NonFreeWiki

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Domain names and alternatives[edit]

Name Domain Suggested by Comment
NonFreeWiki https://nonfree.wikimedia.org Green Giant
FairUseWiki https://fairuse.wikimedia.org TeleComNasSprVen
FairMediaWiki https://fairmediawiki.org Harrybrowne1986 Potential for confusion with MediaWiki?
CentralWiki https://centralwiki.org Harrybrowne1986 Just like the way we have central wiki login, the same way.
OneWiki https://onewiki.org Harrybrowne1986
UnCommons https://uncommons.wikimedia.org GregRundlett and Rich Farmbrough Because it's like Commons but the opposite in legal terms. Their use should be uncommon.
https://edp.wikimedia.org / http://nfc.wikimedia.org とある白い猫
Wikimedia Commons Fairuse http://fairuse.commons.wikimedia.org/ or http://fairuse.wikimedia.org/ or http://commons.wikimedia.org/fairuse/ or http://commons.wikimedia.com/ or http://cms.wikimedia.org/ User:C933103 Whichever that would make thing easier

See also[edit]

People interested[edit]

Support[edit]

  1. Green Giant, as proposer.
  2. PC-XT (talk) Centralized attention on fair-use files, with the goal of enforcing the different wikis' policies, within Wikimedia's policies makes sense to me.
  3. This idea has been floated a few times in the past. Thank you for putting a well written proposal together. John Vandenberg (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Strong support.--GZWDer (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Also express strong support for this idea. I think this is a well thought out idea that solves a very real problem. Zellfaze (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  6. Strong support --Pierpao (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  7. Symbol conditional support.svg Conditional support --Ricordisamoa 02:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  8. Same as Ricordisamoa. --The4DGovernment (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  9. Symbol conditional support.svg Conditional support --Harrybrowne1986 (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  10. This is a brilliant idea. As a Thai Wikipedian, I believe that it is very helpful for small and medium-sized wiki projects. We have spent significant amount of time dealing with fair-use image issues. The issues are somewhat redundant and can be avoided by a centralised system. --Taweethaも (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  11. Support Support I think that the idea is effective and efficient. It is a waste of time for Users to re-upload images just because they need to use it on a local wiki. In addition, it will maintain a central place for images and that will help provide many accurate statistics for such class of images and why would users upload them. Asaifm (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  12. Strongly Support Support. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  13. Support Support good idea, it will save many things --Ibrahim.ID (talk) 05:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  14. --John123521 (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  15. I had the same idea. Strong support -Nizil Shah (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  16. I ended up on commons because I wanted a CC-BY-NC icon for OEIS:. And I like Lawrene Lessing's On Free, and the Differences between Culture and Code lecture. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  17. Quite. Andreas JN466 12:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  18. Nikki (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  19. Alternate logo proposal
    Support Support I have been arguing about this for a long time, this would bring unfair use issue to a single location. We HAVE TO obey US copyright law and we choose to obey local laws where wikis are more widely used. This is just the existing practice and such a centralized unfree content wiki would eliminate a number of problems. I think files can be migrated to such an non-free content wiki without disrupting existing use. In fact preferably this should be done without re-downloading and re-uploading the files. Now that we have SUL fully integrated, attribution would not be an issue. One question is what would this wiki be called? edp.wikimedia.org? nfc.wikimedia.org? I would not want to call it uncommons. Such a shift may have positive legal consequences where we can mirror the entire file server on a European country because it is now entirely freely licensed. -- とある白い猫 chi? 12:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
    I would oppose the proposed logo as it will be confusing to distinguish commons from the non free content wiki for some people, especially if they are color blind. I would go for File:Red copyright.svg since that will be the only type of content on this wiki. Or it could be something inspired from it. -- とある白い猫 chi? 12:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
    The logo is not fixed so this is a good alternative. All I did with the logo was turn the Commons logo upside down and swapped the colours. The transfer to a single wiki could be done by bots, maybe even using an import right. The name also isn't fixed (although I've used NonFreeWiki in the requested demo). I've added the logo and the domains you suggested but feel free to make any changes you think are needed. Green Giant (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
    I am not a graphics artist. Perhaps this can be put on Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop where our more creative and talented users can come up with something? Perhaps we want to focus on WMF colors such as the case with incubator. -- とある白い猫 chi? 15:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  20. General support for the concept. The devil is in the details, but details can be worked out. Before NFW is created, basic policies and procedures should be developed. Then it should be clearly proposed that Commons host this, creating special tagging or classificationt of files. There would then not need to be any interwiki moves from Commons to NFW or vice-versa, it would become a page move (perhaps to a new namespace). Copyright expertise is needed to handle licensing issues, and, for better or worse, that expertise exists on Commons. To preserve local autonomy, any local usage of a file should establish NFW hosting. If that local usage is true copyvio, then, it will be visible and should be handled. The current situation is unsatisfactory. The goal of the WMF policy is that any non-free usages be machine-readably tagged with a rationale, so that commercial re-users are warned. If, however, NFW removes local autonomy as to what files they choose to host, I would be opposed. Local autonomy creates the possibility of conflict with global consensus, yet local autonomy is a very important safeguard. As usual, there are comments that imagine "copyvio" is illegal in the U.S. Not exactly. It depends, and the WMF is not at risk from hosted copyvio, as long as it promptly takes it down under a DMCA request, which it normally does. --Abd (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  21. Support. Reducing the burden on local communities. --minhhuy (talk) 10:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  22. Support --Satdeep Gill (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  23. Support Support ElGatoSaez (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  24. Support. CourtlyHades296 (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  25. Support. Less work for local small wikis. --Stranger195 (talkcontribs) 03:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  26. Support Support --Morten Haan (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  27. Support Support finally, I was waiting for this, I think it has a great potential. It won't solve all the problems but at least some of them... I am it-N, I speak 6 languages, I know local communities and I am active on commons. Call me when you start.--Alexmar983 (talk) 10:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  28. Support Support --Ruthven (talk) 06:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  29. Support Support of the strongest possible kind. NC licensed images could go here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  30. Support Support all NC photo can be upload on it Richard923888 (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  31. Support Support --Samuele2002 (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  32. Weak support. Please do. This is more like Commons's non-free sister project but more convenient. One non-free image in all wikis may, but some local images may be nontransferable. When this project opens, I may need to transfer some to there. By the way, can it allow UK artworks that are ineligible for US copyright? --George Ho (talk) 09:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    -- I didn't realize that this proposal could block all local wikis from uploading non-free content. I was too blind and optimistic about NonFreeWiki without realizing that blocking all wikis is part of the whole proposal. While I still support this proposed project, after reading opposing arguments and then re-reading the whole proposal, including the "Solution" section, I changed from "Support" to "Weak support". However, the proposal should be revamped, or it may fail to impress the whole consensus. If the consensus becomes 50/50, that would indicate failure of the proposal. I still believe that we can have a central project that can control non-free content without eliminating local autonomy or authority. Hopefully, either the proposer, the Legal Team or the Board of Trustees can reconstruct this proposal and either make another similar proposed project or revamp the content page. Otherwise, until the "blocking all wikis" is eliminated as part of the proposal, I can no longer fully support this (but still can "weak support" it). --George Ho (talk) 03:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    -- Switching to Support slightly support. On one hand, I thought blocking all wikis from uploading non-free content oversteps the boundaries of local jurisdictions. On the other hand, I still wonder whether a local authority is any different from central authority. I can still imagine that NonFreeWiki would forbid content that has commercial interests just as local wikis do. Even the Foundation and its projects still treat paid editing like a serious issue. I predict that NonFreeWiki might treat "paid editing" the same as other wikis in contrast to Commons, which currently does not require disclosure there. --George Ho (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  33. Support Support. do not care if commons will be the "non free", and a "free commons" is created, or the new one is non-free. non free should contain everything which leads to trouble. the cease and desist honey pots from germany (cc 3.0, art libre, or even cc-4.0 images placed in articles, later on thousands of amateur persons sued 1000$ each to stop using). --ThurnerRupert (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  34. Support Support --Samuele2002 (Talk!) 21:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  35. Support Support --アンタナナ 21:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  1. Strong Opppose - Problems block implementation that must be dealt with before this could move forwards: The proposal fails to deal with issues such as en-wiki allowing files that are out of copyright in America, but not on Commons. Implementing this could be disasterous if done without a concrete, coherent proposal for dealing with such issues. It also separates the non-free files from their fair-use content, and makes problems with orphaned fair use much harder to deal with in absence of concrete systems for dealing with such. As well, a good number of supposed "non-free" files, when checked, turn out to be public domain when checked; for example, it's not uncommon for pre-1923 American books and music scores to have first edition covers uploaded under fair use, which is simply wrong. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not seeing the objection as being to the concept of NFW, rather as being a concern about implementation details, and I'm not getting that Adam Cuerden understands the proposal. "Fair Use" is one example of Non-free content, not something clearly separate. Under WMF policy, fair use is actually required for NC licensed material to be hosted; however, NFW would classify such files to keep the issue distinct; and thus NFW would become a source for finding NC files for NC users. Two birds with one stone. "Orphaned fair use" is an oxymoron, it is not fair use if not used. However, I would suggest that instead of deleting orphaned files, they be replaced with thumbnails, if they are not already thumbnails. I.e., what Google search does: display thumbnails for file identification, then show links to pages where the files are hosted. Generally, license information provided should not be deleted unless clearly fraudulent, and it is arguable that even that should not be deleted, merely annotated and hidden. NFW should be maximally transparent. I see no looming "disaster" here. If a file is legal to host in the U.S., say under fair use, and not legal in another jurisdiction, this "problem" already exists. Local language wikis may decide to follow local law, that is completely up to them. That a file is hosted on NFW does not make its use locally automatically legitimate. It does make it possible. --Abd (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
    Files would be restricted in usage unlike commons. Wiki's that choose to use these files must have a compatible local fair use. So for instance German wikipedia will not be able to use these files - be it files fully copyrighted, or only free in the US. -- とある白い猫 chi? 18:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose as long as it hasn't been clarified who's going to do the monitoring and policing of the uploads and rationales. Who's going to form the admin force on the new wiki? How are local-wiki admins going to be able to monitor who's uploading things on NFW and then inserting them on the local wiki? Keep in mind that checking uploads and rationales is not just formal paperwork, at least once we go beyond the most clear-cut of standard cases, like cover art etc. As soon as we are dealing with stuff like historic photographs, non-free portraits and the like, anybody who wishes to check the justification of a file needs to be able to read and understand both the (individually worded) non-free use rationale, and the target article where it's used. The small problem wikis that have failed to adhere to Foundation policy in the past have no admin force willing or able to do such checks, so we can't expect them to delegate admins to work effectively on NFW either. As long as that's the case, NFW will only shift a problem from one place to another without solving it. Fut.Perf. 10:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
    It could start with NC and ND licensed content which we can legally use right now except we choose not to.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
    a wiki can just opt out of non-free if it is too much admin hassle. when cloning en wikipedia e.g. for offline (kiwix, ... ) it can be easy excluded by url. amateurs linking to images out of their wordpress blog can be sure that they won't get sued. currently commons, and images in the wikipedia itself is much to difficult to explain and handle. wikipedia has an educational mission and a related tax exemption, this means safe reuse without hiring lawyers is key, otherwise its a "mission failed". --ThurnerRupert (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I anticipate this being a miserable fail for Wikinews archival image use. Our archives at Wikinews are a major asset, their preservation and curation an important part of our charge (as I write this, our archives at English Wikinews have grown to about 21,000 articles). One of our major problems — despite, it should be said, lots of great folks on other sister projects who are supportive in a positive collegial spirit — is that over time our image-hosting needs that differ from those of Wikipedia are overlooked, neglected, and ignored by a central image-hosting project where large numbers of people treat the central repository as a practical adjunct to Wikipedia. Image deletion is cumulative over time, so that in the long run the treatment of Wikinews images by a central repository suffers cumulative destruction from widespread (though obviously not universal) indifference, ignorance, and sometimes active antipathy, toward the needs of Wikinews. It's a source of persistent frustration to us that several percent of our archived articles have holes in them due to images deleted from Commons. Some of those holes, we would be unable to fix by local upload either, because our fair-use policy (hammered out years ago with Wikimedia legal) does not allow fair use of images under copyright by competing news agencies, but a great many of those image holes could in principle be filled, and perhaps at some point we'll have the opportunity to do so — but predictably, if our fair-use images had to be hosted on a centralized non-Wikinews site, in the long run the centralized project would collectively ignore (if not actively defy) the differences between Wikinews and Wikipedia and the image holes in our archives would grow substantially. --Pi zero (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
    Sorry, Pi zero, but the proposed project would not (and should not) control how local wikis handle non-free images. If some images are non-transferable to the proposed project, as how some images are non-transferable to Commons, then let's not upload them there. Nevertheless, having one image in many local wikis would reduce too many copies of a similar image. One thing for certain: Japanese language projects, like Japanese Wikipedia, would not allow non-free images. I'm certain that the project would respect the jurisdictions of Japanese Wikipedia. As for Wikinews... well, its huge issues (e.g. limited participation) have been discussed in English Wikinews locally, and how Wikinews handles non-free images should not affect the outcome of this proposal. Neither should the state of Wikinews itself. --George Ho (talk) 04:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
    @George Ho:
    • The proposal, even if implemented in its exact form here, describes a reduction of local control — a deleting authority at the central repository decides (afaict) whether or not they're satisfied that local requirements have been met after seven days, which means local authorities are not able to exercise their judgement, neither in how long to allow before deleting without a rationale, nor in what rationales are or are not adequate (or, even more nuanced, what rationales are temporarily adequate) in a particular case. Furthermore, Commoners already have much difficulty consistently enforcing inclusion/exclusion rules, when there's just one set of rules for the whole repository; it strikes me as fanciful that a central authority could make high-quality judgements about rationales under many different sets of rules. In practice, any project whose rules are atypical — such as Wikinews — would get shafted.
    • Central authority is subject to abuse, and institutional structures such as the Foundation consistently favor centralizing authority. Although details of this proposal just as stated describe some authority remaining local, the proposal doesn't particularly emphasize it (just for example, the Summary only mentions this point in its last dozen words; I sympathize with the difficulty of writing these things, but that doesn't change my assessment that the point is deemphasized).
    These concerns about the relationship between local admins and the central authority are, in essence, another form of the concerns expressed above by another user about coordination; and such situations naturally gravitate toward a state in which the central authority dominates and imposes strong deletion rules that override local authorities and, ultimately, subvert local knowledge, local judgement, and local policy. --Pi zero (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
    First part... Well, I see your point on the deletion part, but local wikis can simply remove a file without deleting the proposed project's copy. Therefore, any editor at the proposed (supposedly centralized) project can tell other readers not to add the file in certain wikis.

    Second part... I'm sure NonFreeWiki would not be as centric toward non-free images as Commons is toward free images... Actually, Meta-wiki's OTRS service (currently understaffed and backlogged) centralizes Commons's handling of permissions. Also, NonFreeWiki wouldn't impact Japanese Wikipedia's prohibition on non-free images, and I'm sure that it would respect the wishes of Wikinews. The relationship between English Wikipedia and NonFreeWiki, however... I don't know. Nevertheless, en wiki's policies toward non-free images are too burdensome, and NonFreeWiki would be less centric toward non-free images than English Wikipedia does. By the way, you can keep a local copy, while NonFreeWiki can have its own (central) copy. Some local wikis keep their own copies of free images as Commons keep theirs.

    Off-topic, but I read the 2013 events about Croatian Wikipedia. I wonder how local authority is any different from central authority. If local authority affects everyone negatively, then central authority may have rights to interfere. Otherwise, I'm sure that central authority can respect and would not infringe local authority, i.e. NonFreeWiki is very motherly to every wiki... and will be sisterly to Commons.

    Wondering... what would be the relationship among NonFreeWiki, Commons, and Meta-wiki's OTRS (OTRS... ugh)? Would the trio be the Axis of Powers-like, Allied Powers-ish, or the Three Musketeers? (Must... not... insert... smileys...) --George Ho (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC); edited. 17:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

    @George Ho:
    • You say "local wiki can simply remove a file without deleting the proposed project's copy." This seems to be addressing a very different concern than I was raising. I was concerned with a central authority removing things, thereby removing a local authority's ability to decide not to remove them. You're talking about safeguarding a local site's ability to delete a file even if the central authority doesn't. I admit I'm also not entirely convinced by what you say about that; it seems likely to me that the centralization-minded Foundation would not care about preserving any vestige of local control, on the contrary the Foundation naturally favors removing control from local projects.
    • You say "I'm sure NonFreeWiki would not be as centric toward non-free images as Commons is toward free images..." Your confidence sounds unfounded to me. The tendency of central authorities to accumulate power to themselves is not limited by the intentions of the person who first gave it to them. You are evidently naively optimistic about what might be done, but my experience of central authorities leads me to be more concerned with the damage they can do — especially, in this case, damage to decentralized grassroots communities. We may both agree that a central NonFreeWiki could not do as good a job of making these decisions as the local projects, but I do not think that would deter the central authority from making the decisions, rather I take it to mean they would make bad decisions.
    • You say "By the way, you can keep a local copy, while NonFreeWiki can have its own (central) copy." Tbh, I entirely disbelieve that. I believe that you believe it; I just think you're wrong. The Foundation would not do both; if they create NonFreeWiki they would take it for granted that centralized is better and they would continue in that direction until NonFreeWiki is the only repository of non-Commons images. That is their nature.
    --Pi zero (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
    Pi zero, I hope you forgive me for my ignorance about the whole proposal. I swear I either overlooked or was careless about the "blocking" part. I haven't switched to "oppose" yet, but I admit you have a point about central authority. --George Ho (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose for 2 main reasons:
    1. yet another wiki, with yet another set of rules and presumably English-based will make it even harder for casual users to upload non-free images. We have all the pains in the world explaining why they can't upload in their native tongue and with a single set of rules to care about, it will be incredibly difficult to explain with more than one set of rules.
    2. no simple technical solution on whether an image can or cannot be displayed on a specific wiki according to the local EDP. That makes the "semaphore system" error-prone, with the difference that local users who notice the problem might not be willing to fix it (because on another wiki).
    What would be acceptable would be a NC repository, such as for no-FoP images, and, unrelated to that, a ban on local uploads on wikis with no EDP. --Strainu (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
    I hate to admit that some images would be nontransferable to the proposed project, Strainu. Nevertheless, because some smaller wikis could not upload its own files locally, which I forgot to mention, this project can do it for those wikis if they can allow NFC. Also, as said above... well local wikis and this central wiki may not control each other. I also see your point on technical issues with local file descriptions and global ones, but... I still believe that this project can work. --George Ho (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC); see below. 22:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
    Scratch that. I re-read the second point and realize that you were discussing local display and global display of non-free content. I think any local wiki could disable or modify a global display of any non-free content stored in NonFreeWiki, wouldn't it? --George Ho (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
    See my newer comments at the Support section. --George Ho (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, quite strongly. I do not think that this proposal is thought through. The first step before even thinking about such a proposal should be to consult with Wikimedia's Legal Team and ask them if something like this would be legally possible. Are they aware of this proposal? After all, I suppose that "NonFreeWiki" would be a public wiki where anyone could access the non-free content, out of the article context where "fair use" provisions as in U.S. law are applicable. It's, in my opinion, already rather problematic that non-free images, due to the way MediaWiki works, are also accessible out of article context, isolated, on the image description pages in the individual wikis that allow non-free content. English Wikipedia is trying to remedy that issue by adding a specific fair use rationale to each individual non-free file, explicitly stating for which purpose in which article that particular file is intended. Still, people can find and access the image out of its "fair use" context. A separate "NonFreeWiki" as a collection of non-free files that are deemed acceptable on some wikis and not on others would aggravate that issue. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
    I recently contacted the Legal Team about this proposal. I'm awaiting its responses. --George Ho (talk) 06:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  6. INTENSELY OPPOSED to the first line of the proposed "solution". It is unacceptable to shut down local image uploads. While the intent of this project may be good, this is a proposal for one community to seize critical content control away from all other communities. The fact that content can be hosted locally is a critical safety value that prevents the possibility of inter-community warfare, allowing controversial content to be hosted by the local community in the event of a dispute. I am not prepared to entrust the integrity of articles such as Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia to this new community. Alsee (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Oppose - Non Free images do not belong to Wikimedia. They're non free. That's it. -Theklan (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    @Theklan: If a non-free image doesn't belong to Wikimedia, deletion can be proposed in any way at either a local wiki or a central project, like this one. --George Ho (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
    @User:George Ho: That's my point. Fair use is not free. Fair use is a lazy thing that undermines the huge work of having free content. So I oppose both this proposal AND having non free images in any Wikimedia project. Making a nonfree Wiki would be a suicidal move for our movement. -Theklan (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
    "Fair use" content has been used in certain projects, like some or most local Wikipedia sites. Of course, the Foundation has (strongly?) encouraged free content, especially article content. "Content" has been broadly used in this discussion, so I'll specify. Certain video and audio clips are subject to copyright because... those media are extraordinary and unique and highly appealing. Images... well, are also appealing, but they are safer to use than the other media due to their two-dimensional format. Hmm... if free content is strongly(?) encouraged, there are other "free" contents that are free in the US but copyrightable in their own host countries, like the en:File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg. The scope of this proposal, i.e. focusing on non-free content, has caused some opposition. If the scope of this proposal is widened a bit, then maybe the opposition would be lessened. --George Ho (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC); amended. 17:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
    @George Ho: "Fair use" content has been used in certain projects, like Wikipedia: For the sake of precision, let's clarify: in English-language Wikipedia and certain other language versions of Wikipedia where local law seems to allow for "fair use" or a similar kind of using non-free content; there are also language versions where non-free content is entirely banned, such as German-language Wikipedia (except for text quotes in encyclopedic context as far as the law allows for), the "real" second largest language version (Cebuano and Swedish Wikipedia contain lots of bot-generated stubs, so don't really count IMHO). Gestumblindi (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
    Got it; thanks. I modified my above reply to reflect what you said. --George Ho (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Other comments[edit]

Green Giant, thank you for the proposal you made, and I give you support to this. About this statement from the project page: "...and then stop all local uploads". Seems that it prompted six people into opposing this project. May you please amend or remove "stop all local uploads"? Seems that, as opposers pointed out, central authority would conflict with local authority. If amended, the local authority would be retained. I still favor this proposal as long as the central project would not take away local wikis' handling of non-free content. Is that fine? --George Ho (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC); edited. 20:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I misread the whole proposal. Seems that blocking all local wikis from uploading non-free content locally is part of the whole proposal. --George Ho (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Blocking local uploads is currently part of the main proposal, but that aspect can (and must) be dropped. Dealing with which wikis can use which images would probably get a bit ugly, but the idea of consolidating all of the duplicate files, and making them available for wider use, is an interesting idea. Alsee (talk) 09:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thinking about this proposal more, it makes things extremely complicated and confusing to have separate Commons and NonFreeCommons sites. Especially for new users who already find uploading and copyright to be confusing. I think it would be vastly simpler to just expand Common's mission, adding firm mechanisms to separate and restrict NonFree images. That gives you one site, with one well developed community, organizing them all. When a file is evaluated as Free/NonFree, a status change can be handled simply by tagging it differently. There would be no need to transfer it to another site/community for re-processing. Alsee (talk) 09:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Alsee, Commons is severely understaffed and heavily backlogged; so is OTRS. How would allowing fair use images in Commons help the situation? That would increase more workload for Commons admins than if such content is allowed. Like other projects, as I've been told already, Commons is a voluntary service. Being recruited an admin is a nice offer... but I hear such workload would burn an admin out. I don't know whether more recruitments can help the situation. --George Ho (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC); edited. 03:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
In order for a non-free images wiki to grow a community, I expect it would substantially be cannibalizing people from Commons. I think trying to split images-work across two wikis would be less efficient. The total workload is roughly the same for one wiki vs two wikis, except that moving some general labor would be duplicative and moving images between sites would be more labor intensive . Alsee (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
The existing arrangement seems to me rather optimal re division of labor, as dealing with non-free images is handled by users on the specific wiki that wants the non-free images, the very place where users outside the Commons community care enough to deal with those images, relieving Commons admins of the burden. --Pi zero (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)