core principles. (I know, the survey says it's not a policy-making exercise, but you know how people see these polls.) Your statement above seems to minimize the importance of the five pillars, saying they started as a personal essay, but the ArbCom has ruled several times that these principles are not subject to consensus. So why poll on them? It will only create discontent. I remember back when the pillars document was written -- even back then I was writing users, asking for permission to use previously non-free images under a free license. Even back in 2003, non-commercial-only works were prohibited by our policy (although many people didn't know that, and it wasn't well enforced.)

You say that we're not going to jettison free content in general, but that's insincere. I'm not worried that we'll stop using free content. I'm worried that we'll start using non-free content -- or that the Board will continue to prohibit non-free content, but a great number of Wikipedians will feel entitled to use non-free content because of this poll.

You say that "We already have many works that are incompatible with the GFDL and yet remain because they support our mission as an encyclopedia", but that's only true in the strictest sense. All text is licensed under the GFDL, and always has been. The use of quotes, etc., as fair use does not prevent the entire work from being GFDL. Similarly, the use of copyrighted images under the fair use doctrine does not prevent the entire work (including those images) from being used under the GFDL. The only non-GFDL content we have is cc-by-sa images. (cc-by is compatible with the GFDL.) We do allow those images because (a) the GFDL doesn't strictly cover images, (b) the cc-by-sa is "compatible in spirit" with the terms of the GFDL, even if it's not strictly compatible, and (c) it is hoped that future versions of the GFDL and cc-by-sa license will be compatible with each other. (There are groups working on this.) If a new version of cc-by-sa were released tomorrow that was compatible with the GFDL, all our content would be GFDL-compliant.

But we specifically disallow cc-by-nd or cc-by-nc because those are not "compatible in spirit" with the GFDL, and they can never become strictly compatible with the GFDL in future versions. If we were to allow cc-by-nd material (not under the fair use doctrine) we would be giving up on Wikipedia being, as our slogan says, "the free-content encyclopedia". I don't thing that's ever going to happen -- at least, I hope it's not. So why poll people about it? What good can come of it? It might "inform the board" that without a defining mission, even Wikipedia can revert into MySpace -- but at the cost of widespread discontent and misunderstanding of our mission and our policies.

If you want to poll people on how the community would like to set the balance between promoting free content and using as much content as legally possible, that's valid. There is a lot of gray area, and Wikipedia could legitimately (for instance) include or exclude some legally "fair use" content without violating our core mission either way. If we want to poll users on this, that legitimate, but we would have to go about it in a careful and thoughtful way, that makes sure not to poll on invalid proposals, that goes out of its way not to influence the outcome by using biased language, that works actively to prevent a misunderstanding of copyright law from skewing the results, etc. But so far, you haven't shown that. When someone points out to you better wording changes for clarity you're quite receptive, but in matters of bias you have been markedly less so. Your unwillingness to remove what you admit is a "negative term" to describe the application of our policies is symptomatic of a resistance to the sort of careful, unbiased language that is called for in a survey like this. I'm inclined to agree with GMaxwell that "[o]vert bias in the selection and language of the questions. . . is almost certainly not resolvable without a long and drawn out argument". It should be resolvable, but it certainly doesn't appear to be. And your dismissiveness of my concerns in this comment make me doubt your desire to work with those who disagree with you toward a truly non-biased work.

My contention is that, in reality, the final outcome of this survey is much more likely to do more harm than good. If we do choose to create such a survey, we should basically start over, deciding from the beginning what the scope should be, whether this should be a long or short survey, whether this applies to just the English Wikipedia or to all Wikipedia projects, etc. And we'll have to all be willing to go out of our way to avoid bias in the questions. If we can't do that, we should choose survey authors who can.

Sincerely, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I just have a few comments. First I agree with everything Quadell has said above. It is extremely disheartening to me that we would want to vote to abandon our core values. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. The idea that there is tension between creating an encyclopedia and our commitment to free content is anathema. Wikipedia is free content. More than any other work that is available anywhere Wikipedia is Free Content. There is no tension or incongruity between helping to create something unique and valuable, and wanting to ensure that it can be shared with everyone. The two are, in fact, inseparable. - cohesion 02:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is no conflict between an excellent encyclopedia and free use. An encyclopedia that uses fair use content where appropriate and beneficial can be completely free use, if there is a good record-keeping system that empowers downstream users to make their own decisions on how much and what kind of non-free images to use for their own purposes.

• I concur with much of what Quadell says above. I've been fighting fair use abuse issues on Wikipedia for a year and a half now. My view point, while not unique, is certainly one of a very few people who work against fair use abuse on a routine basis. In my opinion, the general community does not understand copyright or fair use in so far as the law is written. Further, the community as a whole does not understand our commitment to free content.

• While it is true that this survey is intended to be illustrative of community perception of the issues at hand, it also creates a situation where the community is further encouraged in its belief that it can control this situation. This is not a situation the community can control. There's a strong undercurrent in the fair use disputes on Wikipedia that the lack of consensus on fair use overuse and abuse means that the overuse and abuse can continue. We routinely run into this. People argue vociferously in favor of using fair use in very liberal ways. That the Foundation would, in essence, support this survey casts an illusion that these people just might be right. They most emphatically are not right. The Foundation does not need an opinion poll to evaluate the community's stance. I will personally guarantee there is a subset of Wikipedians who will always feel that non-free content should be used liberally. The Foundation should be striving in every way possible to support free content. The survey, in that context, is meaningless. Either you support this core principle or you are against Wikipedia.

• Quadell notes the five pillars. This was somewhat dismissed as a originating as a personal essay. Fine. Dismiss it. What you can not dismiss is the board approved m:Mission of Wikipedia. "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop neutral educational content under a free content license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally" That we are intended to be a free content encyclopedia is a fundamental component of what we are. It can not be dismissed. It can not be ignored. It can not be devalued in favor of making articles look better.

• I would also like to note that our core mission can not be overridden in the name of striving towards the best encyclopedia, regardless of the license situation of the content. The goals of creating the best encyclopedia we can and make it free content are not mutually exclusive. Any argument that we should be permissive towards non-free content in the name of producing a higher quality encyclopedia is weak at best. Personally, this notion that we must allow non-free content to support being a great encyclopedia is repulsive to the point of illness. The entire Free Culture movement has been routinely mocked as being incapable of creating great works. Yet, time and time again the deriders of this concept are proven wrong. Is it harder to produce a free content encyclopedia? There's no question this is true. Nevertheless, because something is harder does not mean we should not do it. Striving towards the goal of free content is harder. It's the harder that makes it worthwhile; we create a resource that is undeniably free. Free for downstream use. Free for derivative works. Free for distribution. Free for editing. Free for all.

• Abandoning our core mission would leave me in a similar situation to Quadell. If we're not going to be free, we might as well close up shop and walk away. The more we erode our status as free content, the less free I am in contributing my time and efforts here.

• I also remain convinced that the Foundation is not going to become serious about this issue until lawsuits are filed against them. YouTube is facing lawsuits right now because they have copyrighted music videos on their site. Think of any song that is moderately popular, and you can probably find the music video for it on YouTube. The redisplay of these works is not transformative in any way. YouTube's defense of this is that they remove copyright violations as soon as they are made aware of them. That's in essence what Wikipedia does; our stance is we remove them as we find them reported to be violations. The Foundation's approach has been essentially hands off; it's up to the local projects to police this. I am not a lawyer, but this stance seems highly problematic to me.

• So, to have this survey/discussion on what the community thinks of free content is irrelevant. The Foundation MUST take a stance in favor of free content or there will be major repercussions down the road. It's not a matter of if. It's a matter of when. We're a top ten website now. It would be pure naivete to think lawyers aren't looking at our site.

• We currently have approximately 320 thousand copyrighted works on en.wikipedia now. If anyone doesn't think this problem is serious, they're kidding themselves. --Durin 14:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Nicely put. However, let us not forget that the Foundation is a nonprofit entity. The Board of a nonprofit acts as trustees for the greater good of the people, and though they have considerable latitude in deciding what that greater good is they cannot run a nonprofit as a private fiefdom to suit their individual interests, or those of founders or staff. Special purpose nonprofits of Wikipedia's age and size tend to go through adjustment periods as they mature, and are sometimes susceptible to autocratic control in the meanwhile. But ultimately they most be responsive to the people they represent. If the constituency of Wikimedia want Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia first and foremost, that is what they get, and they will change the mission statement if it does not fit their goals. You can argue, lobby, coax, and cajole, but you can't change this basic fact. There's a disconnect when an ideological position becomes so doctrinaire that you don't even want people to talk about it. Even if you sincerely believe free content is the way to go, I propose that it's wrong to suppress discussion on the matter. The plain fact is that Wikipedia is the 10th (or so) most widely used site on the web, and a massive, important, and widely used reference work. Some (myself included) believe it is the most important reference work ever created. To date it has been vastly less successful as a source of content. You could point to a few re-users, about.com being the most prominent, but that is hardly success or influence on the same scale. The mission statement divides cleanly into two goals some see as being in conflict, to be an encyclopedia and to create free content. True, the goals are not necessarily competitive, but if you push one to the exclusion of the other they can be. To go to the extreme, that free content always has primacy over comprehensive coverage, does mean less useful content, less interest, less readership, and as you note, alienating rank-and-file users and volunteers. It is a fair call to make, even if you disagree with it, that we should serve both goals and not go to that extreme. And it is certainly fair to talk about it.
• It's inevitable in any organization that somebody will sue someone over something. One commonality between Youtube and Wikipedia is that both have had almost no litigation in comparison to the size of their operation. That is as far as the similarity goes. Where Wikipedia has somewhat over 300,000 copyrighted images, youtube has millions of potentially copyrighted videos. Google is a deep pockets company; Wikimedia is not. Wikipedia actively discourages copyright infringement and policies itself with standards that go far beyond the necessities of the law. The content is all under claim of fair use. Youtube is pushing the limits, intentionally, to force the content makers into licensing agreements, and tolerates non-transformative content. Wikimedia actively avoids litigation and will drop any content if challenged rather than take a stand, which is all the content owners want in nearly all infringement cases. Google fights its lawsuits to defend its way of operating and, again, to try to force a licensing agreement in settlement. Of the 300,000+ non-free images most are logos, album covers, book covers, movie posters, TV screen shots, animation stills, works of contemporary art, and miscellaneous cover art. If there is trouble it will not come from these.
• There are of course two models for creating information that is free for all, fair use and free content. We don't have room here to go deep into the philosophy of each, but each represents a significant body of the world's information and knowledge. One can't purport to be a comprehensive compendium of the world's knowledge without addressing both. That would be like trying to understand a song from lyrics alone, without the music. There is no denying that a huge amount of the world's treasures are copyrighted: nearly all films, music, photographs, modern works of fiction, sculpture and fine art. Fair use is a frontal challenge to copyright, a position that the world's heritage belongs to the world and not solely the copyright holder, that copyright does not include the right to prevent education, analysis, criticism, commentary. The free content movement is a stab at a parallel system, a world beyond copyright and its restrictions. If all the world's works were free that would be great (setting aside the copyright proponents' claim that it provides a necessary marketplace incentive). But it is not. To address the films, novels, artwork, visual heritage of the world, we must sometimes take a look.Wikidemo

Both Durin and Wikidemo make some great points, and I don't have much to add. I do want to comment on one small part, though. Wikidemo said, "Of the 300,000+ non-free images most are logos, album covers, book covers, movie posters, TV screen shots, animation stills, works of contemporary art, and miscellaneous cover art. If there is trouble it will not come from these." That is probably true, but we can't be sure even of that. Note the case of Ty, Inc., vs. Publications International, Ltd. (here is the text of the opinion, and here is some excellent commentary.) In this case, a publisher produced a "collectors guide" to Beanie Babies that included photographs of the plush toys, along with estimates of price and other information. Ty sued, saying the guide was a derivative work, but PI claimed that using the photographs to identify the toys in an informational context was "fair use", since they weren't competing with Ty. (Ty produced toy, not collectors guides, after all.) The court held that the use was not fair use, since Ty might at some point in the future attempt to exploit photographs of Beanie Babies commercially, and so PI had to pay Ty damages. When you note the parallels between this case and, for instance, the many articles on copyrighted characters that are illustrated with "book covers, movie posters, TV screen shots, animation stills, . . .and miscellaneous cover art", it makes one unsure that such uses are as unproblematic as one might hope. (See? I'm getting better at avoiding hyperbole, aren't I?) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• That's frightening. --Durin 21:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Quadell, your first link appears to be broken, so I haven't been able to read the full text of the judgment itself. But it may be worth noting that the 7th Circuit actually found in favour of P.I.L., not Ty. The collector's guide, with its evaluative commentary, was deemed fair use. Jheald 22:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree, frightening. It would have been a terrible precedent if it had stood. It points out a couple things we should keep in mind. First, court decisions are unpredictable. It's dangerous to prognosticate what is and is not legal before a court decides. Second, I am indeed concerned about copyrighted characters, animation stills, and perhaps video caps, because one use by the copyright owner is to license them out as avatars, logo gear and wear, and pretty images. Book covers, film posters, and cover art generally much less so, because they don't get licensed out in this way and their commercial purpose is to sell something other than the copyrighted artwork; hence, using them for purposes of identification or commentary is more transformative. Wikidemo 00:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A few corrections

For what it's worth, and without commenting on User:Quadell's actual opinion, the introductory paragraph to this section contains some mischaracterizations of US copyright law.

it is illegal to draw a picture of Mickey Mouse - no, that is usually legal

or post a picture of Pikachu on their website - legality depends on the purpose

or photocopy a WWII-era photo - almost always legal for personal use

or copy a music CD for personal (non-archiving) use - that is legal

or sing "Happy Birthday" at a party - that is legal

the myth that "I'm not making money off it, so I can't be breaking copyright law" is extremely prevalent. - true, but the converse is also true. Most people make the mistake of assuming that use of copyrighted materials by a for-profit company or for purposes of making money is always considered commercial, when often it is not.

that the average Wikipedian has.. printed a photo from a website - legal

or downloaded copyrighted text - legal

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 09:40, 26 July 2007

I only wish that this were true! Unfortunately, it's not. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 10:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Quadell, here, you prove that your enthusiasm for fair use "enforcement" on Wikipedia is matched only the stunning scope of your lack of understanding of how copyright law actually works.

Since the problems with your opening statement have been refuted by someone believed to be an actual lawyer (thanks, Wikidemo), why don't you give us a little more to go on than "I only wish that this were true." Well, today's the day that your wish came true, apparently, because all of these things are legal, and scaring people with your draconian mischaracterizations of how copyright law actually works seems to me to be a very, very poor way to make cogent arguments for policy changes.

Quite simply, you've proved here that when it comes to the basics of copyright law, you have no idea what you're talking about. So why should I believe your arguments anywhere else? Are they all based on this type of misinformation or mischaracterization? Did someone explain copyright law to you, wrong? Whatever knowledge you have, and you do appear to have some, it's poisoned by your complete lack of understanding the basics in regards to questions such as this. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 19:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

All those examples are only "legal" (or not considered a copyright infringement) because they fall under fair use. They are still not free content. Garion96 (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, for the most part. Wikidemo 02:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Do incorrect statements attract other incorrect statements? Or is this just a clearinghouse for copyright misinformation? Not all of those examples require fair use to be legal. For example, I don't need to rely on a fair use claim to draw Mickey Mouse, any time I want, in any medium I want. (In fact, I'm doing it right now, on an envelope by my desk. See? Not illegal! Nor did it require a fair use claim!)  :) I really don't want to create a big list here, but suffice to say, there are plenty of other exceptions to your theory that "fair use must be used in all these cases." The point remains - Quadell has demonstrated his basis for enforcing "fair use" issues is fundamentally flawed, thanks to his complete and total misunderstanding of both the theory and practice of this subset of the law. He should stick to Wikipolicy, which can be made up, changed randomly, etc. with no real consequences. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 21:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, change "drawing" to " publishing" and it could be all or almost all. Haven't read them all that carefully. The point is that it is not free content. You know, the usual 5 pillars stuf.. :) Plus the point Quadell tried to make is valid. Most people are used to ignoring intellectual property law on a regular basis. Garion96 (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This is another case of people thinking that copyright law can't possibly be as bad as it is. To take one example, if someone sings "Happy Birthday" in a movie, look closely at the credits. They have to credit the authors, and pay them. A "public performance" (such as singing at an open party) is subject to the same restrictions. "Fair use" wouldn't apply, since you're not commenting on the work or transforming it in any way; you're simply publicly performing a copyrighted work without the permission of the copyright holder. This is why restaurants typically don't sing "happy birthday", but sing their own birthday song instead -- restaurants have been successfully sued for this. No, the copyright-holder isn't going to sue you for singing "happy birthday" at your next party, but that's because it's not worth their time. It's still not legal. ("Private" parties are different, but any open party "at a place open to the public" is covered. See here for more.)

I agree that people make false assumptions about copyright law, one of the worst being that it is okay to play music in public establishments without paying royalties. However, I disagree about private renditions of the Happy Birthday song. The Snopes article quotes the law but doesn't apply it. I don't have a cite and doubt there is one because nobody is silly enough to try to bring such a case. But if it ever went to court I doubt you could sustain a case for infringement against a person singing happy birthday for his family simply because it is in a place open to the public. It happens all the time and I have never seen a restaurant try to stop it. Sometimes they wince, as a matter of good taste, but that's it. Wikidemo 02:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Another example: copying CDs. The law here is just stupid. Ordinarily, any copying of a musical performance without prior written consent is illegal. "Fair use" covers libraries, official archives, parody, etc., but makes no exemption for a person copying a CD, even if they bought it themselves. This is why ASCAP was up in arms about home taping back in the 1980's. So a compromise was worked out. If you use a device whose sole or primary purpose is to copy a tape or CD, then it's legal to do so -- but the producers of these devices pay a levy to ASCAP (which is why blank tapes are so expensive). This exemption only covers copies made to back up or archive your tape or CD in case the original breaks. (If you listen to one copy in the car and another at home, that's still illegal -- see this.) But if you use your computer to copy a CD (or a stand-alone MP3 player), these devices are not legally "primarily" used to copy music, so the manufacturers don't have to pay ASCAP a fee. . . but that also means these devices are not covered. If you use a computer to copy a CD for your own person use, and it's not covered by the legal definition of fair use (you're a library, or you're a part of an official archive, or you're creating a parody or other transformative work), then you're breaking the law. No one will ever prosecute you, but you're still breaking the law. See here for the gory details. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Your statement is too broad. Some types of copying for home use are okay, others are not. I think you mean duplicating, meaning you cannot make duplicate copies beyond an archive. I think we're getting afield here, and I am not endorsing user:Jenolen's questioning of your wisdom. I don't see what any of this has to do with the survey. I just wanted to point out that some of your statements are made more broadly than they coudl be. Wikidemo 02:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess you're right. I should be extra careful to avoid hyperbole when debating tough subjects like copyright. I guess my main points are: copyright law is complex and unfriendly; a minuscule fraction of the population has a decent idea of what's really legal and what's not; too many people assume that if it's not problematic for them to something on their private website, it must not be problematic for Wikipedia to do it; and many computer-literate people are used to ignoring copyright warnings as inconsequential legal boilerplate mumbo-jumbo. I hope I didn't dull my point through (minor) overstatement. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Dont ignore them; turn them into choral music and make them available as a download. Jheald 20:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Now that's beautiful. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Missing options

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)

• Although the above may seem a little extreme, I don't think it goes far enough. I support a survey option to delete ALL images -- of ALL types -- from Wikipedia and Commons and start fresh from scratch. To be honest, such a drastic move couldn't possibly create any more bad blood than currently exists between the copyright police and those who want to create a useful resource in incorporates visual information as well as text. 23skidoo 01:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The images stored in Commons are already OK. The problem exists with the images stored in this Wikipedia. Best regards, Alpertron 19:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of passage from "General philosophy of free content"

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)

Fully support, I would remove it from the background section also. - cohesion 01:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)