Jump to content

Talk:NonFreeWiki (2)

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Liuxinyu970226 in topic More questions for C933103

Are votes needed?[edit]

I'm amazed that the alternative proposal was created, four years after NonFreeWiki proposal was started. However, why not have the "Support/Oppose/Neutral" subpage or something? --George Ho (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I am not too sure about the current format with regard to these sections in term of project creation proposal. Added these voting section to the proposal's main page. C933103 (talk) 09:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Technical effects on local wikis[edit]

I thank you for adding the voting section. I also favor removing the proposal to block local uploads, which is IMHO counterproductive. Nevertheless, I still wonder how NonFreeWiki (I and/or II) would technically affect and/or interact with locals wikis that strictly disallows non-free content, like Japanese Wikipedia. I'm concerned about editors uploading NFC to the central project to intentionally use them for jp.WP, whose w:jp:Template:Non free says that any non-free file will be deleted at jp.WP. I wonder how both NonFreeWiki and jp.WP would handle NFC. --George Ho (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ah I didn't write it down clearly in the proposal, now I have edited the proposal to include further details about this part. There could be a system in place to determine whether an image matches those rules, and the system can then enforce usage restrictions accordingly. Potential problem with the system could be that user might provide incorrect info, but it is just the same problem as uesr might mistakenly claim a picture belongs to a free license despite they are not. C933103 (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Nice improvements. Now I wonder whether an editor can fill in the non-free rationale at either NonFreeWiki, a local wiki, or both. A file page containing a rationale at a local wiki is possible; however, at en.WP, it would be deleted per w:en:WP:F2 as local pages with empty files are (currently) normally discouraged. Otherwise, maybe I'm wrong as community at NonFreeWiki and local communities can find ways to handle local and central file pages.

Also, I'm cautious about relying too much on auto-generated table as I'm not much of a fan of AI, but I won't oppose. --George Ho (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I was thinking about some form of check box or radio button and drop down box and such in term of fair use rationale so that they can be autodetermined, instead of using AI. As for where should these rationale be stored, I am thinking about would it be possible to ask editor fill in these rationale when committing edits on different wiki to include these file and then centrally store them into the NonFreeWiki, but I am not sure whether it would be technically feasible so maybe another model would be required. C933103 (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Another question: Will local wikis, like Japanese Wikipedia and Spanish Wikipedia, have technical capacities to block or opt-out files in the NonFreeWiki project? Id est can a local wiki block out all non-free content in case at any user would add it into the local wiki? --George Ho (talk) 06:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • The proposal says there should be predefined rule for each wiki in order to automatically determine whether a file can be used in each wiki. If it is not desired to use any form of non free images then the rule for the wiki can simply be written as no for everything and it would be achieved.C933103 (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
C933103, I wonder whether the wizard-like proposal is sufficient. I am worried that some users would select incorrect answers purportedly to have content used in a local wiki that disallows non-free content in any way. Can developers develop technical ability to block content from NonFreeWiki at a local wiki? E.g. Japanese Wikipedia community asks the developers to block/disable content from NonFreeWiki; if they can technically do so, the developers can. Right? --George Ho (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

OTRS needed?[edit]

I've been thinking. Is OTRS needed for some cases about non-free content, especially if no photographer would release his or her own work to free use? --George Ho (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hm... Maybe not. --George Ho (talk) 05:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

More questions for C933103[edit]

I've been thinking. If this project debuts, can non-free licenses, like CC BY-NC-ND, be allowed? Should the proposed project require "fair use" rationale for a CC-licensed content? (Not saying that local communities should no longer require a rationale for fair use.)

Also, I'm duplicating this question from above: "Will local wikis, like Japanese Wikipedia and Spanish Wikipedia, have technical capacities to block or opt-out files in the NonFreeWiki project? Id est can a local wiki block out all non-free content in case at any user would add it into the local wiki?" Pinging C933103. --George Ho (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • Licenses that does not match the desired degree of freedom but reusable should be able to be placed in such a proposed wiki. As written in the proposal, "The proposal should also be able to host free use images with more restrictive clauses that are thus not suitable on commons and viewers should also be able to access them without compromises.". As for how will such content mix within individual wikiprojects and would that require rationale, I think that would be up to local community's decision and also depend on legal advice on how can these content be intermixed? As for the duplicated question, please read the answer I posted in section above.C933103 (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Reply to Pi zero's opposition[edit]

Moved from content page. --George Ho (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

(My view should be more different from my previous support for the previous proposal, which I rescinded shortly before this second proposal was established.)

I know that centralization can be... problematic at times, Pi zero. For that reason, I've not yet (re-)voted on this proposal. Wikimedia Commons is a central free-content repository, yet it has suffered from backlogging and insufficient participation. Furthermore, Commons still hosts URAA-copyrighted files, which amount to 8000+ of them; I wonder how many have been deleted in the past one or two years.

Furthermore, regarding complexity/bureaucracy (or something), I did address at Talk:NonFreeWiki (2) how the proposed project would technically affect local wikis disallowing non-free content, like Spanish Wikipedia and Japanese Wikipedia. Maybe this would enhance your opinions about this proposed project; however, this proposal is trying to address this as well. Also, at this time, I could not tell whether the proposal requires either a license and/or (if unlicensed especially) a fair use rationale.

However, how is centralization either worse than or not as good as local control? Furthermore, how would local wikis be better off without needing a repository project for Commons-ineligible content? At en.WP, en:WP:NFCC has been debated over and over. This indicates that "fair use" dilemma is a total mess, especially since English Wikipedia has no longer accepted non-free content (including ones under non-free CC license) without asserting a rationale for "fair use". Now that we've been living under digital age, "fair use" has become vague, especially for local communities. Also, one discussion was closed as "no consensus" to add/change policy on admin intervention toward non-free content; in another discussion, one's routine of removing non-free content going out of control was addressed at WP's ANI. Also, en.WP's FFD process has suffered from very little participation, despite last year's extension of w:en:WP:PROD to files. To me, those factors make me wonder whether I should continue trusting the en.WP community to handle non-free content.

I have no opinion on how this would affect non-Wikipedia projects, like Wikinews. However, I see projects like Wikinews handling such content but in different ways. Also, I see CC-licensed content used at Wikinews, so I think maybe you're worried that such content would be deleted. Well, very few or several files have been nominated for deletion in 2017-18 ever since 2013.

Without a repository project solely handling Commons-ineligible content, I would expect local wikis and Commons to continue mishandling non-free content. As someone said in the previous proposal, local wikis have been storing either repetitive content or lacking a central project reusing non-free content for local wikis. If the proposal becomes a project, I would expect URAA-restored content to be transferred from Commons to another repository project, like this one.

Maybe you can suggest improvements at the talk page, so the proposer can make changes to this page. --George Ho (talk) 07:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Let Wikimedia Commons allow non-free contents[edit]

Alternatively, I suggest that let Wikimedia Commons allow non-free contents with some special restrictions. The prosedure is below:

  1. A user upload a non-free file to Commons with a restriction template .
  2. By the template, the file is only shared across the wikis that allow non-free contents.

Of course, some modification by developers is needed if we let Commons allow non-free contents. --Wikipean (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Wikipean: Why should Commons make some compromises to allow non-free content, especially with special restrictions? Also, the storage of non-free content at various wikis is huge, especially English Wikipedia. --George Ho (talk) 06:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
What you said just show the inefficiency of storing them separately in each wiki. They would waste more disk space and cost more effort to manage than in a single place. C933103 (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)Reply