Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/9

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

Contents

Comment[edit]

  • Not just no but hell no. Wikimedia projects are, and always should be, free content. We absolutely should not permit NC and/or ND licensing; this would destroy that aspect of our movement. It is in the very motto of the Wikipedias: "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." "Free" in that sense means "libre", not just "gratis". The fact that you have buried a proposal to undermine the fundamental nature of our projects in an area like this is totally unacceptable (as is proposing to do it to begin with). Seraphimblade (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Not just no but hell no. Aside from the licencing issue, the Foundation can expect an angry mob with torches and pitchforks storming the castle if you attempt to destroy the Reliable Source rules (referred to as Western-idea of academic-based knowledge) or other core policies and guidelines. In regard to the text All change has negative connotations to some members of the community, that is all well and good up until opposition constitutes a majority consensus. A community consensus could place banners on every article telling readers to stop donating. Criticism should not be causally dismissed without consideration of whether that criticism is a majority or even catastrophic. Alsee (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Not just no but hell no
    The two cited pieces are self-describedly into uncharted territories and unless WMF is prepared to fight scores of such novel battles, it shall expect to be sued left and right; you don't fuck about in these areas under the pretext of righting great wrongs.
    As an example, for an article in which an indigenous historian/scholar has provided “authoritative” input and marked with distribute only through GNU, it would be semi- or fully-protected from drive by editing for those sections marked. goes against the fundamental tenet of hosting free editable content and I also doubt that contents can be mixed from different licenses (all are not compatible) w/o getting entangled in a mess . We can easily paraphrase that input, if it is there at the first place and fulfilling that 'if' shall be your task.
    Wikimedia projects are and always should host free content. We shall not permit NC and/or ND licensing. This is a holy grail. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
    Having certain content being uneditable by the majority would make Wikipedia so much more complicated. I get requests from potential partners asking for this fairly often. It is not a good idea. Even though I am an expert in my topic area I would never request greater "rights" than others. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
    Absolutely agree with you. Experts are always welcome but collaboration supersedes that. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 08:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. There is absolutely no good reason to allow NC or ND material. Wikimedia should stay part of the Free Content movement, this is fundamental. It suggests such a grave misunderstanding of the nature of this project that I suggest to ignore the entire output of this workgroup and start from scratch. Kusma (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Per the above points, the two points above are sufficient to imply that the entire proposal is entirely without merit. MER-C (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • No There's a lot in this recommendation that sounds interesting but represents significant changes from the original principles of Wikipedia. Allowing alternate licenses (ND / NC as mentioned) is something that's not that far off from some projects allowing fair-use, but at the Project level? No way. Free and open means exactly that - free for others to use and re-use as they wish, not based on your preferences. Open to new ideas and new ways of using what you originally created. The "it would be semi- or fully-protected from drive by editing for those sections marked" comment basically means no more IP editing. I won't even touch the line just before that one, it's just so insanely contrary to everything that is Wikipedia. Ravensfire (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
    Not too sure what you mean by “at the Project level” − I think the recommendation is indeed about project-level, ie en.wp or ca.wb or else (per If this cannot be applied across the board, we need to evaluate project specific use for multimedia such as the “fair use” policy on English Wikipedia.)). It is a fact that many projects already allow Non-free content (Not that I personnally agree with this). Jean-Fred (talk) 10:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. ND/NC licence is restrictive and should never be utilised for a free/libre project like Wikimedia.--Vulphere 08:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose This would destroy the whole purpose of Wikimedia Commons, which is to provide free media for the whole world. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. The notion that the freedom to use, modify and redistribute content for any purpose constitutes re-colonisation and oppression(!) is so wrongheaded it boggles the mind. If you want to fail at liberating the world through non-free content, you can always fork the Wikimedia projects. The tendency to hide rider provisions for completely unrelated power grabbing measures in the recommendation's excess verbiage is also deeply concerning. Everyone involved should be utterly ashamed of themselves. LX (talk, contribs) 09:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Widening the inclusion of non-open content is contrary to the entire ethos of the Wikimedia movement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
As votes about Commons policies should happen on Commons, I have created c:Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Proposal_to_introduce_Non-Commercial_media_on_Wikimedia_Commons where you may wish to vote and discuss the NC license change specifically. If there is a need, we can create another proposal for the ND license change. Thanks -- (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

  • yes to the extent that fair use is not used when it could be, it harms open scholarship. time has passed by the "live free or die" ideology. outsiders are astonished by the license purity tests. google is already front running images on knowledge graph results, resulting on fewer clicks to content. when a rich media fork comes along, it will be a serious competitor. Slowking4 (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Please DO NOT Answers to question #3 are frightening to say the least. Moreover, none of the proposals actually do something to foster diversity, rather smother it. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 17:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The proposal to accept alternative non-free licenses (like NC and ND) is in fundamental opposition to the Wikimedia Foundation Mission, i.e. [t]he mission [..] is to [..] develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain [..]. And it contradicts the 2007 WMF resolution regarding the licensing policy. Whoever wants do divert from these foundations of the Wikimedia projects ought to read The case for Free use: reasons not to use a Creative Commons -NC license and Creative Commons licenses and the non-commercial condition: Implications for the re-use of biodiversity information. Please do not wreck the pillars of our projects. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Short answer, no. Long answer, whoever wrote this seems to have little or no association with the WMF and/or is willfully ignorant of the projects' mission and on that basis this recommendation should be dismissed. Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 00:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Not just no, but hell no - This is a self-destructive aim for the project. I don't know what's worse: "let's do away with RS and NOR because it creates standards" or "standards are oppressive and modern colonialism". Perhaps the worst bit is that underpinning this radical proposal is a belief that "only the West has standards", you almost out and out say it with Western-idea of academic-based knowledge. Academia exists in more than just Europe and U.S. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Not just no but hell no. Also, GFDL must die. Alexis Jazz (ping me) 08:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • One hundred loud nos. I don’t want to hurt anyone who has written this up, but it is really strange that someone had even come up with this idea. If people in disadvantaged communities need more protection and recognition of their contributions by commercial entities, they, sadly, need to create different projects for this. On the most basic level, existing commercial re-users will never comply with GFDL terms, and will soon just drop using Wikipedia altogether instead of trying to navigate this convoluted mess of a licensing system. stjn[ru] 15:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not! Don't let NC licenses get legitimized through adoption by Wikimedia. An let link another time to the above mentioned The case for Free use: reasons not to use a Creative Commons -NC license. --Marsupium (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It's already allowed on most pedia projects (English, Deutsch, etc.), with reasonable criterias, and the wikipedias are still alive and well. If there was a catastrophy, then everybody would already know about the Non-free content policy, and the EDP. Is there any reliable evidence that a minor proportion of non-free content caused any damage? — Aron M (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
    This is not correct, de:wp does not accept non-free media. But de:wp accepts media which are permitted according to German, Swiss, and Austrian law which are (in regard to copyright) quite close – all of them share pma70. This has the consequence that de:wp is in some cases more restrictive than Commons and in other cases more permissive. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • No, absolutely no - and it's not even Wikimedia's concern All this stuff about misappropriation and unwanted commercial use of certain content which is being used to justify the inclusion of NC/ND CC licenses in Commons and other Wikimedia projects, really isn't Wikimedia concern. If some communities object to certain types of use on content produced by them, they should secure them in the law, same way as personal image rights, trademarks, etc. No one at Commons cares if the Coca-Cola logo we host there, which is both PD-old and PD-textlogo, is misused by 3rd parties to sell some other cola beverage as if it was the original one. That's Coca-Cola concern, not ours, and they are absolutely free to sue the infractor. If those communities object to certain uses, first they secure their concerns in a legal way, then act upon it. As it is now, anyone who gets access to that content in a legal way and wants to share it, can do it freely at Commons, and nobody at Commons is going to delete it just because some other people, which have not any legal right over that content, claim that using it commercially is against their beliefs or traditions.- Darwin Ahoy! 21:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • No. Hopefully the snowball clause will be applied here soon. --MarioGom (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Certainly No. This violates the most basic Wikimedia principles. — KPFC💬 07:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

"On a governance level"...[edit]

..."the community has the responsibility to carry out its work in a manner consistent with the mission of the Foundation and strategic plan of our movement. This secondary responsibility is currently missing from the ToU and should be added, as it’s omission has created conflict when the WMF has acted to enforce such things as office actions." No. What has caused conflict is the WMF grabbing power for itself and failing to consult or communicate adequately. The solution to this is not (as appears to be suggested in this "Recommendation") to oblige volunteers and projects to accept whatever the WMF decrees. This 'WMF knows what's best for you and for everyone else' attitude is what needs to change – people will follow a strategic plan if they have been involved in its development and believe in it, not because a legal document technically compels them to. Don't double down by seeking to codify this attitude in the ToU. EddieHugh (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

This is getting into Die Lösung territory. Kusma (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for that link, It says it all. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Motivation for ND/NC recommendations[edit]

Hello, I try to understand the sometimes quite difficult text. I am struggling also with understanding why the authors think that ND and NC is necessary for minorities. The argument give is "misappropriation", and there are two links: one to the NY Times about the modern use or abuse of pictures about slaves in the 19th century, the other one about a fashion company using names and iconic props of Native Americans. I wonder what those two cases have to do with ND and NC. Pictures from the 19th century are usually in the Public Domain.

As I have said elsewhere: I am open to discuss ND and NC, although personally I am not very fond of them. But if you don't give us substantial arguments, a meaningful discussion is not possible.

Also, I wonder about this section: "Q4a. Could this Recommendation have a negative impact/change? - All change has negative connotations to some members of the community." The question is very important: If you make such a proposal that would fundamentally alter our understanding of "free content", you must think through the possible consequences. This generalistic "answer" is totally inappropriate. I actually find it rather disrespectful to the members of the community. Ziko (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

+1. If the Working Group wants to engage with local communities, dismissing all possible negative feedback before even asking for any, is counter productive verging on being openly hostile. -- (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
you should be aware that certain communities do not trust your intellectual property licenses. they are accustomed to being disrespected by the colonizing powers that be. they reserve the right to control their indigenous knowledge. to the extent you cram down or blackball those communities , you are an impediment to the sharing of the sum of all knowledge. and questioning motives, is explicitly hostile. Slowking4 (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, if they don't trust them, we will respect that as best we can: If they are not willing to release their produced content under a free license, we'll respect their wishes and not share it under one. Many other sites don't particularly care about copyright or authors' rights, and respond only when explicitly required to by the DMCA. We actually proactively look for and get rid of violations, even when no one has yet complained. I don't know how we could do any better than that. But we are a free content project, so at the end of the day, if someone does not wish to share their content under a free license, this isn't the proper place for it. Seraphimblade (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
How are you so sure their unwillingness to share it is due to the licencing and not because of cultural copyright? Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 19:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for explicit sources with respect to "re-colonizing"[edit]

The following statement is the first paragraph of Q2:

A careful examination of the four sources given, which includes academic papers, shows that there is no claim about "re-colonizing ... diverse knowledge". Some of the academics do have research areas which include aspects of decolonizing knowledge. Because the sourcing is vague, I may be missing which of the four sources support or make this claim, perhaps using different language but with identical meaning. Could someone please specify how to find it or correct the text to make the sourcing explicit? Thanks -- (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

see also Intellectual Property at the Intersection of Race and Gender: Lady Sings the Blues; Creating Selves: Intellectual Property and the Narration of Culture -- Slowking4 (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I am unsure of the point being made by quoting two other sources. A brief read through of source 1, appears to make no specific rationale as to why NC or ND is better or worse than other copyright restrictions, such as the currently permissible SA and BY. Source 2 is a book, and waving at an entire book, rather than pointing to specific evidence it may contain, seems unhelpful. Books on colonization or empire(s) and property law exist, they may or may not be relevant to the point made in the recommendation.
Other than that, the question of this thread is which of the four sources support or make this claim, as none appears to directly support the claim in the recommendation or provide any specific evidence for why this is an issue for Wikipedia specifically. -- (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Case against NC and ND[edit]

I'm aware that part of the case against allowing NC is that NC has been used, arguably misused by some people who licence their material NC and then catch people out by pointing out that their use is commercial when people thought they'd be OK because they were a charity etc etc. In effect NC is not a free licence. Is the argument against ND the same, people being caught out because they didn't realise that cropping or poor colour fidelity from a cheap printer meant that they had to pay because they hadn't complied with the terms of an ND licence? Should we improve our documentation on Commons of the case against NC and ND rather than just dismiss NC or ND advocacy as a newbie mistake? Clearly part of the mistake on this occasion is by people thinking that ND protects against "culturally significant works marked ND which might suffer from misappropriation." ND does not address the issue of misappropriation, it addresses the rather different issue of derivative works. If you make a faithful copy of an ND image then you can use it for whatever you wish, however appropriate or not the creator of the image might think your use is. What you shouldn't do is create a derivative work, whether by including part of that image in a collage, or by changing the colour scheme. I can understand that some creatives would be unhappy if their images were downloaded from Wikimedia Commons and used for novelty toilet paper or shooting targets, in some cases it would count as insults and misappropriation. But NC might not be violated if no one was being charged for them, and ND would not be violated if it was a faithful reproduction. WereSpielChequers (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi WSC, these questions are valid, but I think are starting in the wrong place. The draft recommendations do not read clearly to my eyes with respect of why allowing NC or ND media or text solves a problem. As per the related email list discussion, it would be incredibly helpful if the Working Group were to consider compiling some specific examples to discuss, where the cases are not currently allowed on Wikimedia projects, and by not allowing them, or requiring an "unconstrained" free license, is a colonization issue or re-enforces existing systemic bias.
Proposing to allow NC media rears its head every few years, and especially in that historical context, it makes discussion much easier if we look at cases rather than repeating rhetoric or pointing to academic views which of themselves are opinions rather than verifiable facts. -- (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Fæ, you and I have both had discussions with cultural institutions re image collections. My default spiel ended with advising them that there'd be a few images they would hold back, either because they weren't sure if they owned the copyright, or the object, or there might be concerns about open publication of that image. I see "cultural appropriation" as the sort of concern that would result in some images being held back. I don't see NC and or ND as a solution, not just because they don't restrict faithful copies being used for non commercial purposes; but also because the WMF makes little to no effort to get reusers of our content to comply with those licenses, and worse, copyrights expire. If your concern is getting paid for your work and you want to use Wikipedia to publicise your photos so that lots of people will pay you to use commercially the photos used on Wikipedia, then you probably aren't too worried how long after your death your descendants will continue to get paid for those photos. But if your concern is cultural appropriation, the it should probably worry you that even if the work you upload as NC, ND is still in copyright when you upload it, eventually it will cease to be in copyright and become public domain. Whatever reassurance that those NC and ND conditions give you, you should know that they are temporary and will lapse in at most the next century or two. WereSpielChequers (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello! On the topic of NC see this WMDE brochure of 2012. Kind regards Ziko (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Do not contaminate Wikipedias with pseudo-free licences, start alternative projects.[edit]

If the WMF wish to start new projects using NC, ND and similar licences, and to remove requirements for reliable sourcing, they can create new projects to do this, but should not under any circumstances call them Wikipedias. Wikivoyage does not require references, and it encourages original research. That is not a problem, it does not pretend to be Wikipedia. (I work on both, both are fit for purpose, but should not be confused, they are very different.) There may be a good niche for projects with the relaxed requirements for free use and reliable sourcing, but this must be done in a way that does not contaminate Wikipedia or destroy the credibility we work so hard to achieve. It may work. If it does, great, we have an alternative educational site - Hooray! Wikipedias can reuse the content which is good enough and free enough. If it fails disastrously it must not drag down the Wikipedias. That is not negotiable. People will work on the sites of their choice. An alternative site may become a spam and woo magnet, and a place to write an article on every non-notable topic that can be imagined if the policies allow it and there are not sufficient volunteers to do the maintenance, so it may be necessary for WMF to provide staff to look after it. This does not bother me in the least, they can experiment with their top-down social engineering to their heart's content, and we on the Wikipedias can adopt anything that actually works after we see it work, and the rough edges have been worn off. Wikipedias can continue as a control group. I would really like to see this experiment in action, and would be quite happy to see it work marvellously, but it is not worth the risk to the Wikipedias or their communities to play around with them in this way as there is no guarantee. At the worst such an alternative set of projects could take some of the load of vandalism fixing and similar drudgery from the Wikipedians for a while and let them concentrate on building the encyclopedia. If WMF and the strategy theorists really think this could work, let them put their money where their mouth is.
Similar conditions apply to Commons, It must remain closed to unfree and pseudo-free media. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion: sources to support NC and ND licensing[edit]

The 2 articles (1, 2) portray the issue well. I suggest the proposal should explain how NC and ND licenses will benefit this issue. If possible, give more sources, that address the doubts.

The main premise of the proposal ("we assume that it would be necessary to modify the “Terms of Use” especially to address community health, foster diversity and address systemic biases") is welcome, independent of the licensing question. — Aron Manning (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Worth reading: WMDE's brochure about Non-Commercial (CC BY-NC) and CC license in general — Aron M (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

better idea![edit]

I have a better idea! We disintigrate this repressive organization "Wikimedia Foundation"! Tenthusand of authors over 18 years do so much work and now we shoud well-behaved everything the Foundation wants? Are you really so short-sighted that you did not realize, that you can't act in this way with the volunteers, who are working for the money that this systems keeps running? -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Terms of Use for the WMF[edit]

I think that the recommendations regarding the role between the WMF and the communities are completely backwards. It is not time to extend the terms of use. To the contrary, the board should create "terms of use" that the foundation has to comply with in their dealings with the communities. These should, in my opinion, entail the following rules:

  • The WMF must respect the fundamental principles of the projects (en:Wikipedia:Five_pillars, fr:Wikipédia:Principes_fondateurs, de:Wikipedia:Grundprinzipien,...). It will not attempt to change them against the will of the communities or act against their spirit.
  • The WMF has the role of a facilitator, not a leader. There are many independent projects that are self-governed, only restricted by a limited set of global policies. In particular, each project is free to independently decide whether to implement strategic goals set by the WMF or ignore them. This is necessary to sustain diversity among the different projects.
  • The WMF will not interfere with the decision processes of the local projects unless this is required by law or to enforce a restricted set of rules that does not considerably exceed the current set of global policies.
  • The WMF recognizes that it is, by far, less diverse than the different communities representing all cultures of the world. It will not attempt to impose their notions of civility upon the communities with very diverse cultural backgrounds in the form of a central "code of conduct".

--Tinz (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Support[edit]

Of all the "recommendations" that I have read (which means most of the official 'strategy 2018–20' ones), these are easily the best, both in content and how they are expressed. The overall summary is pertinent and clear, and each point is expressed with precision. These proposals would aid diversity: local groups are more aware of local problems than are people in Californian offices; suggestions from the WMF would be welcome, to provide some impetus for positive local change ... WMF orders and universal obligations are likely to be anti-diversity. EddieHugh (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I am in 100% full agreement with Tinz, and that's not being smartassed or sarcastic. These really should be adopted by the WMF; it would have prevented a whole host of unfortunate incidents between the WMF and various communities. Seraphimblade (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
+1, 100% agree to Tinz too. How many percent of the persons working there are active writers in Wikipedia? I cannot see, that anybody reflects, how and why thousands of persons wrote millions of articles free of any charge for such a long time. Every change has to start there and not in any desert.--Brainswiffer (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree, too. I feel deeply dedicated to our fundamental principles as mentioned above, whereas I can hardly see any point in the vague, ambiguous social engineering slipslop I had to read on this and other working groups' meta pages.--Mangomix (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
+1: It would be indeed helpful to endorse and respect the fundamental principles of the projects which provided the very foundation for the success of the Wikipedia projects (and without which WMF would not exist). --AFBorchert (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Brilliantly stated. I agree completely. Kusma (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
+1, i fully agree to Tinz's statement. --Ghilt (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
+1 ...Sicherlich Post 21:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
+1 -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Tinz. --Gustav von Aschenbach (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
+1. --DCB (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
+1 --StYxXx (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
+1 - 100 % for the recomendations of Tinz, -jkb- 21:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I fully agree. You do not achieve "diversity" by globally enforcing Californian "moral" standards. --voyager (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
+1--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Agree with this. Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 00:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
+1.--Vulphere 03:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
+1 --Itti (talk) 04:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
+1 Full aggree with Tinz -- Ra'ike (talk) 05:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
+1 This is the most important thing to go on in the nearer future. Otherwise, WMF try to put the cart before the horse. Martin Bahmann (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
+1 Nasiruddin (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
+1 Grueslayer (talk) 08:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
+1 --Einsamer Schütze (talk) 08:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
+1, full support! Best regards, Bernhard Wallisch 10:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
+1 Completely agree. Shoy (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
+1 support --smial (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
+1 There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the Wikimedia Movement here. --MGChecker (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
+1 --Niki.L (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
+1, absolutely. The WMF exists to support the community, not to give orders to it. (Wikimania starts tomorrow, and I hope some people there will be able to bring this up with some of the relevant individuals during the event.) --Yair rand (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
We will! -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 08:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Support Support Sargoth (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
+1 --Hogü-456 (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
+1 MER-C (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
+1 Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
+1 --CennoxX (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
+1 –Davey2010Talk 14:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
+1 Marrakech (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
+1 - Darwin Ahoy! 22:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
+1 Full agreement. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
+1 - The best recommendation I've seen! Nosebagbear (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

+1--J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

+1. This recommendation goes against many other recommendations which try to reduce the power of the wmf and give as much of it as possible to community leaders. Strainu (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

Comment[edit]

It's good that you share your thoughts, I can only ask for more. Please just remember that one of the Roles & Responsibilities group's draft recommendations is to implement more subsidiarity. Depending on the scale of implementation, comments that are all about WMF, and the community vs. WMF paradigm, could turn out to be... not reflecting who's who. In the end, we're talking about desired distant future. Please take it into account. Also, I must add, this is my 100% personal view and please not be guided by (WMF) in my signature. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

SGrabarczuk (WMF), I would absolutely love it if editors on the various Wikimedia projects could just go about their business, and more or less forget the WMF exists aside from the annual banners. And that was happening for a while. We didn't change that. A bunch of us didn't go to San Francisco and try to forcibly remove a WMF employee. WMF employees came to our projects and tried to forcibly remove our editors and administrators. So yes, it sucks that created a climate of mistrust, but WMF is responsible for that. If they'd kept to their side of the line, we wouldn't be having these issues, and it wouldn't be causing so much consternation that this WMF-sponsored Working Group are now asking them to overstep even worse and even more frequently. Seraphimblade (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
There are many contexts mixed in your answer. I'll elaborate on 3 of them. I won't answer to the part with the WG members, because I feel we need to agree on more fundamental issues first. Obviously, this is my personal view.
  1. WMF is not a monolith, a tribe that is able to participate in a tribal war, or a 300-head hydra. That was so clear almost 4 years ago. I'm not the best person to remind the details, because I wasn't in SF in front of the microphone, so I'll just pick 2 random links: [1] [2]. Every time there are issues, it's about a part of people who are somehow associated with WMF. An example: in spite of the (WMF) in my signature, a large majority of WMF staff desn't know me, has never spoken with me, no clue at all. I've got friends among them, though. I guess there's also silo mentality (this institution undertakes so different activities at the same time with one budget, to name but 3: servers, product development, grantmaking).
  2. Wikimedia structures (= WMF and affiliates) in general, are a good concept. Volunteers themselves don't have the capacity to, i.e., collaborate with many institutions, offer grants to each other, organize big events. This isn't a right place for The Cathedral and the Bazaar-like discussions, I'd like to avoid that, but please take the assumption that the structures are good, they just need to change. (Besides, do we really want to go back to dreams about decentralized Internet, and personal servers in pockets? why not, but our potential enclave wouldn't affect Google or Facebook or Chinese net). From my personal perspective, a radical reduction of Wikimedia structures' activity is distant from any good, desired situation.
  3. Now, Wikimedians live in different Wikimedia bubbles, but the strategy is for future and for all. To my colleagues from Polish Wikipedia, WP:FRAM means nothing. I bet hardly anyone in my community knows who Fram is. Also, the perspective of Wikimedians from the US may differ from the perspective of Wikimedians from countries where big chapters are established. In my country, when you ask an editor which Wikimedia structure comes to their mind first, the answer would probably be Wikimedia Poland, and not WMF. So in a discussion about the strategy, an argument based on WP:FRAM and some behavior by the WMF staff, might seem to be (sorry, I'm just being honest) off topic.
That's why I ask to focus on the desired future that Wikimedians want to achieve together. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay, well, you clearly knew I was talking about Fram, though that's not all. Superprotect, the VE issues, ACTRIAL, all of those. And during FRAM, editors from the German and Chinese Wikipedias came over to tell us they'd experienced similar things. (You'll note many of those objecting here primarily edit on the German Wikipedia; this isn't some kind of "en.wp only" bit.) But, that's fair enough. The future I envision is one in which WMF provides stellar support to the communities in terms of finding and making available reliable sources, and in which editors of Wikimedia projects can count on WMF support (regardless of their gender, race, etc.), if they need some help in making available such sources, but in which WMF does not in any way ever interfere with how such projects run their day-to-day operations. Yeah, that essentially means that the future looks a lot like the past. It's worked to make us a top-5 website so far, so really, the envisioned future is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Seraphimblade (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
In a nutshell: SGrabarczuk (WMF) does not know anybody. is not aware of any important events and the community he is most active in lives under a rock. Therefore, the WMF in its role as benevolant dictator has to lay down stricter rules for all volunteers world wide. I must admit, this makes not really sense to me. Cheers Sargoth (talk) 07:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Dear @SGrabarczuk (WMF):, this is a little bit confusing: "Also, I must add, this is my 100% personal view and please not be guided by (WMF) in my signature." Should you not, then, use your private account? Ziko (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Ziko, clarifying and explaining in discussions is a typical task for liaisons, and one of my contractual obligations. I do it however as I personally see things, because I don't receive instructions from the Core Team. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

A good way to reduce contributions - "each time an editor acts anonymously as an IP"[edit]

"each time an editor acts anonymously as an IP" - really? That helps? This page pops up every time an IP tries to edit? And to make sure its been read you have to scroll down? This is the bullshit everybody of us knows; "Please read this software licence carefully before installing ..." - who reads that? Its just annoys people, "nobody" reads it anyways and even if someone reads it: "oh, because its written I'll care" 😂 - in a perfect world with perfect people maybe. ... IMO thats a very good way to reduce contributions by "outsiders" so Wikipedians are not disturbed by IPs or other folks ...Sicherlich Post 20:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Q4a. Could this Recommendation have a negative impact/change?[edit]

"All change has negative connotations to some members of the community." - Thats the deep thought to a proposed strategic change? - 42 as an answer would be as helpful as this one. ...Sicherlich Post 20:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I would appreciate the Diversity Working Group giving more thought to the assumptions being made to justify this recommendation. For example, en:Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is the basis for insulating the WMF from liability for content posted by WP editors. In essence, by delegating content to the community, the WMF avoid legal responsibility for the content. You seem to propose having the WMF take over content responsibility for the sake of diversity and Knowledge Equity. What assumptions are you making regarding the legal liability that comes from this? What estimate have you made regarding the costs of implementing this new content responsibility? If a minority viewpoint will be subject to Western standards in a Western legal system in terms defamation, how do you propose to navigate the gap between the goal of broadcasting authentic viewpoints and defamation concerns.

How would the Diversity Working Group propose to handle "hate speech?" If an oral interview includes the ranting of a holocaust denier can/should WMF edit it out? What about documentary video from a Klan rally? What about a Nazi rally from the 1930s? It seems to me that the WMF may want to establish or cooperate with an archival project without compromising Wikipedia, which as an encyclopedia offers its contents as being the truth, not advocacy. Hlevy2 (talk) 04:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

" In essence, by delegating content to the community, the WMF avoid legal responsibility for the content." actually that is a misreading of section 230. i.e. "Courts have held that Section 230 prevents you from being held liable even if you exercise the usual prerogative of publishers to edit the material you publish." [3] so the promotion of more diversity is well within the bounds. for "Western standards" see Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/2 -- Slowking4 (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
This is literally a problem with *all* the recommendations given here. When asked to outline the negatives, it's clear that they can't imagine any; the "negative" is usually something to the effect of "bad people won't be aware of how awesome we are." It strongly suggests that these groups had limited (if any) members with contrary opinions/beliefs and that this whole exercise was more a sounding-board of an a echo chamber.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @SGrabarczuk (WMF): - could you explain why so little detail was provided when there are clearly major known negatives. It's possible (I don't think so, but clearly others might disagree) that they are outweighed by the stated positives. But that doesn't explain why the negatives weren't stated, expanded and considered rather than such an amorphous statement. Why was this the case? Nosebagbear (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Nosebagbear, sorry, I don't know. This is a question to the Working Group members. I've got nothing to do with content of the recommendations, except for wikifying and making them public on Meta. All I can do is to ask the Core Team to ask the Working Group to watch these pages and react, which I already did. This was, BTW, intended and designed that the recommendations are written exclusively by the Working Groups, which are as diverse as possible in existing circumstances. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @SGrabarczuk (WMF): Not as "diverse as possible", but as diverse as the core team wanted it to be, as I know from solid sources. I wonder if anyone from this WG will ever care to appear here to discuss this with the community, or if they will just read this in the diagonal (or not even that) and send whatever they want as a final draft.--- Darwin Ahoy! 16:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Support Terms of Use changes[edit]

Support the following very important points of the recommendation, independently from the licensing questions.

  • "it would be necessary to modify the “Terms of Use” especially to address community health, foster diversity and address systemic biases."
  • "The ToU policy should be easily accessible." (Currently it is hard to find, even if one's looking for it.)
  • "In addition, the community has the responsibility to carry out its work in a manner consistent with the mission of the Foundation and strategic plan of our movement."
  • "Incorporating a Code of Conduct, would better ensure the health of the community."
  • "The current version of the Terms of Use does not reflect the present reality. The roles of stakeholders have been modified over time and should be accurately reflected to state that the WMF creates policy to meet strategic targets, (such as community health, diversity, and addressing systemic biases) that the community has a responsibility to also create policies which are guided by the movement strategy and goals."
  • "policies should be developed collaboratively." — Aron M (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: making ToU clear, accessible and up-to-date is sensible. The community responsibility part should be ok too if the end result gains wide community acceptance. --MarioGom (talk)`

How to protect from uploading possibly free content as non-free?[edit]

Worth reading: WMDE's brochure about Non-Commercial (CC BY-NC) and CC license in general

> The concern is that allowing NC and ND would lead to more content being uploaded under these "unfree" conditions that otherwise would be uploaded as "free". - Ziko

I share those concerns, yet believe it's not in the general interest of editors to use non-free licenses. These licenses limit the visibility of the content, therefore editors are generally demotivated from using it. I think we should focus on how to communicate that the use of these licenses do not benefit the editor, or Wikipedia as a whole, or its users, except in a few marginal cases, when it is a necessity.

There are a few options to do so, and minimize the proportion of possibly free content uploaded as "non-free":

  • Free is the default. Make it a significant effort (multiple steps) to choose NC or ND license. This is what the cookie opt-out UIs do, very successfully.
  • At each step inform the uploader, that a non-free license severely limits the visibility of the content (no media, no private schools, no Internet-in-a-Box).
  • If a user mostly uploads non-free content, notify them, this negatively affects Wikipedia as whole in its mission to be a free encyclopedia.
  • If non-free content is uploaded in great quantity, that content should be examined by other editors, and proposed for deletion, if similar content is available with free license.
  • If some content is available elsewhere with free license, the content and license can be replaced with that. This can be automated to an extent with reverse-image search.
  • After all these measures, I will have good faith, that most editors understand the benefit of free content over non-free, and only uses non-free licenses when it's truly necessary.

The use of non-free licenses should be marginal as a result, but allow to host content about underrepresented communities, while respecting and protecting their cultural heritage. The draft refers to 2 articles of such cases:

— Aron M (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The refered to NYT article Who Should Own Photos of Slaves? The Descendants, not Harvard, a Lawsuit Says is not a case of NC as the daguerreotypes taken by J.T. Zealy are out of copyright. You will find them already at Commons: c:Category:Agassiz Zealy slave portraits. The other article Appropriating traditional culture – the controversy, consequences and challenges is about personality rights, see c:COM:PEOPLE. Many countries provide non-copyright restrictions in regard to personality rights. See following example on how this can be done responsibly without ND or NC restriction: File:Navajo Cowboy-1.jpg. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm... In my understanding the 1st article is more about the personality rights of a deceased person. Thanks for linking that guideline. The 2nd is about cultural heritage, not specific persons. One - very illustrative - example it brings up is the No Doubt - Looking Hot music video. As I wrote in my view these are "motivations", not exact cases for NC, ND. I hope the WG will explain their interpretation in detail, and provide more direct examples. I'm more focused on keeping free content free licensed. — Aron M (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
"The concern is that allowing NC and ND would lead to more content being uploaded under these "unfree" conditions that otherwise would be uploaded as "free" = citation needed. i hear how we will promote free licenses by deleting "non-free" ones, but have seen no evidence to support this thesis. rather it is a culture clash, with content creators of both free and "non-free" content being blocked, resulting in less free content not more. Slowking4 (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
1) Citation is from the mailing list. 2) The Enwiki non-free content guideline (and related policy) permits the use of non-free content, and it hasn't turned enwiki into an apocalyptic "culture clash". That policy serves as an example, how non-free content can be managed, and kept to a minimum. — Aron M (talk) 01:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
How about we go with a simpler scheme, rather than all this complexity? Step 1: Don't allow nonfree content. Step 2: See step 1. There are plenty of sites that will accept nonfree licenses if someone wants to use them; Wikimedia just shouldn't be one of them. Seraphimblade (talk) 06:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
+1: It is indeed helpful to keep it plain and simple. See, for example, the difference between the articles about the famous painting Guernica by Picasso at de:wp and en:wp. The en:wp provides a non-free media rationale for en:File:PicassoGuernica.jpg to use under the fair use clause. In contrast, de:wp provides in its info box just a link to a picture. This is no big difference for the reader but makes sure that the entire German-language Wikipedia is entirely free without exceptions. This makes re-use much simpler. For some time, contents of de:wp was printed by Wikipress. And PediaPress allows to print user-selected contents of de:wp as books on demand. All this is no longer possible if the contents is contaminated with non-free works. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
As a reader: thanks, no! I want to see the picture on the webpage, on my mobile screen (without touching a miniature link), and on the preview from en:Pablo_Picasso. The problem to pass only free content to Wikipress and PediaPress, is a technical detail on the API level, that I thought is already solved (the acceptable licensing configured for the API key used by the client). The user experience of the online reader should not be diminished because of offline publishers and licensing, as it is now on de.wiki. — Aron M (talk) 09:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I understand that you might find a direct inclusion of a picture more comfortable. But please accept that the freeness of our text and media is of great importance for many Wikimedians. The introduction of NC and ND would be in conflict to the Wikimedia Foundation Mission: The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. This is one of the most fundamental pillars which goes back to 2001. At that time and as now we should be inclined to do The Right Thing where the openness and _viral_ nature of it [..] are fundamental to the longterm success of the site. Jimbo Wales was amazingly right when he wrote this in 2001 and continues to be right. Many Wikimedians trust that their collaborative work will not be contaminated with non-free elements. The freeness of our work makes sure that it can be continually preserved and developed even if WMF folds down. Hence, an extra click is a comparatively small price to be paid for this freedom. Moreover, as we are very strict in this regard, we could in the past convince many artists and photographers to release their work under truly free licenses which would not have been happened otherwise. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

GNU Free Documentation License[edit]

"We currently use for text both Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and/or GNU Free Documentation License."

Currently, yes. GFDL must die. Alexis Jazz (ping me) 08:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree, GFDL was ok when CC was not around, let's just put it away once and for all. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 16:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Agree. Let's deprecate, Wikipedia is not a manual. — Aron M (talk) 02:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

“Western-idea of academic-based knowledge”[edit]

Quote from Q5: The focus on mainstream, Western-idea of academic-based knowledge limits the inclusion of other ways of knowing or presenting knowledge. Academic-based knowledge is based upon research methods that permit intersubjective verifiability. This is an universal principle that works across all cultures and lays the foundations for our pillars of the Wikipedia projects, i.e. our content must be verifiable, citing reliable sources. Fortunately, academic research universities exist around the world, not just Western countries. The Times Higher Education World University Rankings enumerate multiple non-Western universities among the top-100 universities like Tsinghua University in China (22), National University of Singapore (23), Peking University (31), University of Hong Kong (36), Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (41), University of Tokyo (42), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore (51), Chinese University of Hong Kong (53), Seoul National University (63), Kyoto University (65), Sungkyunkwan University (82), and University of Science and Technology of China (93). Other non-Western countries follow. The top-500 include universities from Russia (Lomonosov Moscow State University, 199), South Africa (University of Cape Town, 156), Brazil (University of São Paulo, 251–300), India (Indian Institute of Science, 251–300), United Arab Emirates (Khalifa University, 301–350), Chile (University of Desarrollo, 401–500), Qatar (Qatar University, 401–500). Even in comparatively poor countries we have universities who made it into the top-1000 like Makerere University in Uganda or the University of Ghana. I think that one of the major obstacles is the access to published research papers. We have the Wikipedia Library and projects like the resource exchange but these are currently primarily working for the major Wikipedia projects. I think that it would be helpful to explore how access can be provided to smaller communities as well. Likewise, it could be a good approach to donate books and equipment (like a camera) to Wikipedians in third world countries. I think that this would be infinitely more helpful than to consider the abolishment of our pillars. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

see also Western science and traditional knowledge: Despite their variations, different forms of knowledge can learn from each other; Critical Analysis of the Production of Western Knowledge and Its Implications for Indigenous Knowledge and Decolonization; Systems of knowledge as systems of domination: The limitations of established meaning -- Slowking4 (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I actually looked at one, and quickly spotted the following utter bullshit: ...truth is also a matter of perspectives. No. No, it is fucking not. Truth is not a matter of "perspectives". Two plus two equals four. Gravity is directly proportional to mass and inversely square proportional to distance. Truth is not a matter of perspective, facts are facts regardless of perspective. This idea that there are "alternative facts" depending on one's "perspective" is postmodernist crap, and it is wrong. There are things which are true, and things which are false. There are certainly matters of opinion, which have no factual answer, but questions of fact have right and wrong answers and which answers are which don't depend on "perspective". Seraphimblade (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't believe that fact is an exact synonym for truth. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Good point. Also in my experience, the ability to incorporate reliable sources from China or Nepal, just to put some examples I had to deal with recently, is usually not limited by a supposed lack of sources in Eastern regions, but by the language barrier and online access issues. Also bucketing modern sciences into the West and traditional or pre-modern knowledge into the East is actually a discriminatory and patronizing form of cultural relativism. --MarioGom (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The only name I recognize from the diversity group is SusunW, so I'll ping her. Wikipedia is an Enlightenment project; we value reason, logic, science, critical thinking, so I'm troubled by the phrase "other ways of knowing". Susan, can you give some examples of what the group has in mind?
    Also, I'm alarmed by this: "an article in which an indigenous historian/scholar has provided 'authoritative' input and marked with distribute only through GNU, it would be semi- or fully-protected from drive by editing for those sections marked." That could mean that a community leader in an area that practices FGM would be given a protected section of the article to explain why girls' vulvas must be sewn closed. That presumably isn't what you have in mind, but how would you decide what is authoritative and appropriate if the usual high-quality source-based "anyone can edit" model is ditched? SarahSV talk 21:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, I am not a spokesperson for the working group, so understand that this is my take only. We were tasked with brainstorming ideas to answer the question "How can we make Wikimedia more diverse and open up participation in the project in areas in which typically have not participated?" After numerous discussions and research into why many community members do not participate it became obvious that a big part of the problem is that dominant cultures are perceived to have the authoritative voice for many unrepresented and underrepresented groups. We aren't saying that documentation should go out the window, but that the perspective of the people involved matters. Scholarship from within their community should form the basis of articles about their culture and traditions. Obviously to maintain NPOV, other perspectives should be compared or contrasted from people outside of the community. What we heard over and over again was that sourcing from within local communities, were dismissed as being either biased or non-independent, and removed in favor of works from people who had no authentic knowledge of a community. It's an idea, not a policy and designed to get people thinking about the bigger problem of inclusiveness. SusunW (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
SusunW, what you describe is people participating but having their contributions rejected. That's a content problem, caused by a sourcing problem, not a matter of participation. Yes, current standards for accepting sources could be torn up, but to what end and with what negative consequences? The ultimate focus is (should be) content, not participation. Good content starts with good sources; if we want to improve representation, then target the development of, access to, and awareness of, good sources on under-represented topics. EddieHugh (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Why not new licenses?[edit]

CC-NC-ND would bring many problems, but why not a new license? The Spanish-speaking community suggested a CC-EDU, that would work as a NC one, but completely free when used in Educational projects.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

New licenses are welcome, provided they grant the four essential freedoms as originally defined by the Free Software Foundation for free software:
  • The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
  • The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
  • The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
  • The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
This definition was adapted to the more general Definition of Free Cultural Works according to which free content grants the freedom to
  • use the content and benefit from using it,
  • study the content and apply what is learned,
  • make and distribute copies of the content, and
  • change and improve the content and distribute these derivative works.
CC-EDU does not conform to this definition because of its restriction in regard to the fourth freedom. The Wikipedia projects have this as one of the five pillars: Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute. Likewise it is one of the most significant policies of Commons: c:COM:L. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Enwiki allows CC-EDU, NC, ND content with the non-free content guideline. This is not in conflict with the 3rd pillar, the encyclopedia can still be edited with a non-free image in it: the image can be replaced, if need be. — Aron M (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
It is quite unfortunate that en:wp decided to divert from its 3rd pillar by allowing non-free media. Other Wikipedia projects like de:wp are still very strict about this. And, of course it conflicts with the third pillar as such content is no longer considered to be free (see above). These freedoms include the freedom to edit an image and, from a copyright perspective, to use it for any purpose including commercial usage. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. I was very much against en.wp allowing nonfree media, as that was against the free content mission. They still decided to do it, but that was, nonetheless, an error. Even so, though, it's still the policy that such media is used minimally and only when there is no choice, and we do not allow people to license their own media as nonfree. If someone would have the legal right to license media freely, they must then agree to the license and release it as CC-BY-SA. Similarly if it would be conceivably possible to replace the nonfree media with free, such as images of individuals still living or buildings still standing. But we should never permit contributors to license their own media under nonfree licenses. You want to put it on Wikimedia, you license it under CC-BY-SA at most, no more letters than that. Seraphimblade (talk) 06:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
German Wikipedia actually tricks me to think it allows non-free (EDP) content. No, generally not: verfügt über keine formelle EDP, but it allows 32k+ logos and 20k+ very old images (out of 110k all) with unclear license. Edit: — Aron M (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Most pedia projects do, (non-zero free-only) and it's still working. If this conflicts with the 3rd pillar for you, I don't share that sentiment. I can edit the encyclopedia with non-free images in it. I'm just looking for the solutions, not conflict.
Non-free is presumed to have tragic consequences, so I'm curious what's lost for the wikipedias (not commons) without the ability to edit an image (which we seldom do), or put an ad next to it (that we never do), besides that it won't be included on the next WP DVD and WikiPress print? Not that I'm particularly fond of non-free licenses, but it would be good to see some evidence of the destruction foreshadowed by these claims that so far sound like mass panicking, at best. — Aron M (talk) 09:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Please avoid promulgating misleadingly false information. It is correct to state that "Most Wikipedia projects do not allow the use of non-free content". See the section below, which you also created. If you still want to make this claim, please provide verifiable statistical evidence. Thanks -- (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Did you notice the awkward capital P in WikiPedia? I mean only the PEDIAs: Sort the first table that lists the PEDIA projects by the "Non-free content" column. There's just a few red boxes. Now it's your turn, "please provide verifiable statistical evidence" for your contradicting claim. If you meant wikiMEDIA (with M) projects (that is all of them listed on that page), then I agree there's a lot without non-free content. Wiktionaries would be particularly weird with non-free content, imho. I hope I answered your concerns satisfyingly. — Aron M (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Did you notice the notice about reducing page size? Your statistic is inherently biased because the page is deliberately set up to list mostly projects that accept non-free content. The referenced section lists 57 Wikipedia projects as accepting non-free content. There are a total of 294 active Wikipedia projects according to List of Wikipedias. Only those that have an EDP are allowed to host non-free content. That's less than 20% of all Wikipedia projects. LX (talk, contribs) 19:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Please make a statistics based on article count. — Aron M (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Those allowing non-free content have a combined 27967952 articles, out of 50848928 total (55%). --Yair rand (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Article count is an interesting metric, but not perfect. Note that some Wikipedias (e.g. Spanish) do not allow too short stubs while others rely on bots to create large amounts of stubs. And English Wikipedia sits somewhere in the middle. --MarioGom (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
It seems like the question changes when reality turns out to be wrong. Interesting as the question of whether most articles exist on projects that accept non-free content might be, can we agree that the statement "Most Wikipedia projects allow non-free content" is false? LX (talk, contribs) 09:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Yair rand: Awesome. Thank you.
Statistics are interesting. From the right perspective, it shows what we want to see: non-zero free-only. — Aron M (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@Aron Manning: Nope, de:wp does not permit non-free media. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
These 2 sources say it's allowed, all EDP as on enwiki. Is there a source that confirms your statement? I'm kinda thinking you mean in the actual practice non-free content is not used, regardless of these documents? Please be more specific, thanks. — Aron M (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Apparently you are not able to read the German text you are refering to. The text begins with the statement “Wikipedia soll eine freie Enzyklopädie sein, deren Bestandteile – also auch die Bilder – frei genutzt werden können. Dazu zählt, dass die Bilder nicht nur in der Wikipedia, sondern überall kommerziell genutzt und verändert werden können” – which translates to “Wikipedia shall be a free encyclopedia whose elements – including its images – shall be freely usable. This includes not just the use of images in the Wikipedia but also their commercial use and adaption anywhere else.“ It is quite obvious from this text that non-free materials are not permitted at de:wp. The rest of the text elaborates just some of the differences between German and US law in regard to copyright. de:wp is even more restrictive as no material is allowed that is not free according to German, Austrian and Swiss law. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
1) Civility, please. 2) There are ca. 20k old images on dewiki, and ca. 32k logos, that does not have a free licence (or unsure). There are 110k images alltogether. Please understand my doubt :-)
3) After the first sentence you cite comes the exceptions, including EDP: "Außer auf Wikimedia Commons ist es zulässig, in eng begrenztem Rahmen sich auf eine projektspezifische Ausnahmeregelung zu berufen: Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP)."
More lines below comes this: "Die deutschsprachige Wikipedia verfügt über keine formelle EDP", this is what matters, that I've missed. Would have been helpful to start with this.
4) The old images might or might not cover the images that motivated this proposal. 5) Anyway, I remove dewiki, as only two special cases of "maybe" non-free images are allowed. 6) I'll bring this up at Talk:Non-free_content#de.wiki, where it should be clarified. — Aron M (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
"there should be efficient checks and balances to ensure that materials in these categories can be proven as lost media." (hard to find media with unknown copyright).
Apparently the motivation for this proposal is exactly the kind of images that are allowed on German Wikipedia: de:Spezial:Linkliste/Vorlage:Bild-PD-alt-100. It's great that we argued, without doing the research. — Aron M (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Please, de:Vorlage:Bild-PD-alt-100 is the de:wp-equivalent of c:PD-old-assumed at Commons. In Commons this was introduced on 17 February 2017‎ on base of this accepted proposal whereas de:Vorlage:Bild-PD-alt-100 exists since 28 January 2007. Both address the problem that we have very old pictures where we have a date of publication but no information about the creator and his or her date of death. These files are free according to US law (as published before 1924) but possibly protected in other countries. A typical example is de:Datei:Hochrad2.jpeg which was published in 1890. This is not an issue of introducing non-free media but a question of how careful we are in regard in older files where the creator probably died long ago. The approaches between Commons and de:wp are somewhat different. Commons has a simple rule with a cut-off date of 120 years. de:wp appears somewhat more relaxed with 100 years but de:wp insists that serious research is done in regard to the creator and their life span. Many of these cases are discussed at de:Wikipedia:Dateiüberprüfung/Schwierige Fälle to get input from others and to find a consensus. Many logos were uploaded at de:wp as the associated discussions regarding the threshold of originality is quite challenging and many de:wp authors prefered to have any upcoming discussion in their language at their project. This is not an approach to accept unfree logos which are beyond the threshold of originality at de:wp. I am admin at de:wp and at Commons and know what I am talking about. Please do not be offended that I assumed that you do not speak German but your statements seem to be at odds with the policy pages at de:wp you refer to. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying the differences between de:wp and commons. This will be valuable input for the WG, I appreciate it. I actually agree more with the dewiki process, that "insists that serious research is done in regard to the creator and their life span". — Aron M (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
One of the tragic consequences of some projects accepting some non-free content is the complexity it adds, the confusion it causes for new users, and the frustration that ultimately results when we have to delete the files they upload to Commons because they've seen the words "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images..." on other images which they think are on the same site (or because they assume that all Wikimedia projects have the same rules). Adding more complexity to the mix isn't going to help. LX (talk, contribs) 09:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk about "decolonization" might actually be colonization in disguise[edit]

One theme I've seen in these draft recommendations is a de-emphasis on Western attitudes in favor of non-Western ones. However, it's ironic that the people most vocal about this are from Western Europe & North America. What do the non-Western people think of this?

This is not a snark. There is more than a little documentation about this from countries which escaped the brunt of physical colonization such as Japan, China, Turkey, & even Ethiopia. I mention Ethiopia because I am best informed about this: Ethiopian intellectuals during the 1920s were fascinated with the model of how Japan adopted Western ideas & technology without sacrificing too much of their culture, thereby losing what could be called their "Japaneseness". They weren't alone; a number of other independent non-Western countries likewise looked to Japan as an example. However, before Ethiopian intellectuals could begin to explore Japan's success & act on it, the Italians invaded that country, & exterminated those intellectuals still within its boundaries, whether traditionally educated or educated in Western countries. In China, there was the New Culture Movement which debated the roles of traditional Chinese culture & Western ideas.

My point is that this is not a new debate, but one that has come up frequently in the past. One might even find this theme in Greek texts written during Hellenistic & Imperial times, where the matter of how to best import Roman ideas & technology without losing their own Hellenic heritage is part of the subtext. Yet none of this is touched on in this proposal. Part of the reason is that both Western & non-Western intellectuals are largely ignorant of these earlier figures & what they thought. But without considering the points they made, we Westerners are simply acting in condescendingly insisting we are acting on their behalf. -- Llywrch (talk)

There are also people who claim that evidence-based medicine is "Western", and that the Human Rights are not universal but "Western"... Good for some parts of the world, but not for others, they say. Ziko (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

NC and ND practicalities[edit]

How does the working group propose Commons and sister projects manage the use of NC and ND permissions ? How do we manage existing CC licensed material and ensure derivatives of these files aren't licensed with NC and/or ND licenses. How do we handle non CC but still CC-BY compatible licenses, such as the UK's OGL license and ensure derivatives of those files aren't uploaded with more restrictive licenses. How do we stop contributors re-uploading their work with more restrictive licences, with the inevitable knock-on impact on downstream re-users ? How do we ensure any new uploads under the ND license are safe from derivative works. How do we protect our downstream re-users who have commercial requirements or whose use strays into derivative works ? We've only 55 million files to manage, after all. The idea is cute, until you think about it, at which point it becomes completely fucking impossible purely on a logistical basis. Nick (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

NonFreeWiki[edit]

Reposted by request from [Wikimedia-l] mailing list:
 One way to make it very clear is to have a separate project for non-free and pseudo-free media. Keep it off Commons altogether, so Commonists have no new problems, and to use it on a project would require specific permission by that project, so that Commons is not the only repository that can be used. Keep Commons the default, and make it necessary to use a prefix to use the not-so-free media files, so it is quite clear that they are different. If it is all on Commons, people will be sneaking it onto projects where it is not allowed, making yet more maintenance work for volunteers who might prefer to spend their time creating and improving valid content. To make it less of a hassle, the upload wizard could automatically switch to the alternative project if any of a specific range of licences were to be used, with an explanation of why the file could not be stored on Commons.
Cheers, Peter
 
· · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Most WikiPedia projects already allow the use of non-free content[edit]

List of projects that allow Non-free content#Wikipedia by the Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP). English Wikipedia: non-free content guideline (and related policy)

  • What will this proposal add to the EDP policy? Is this proposal an extension of that policy to all the wikimedia projects?
  • The rules of EDP are reasonably strict. Will this proposal relax those criterias, such as: "No free equivalent is available", "Minimal usage"?
  • What are the pros and cons of allowing non-free content on Commons, compared to the pros and cons of starting another project similar to Commons, only for non-free content?

— Aron M (talk) 02:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Commons must not accept non-free content per EDP and the Commons community appears to be quite united against any proposal to wreck one of its core pillars. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
15:1 votes after one canvassing on a site with 2600+ users/day... is less than 1%. I think we need to put more effort into research before we can make such conclusions, but anyway that will be a con. Maybe there will be other pros and cons too. — Aron M (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
If you have evidence of canvassing of the Commons proposal, please present it on Commons. A proposal existing, of itself, is not canvassing as defined by any project policy or guideline. Thanks -- (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
This is the occasional reminder that "canvass" is a normal English word that means "asking people for their opinions" rather than "a violation of our rules against soliciting votes in unfair or biased ways". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Thanks, that's what I meant. Fae: this is not the dramaboard ;-) The point is that 99% of the users in one day did not express their opinion about this question. — Aron M (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
We cannot allow non-free content on Commons, in addition to being the unchanging wish of the Commons community, it's actually a result of legal requirements forced upon the project by US copyright legislation. You can't just go around hosting non-free files without a fair usage claim/exemption, in the hope that a random photographer's work will be useful to one or more projects at some point in the future.
Where local projects (such as the English Wikipedia) make use of non-free files, we do so on a usage by usage basis, with an explanation of why we believe each usage is acceptable and in line with our fair use policy. We have fair use policies on those projects which permit fair-use files primarily to ensure that when a third party's copyright material is used without permission, it complies with the US fair use copyright legislation and/or similar fair use/fair dealing legislation in other countries. We also ensure what we believe and understand to be maximum levels of compliance with various sections of fair use/fair dealing legislation globally by ensuring we limit resolution, provide as full attribution as we can, that we link back to the original source from where the file was taken, and that we do our utmost to ensure commercial opportunities are not limited by our usage of such a file.
There have been perennial proposals to allow files uploaded under fair-use on one local project to move to Commons, so they can be used under fair-use by all other projects which permit such files, but the continual problem that occurs with this proposal is that due to legislation, each usage requires a specific explanation of why such usage is permissible, and by hosting a file on Commons, we lose the ability to ensure compliance with this. It's unclear whether or not software changes would prevent fair use files hosted on Commons being used by other projects without an appropriate fair use rationale.
The issue of hosting non-free material on Commons also has the additional problem is how we would communicate such changes to our own users, to external re-users, and to our downstream project re-users, and to ensure they check their re-use is compliant with either fair use legislation or the proposed NC and/or ND licences. Nick (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
That's a very good and detailed argument. Finally something that is valuable feedback for the WG. Thank you for typing it. — Aron M (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I hope the WG will weigh the costs and risks of allowing non-free licenses in Commons, and in a separate project accordingly. — Aron M (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm also curious why a user indefinitely blocked on en.wp for sockpuppetry, and who has made a grand total of four edits to Commons is trying to take the lead on changes to copyright policy here and at Commons ? Nick (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
(+1) to the reasons behind ours' not allowing non-free content. Also, Aron's SUL is pretty interesting ... Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
1) Why? "Leading" (I wouldn't use that word) out of the negativity. Actually by accident: my interest is the ToU change, that's the majority of the draft, yet the talk page was hijacked into licensing questions, and many off-topic threads.
2) There is no "abusive use of multiple accounts", aka. socking. Perhaps all sockmasters will tell you that, so I've put up a simple solution to this mystery on my user page. — Aron M (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The title of this section "Most WikiPedia projects already allow the use of non-free content" is false, based on the linked list given. It is correct to state that "Most Wikipedia projects do not allow the use of non-free content". The confusion may come from the fact that the list only contains a subset of Wikipedia projects. -- (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

"To reduce page size, projects listed at List of Wikipedias having zero local media files are only listed if they have an EDP." (2 lines above the list). On diagram: non-zero free-only — Aron M (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to introduce Non-Commercial and No-Derivative licenses[edit]

While I completely understand the impetus for making this recommendation, it is out of line with our movements' values to promote free knowledge and re-usable content. In short, it would be throwing the baby out with the bath-water. Please see [4] and [5] for some of the reasons why we don't allow NC and ND licenses. While it might increase slightly the scope of material we could host, it would erode the ability of people to re-use our content and would undermine the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation. I would strongly suggest that this recommendation be removed from the draft before it is finalized. Kaldari (talk) 02:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Facilitating access to orphan works[edit]

GFDL Invariant sections[edit]

There seem to be some incorrect assumptions in the recommendation regarding current licensing, and the GFDL "invariant sections". First, the recommendation states We currently use for text both Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and/or GNU Free Documentation License. This is true -- contributions must be dual-licensed with both. Then it also states Specifically the ToU says “reusers may comply with either license or both”. While also true, that is unrelated to the first part and irrelevant here. "Re-users" are outside users who make use of Wikipedia/Wikimedia content, not the editors themselves (and re-users are of course not beholden to the terms of use). More specifically, the ToU states:

When you submit text to which you hold the copyright, you agree to license it under:
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (“CC BY-SA”), and
GNU Free Documentation License (“GFDL”) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
(Re-users may comply with either license or both.)

(emphasis mine). Users must dual-license their text under both CC-BY-SA and GFDL. The "and/or" is only for subsequent users who copy works elsewhere -- the nature of dual licensing means they can use either license they want (or both, if importing into another dual-licensed environment). There is no choice for contributors here to choose either license -- they have to choose both. That, in turn, means that anyone can then subsequently edit the text, since the derivative work would still be dual licensed.

The GFDL "invariant sections", which is part of the GFDL license, are indeed a section that may not be edited. The original need was so that Richard Stallman's GNU Manifesto (a personal opinion) could be published along with, say, the GNU Emacs manual, without giving up rights for that part to be modified while the actual manual could be.[6] The rule was then generalized into "invariant sections". However, the definition of "invariant section" has some critical parts which were omitted in the recommendation text:

A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a front-matter section of the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject (or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall directly within that overall subject. (Thus, if the Document is in part a textbook of mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain any mathematics.) The relationship could be a matter of historical connection with the subject or with related matters, or of legal, commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position regarding them.
The "Invariant Sections" are certain Secondary Sections whose titles are designated, as being those of Invariant Sections, in the notice that says that the Document is released under this License. If a section does not fit the above definition of Secondary then it is not allowed to be designated as Invariant. The Document may contain zero Invariant Sections. If the Document does not identify any Invariant Sections then there are none.

(again, emphasis mine). Any "invariant section" must also be a "secondary section", and a "secondary section" cannot have any subject matter relationship with the main document. It is very explicitly for unrelated items, so that the ability to edit the actual subject matter is always preserved. That is fundamental to the "free" movement. Secondly, the required GFDL license that we have does not allow invariant sections, so none of those exist, and none can (that fact was omitted from the recommendation text). Even if they were allowed, per the license they cannot involve any of the subject matter of (for example) the Wikipedia article, so it doesn't really make any sense to allow them.

The desire to have "ND" sections of text is completely against the "free" movement ethos that Wikimedia was founded on. The WMF does not define that term -- the principles are at freedomdefined.org but it was already existing. If the WMF desires to move to a license that allows ND sections, that is by definition non-free. Any such license would not be CC-BY-SA, nor would it be GFDL, so the WMF would have to create a new license. Worse, no existing text could be mixed with that license, since it is fundamentally incompatible with the ones we have, both of which have share-alike requirements. One solution to that would be to get permission from every contributor to add this third license to their contributions, but that is basically impossible in a project of this nature (especially when anonymous IP users can contribute). The other possibility is something along the lines of happened last time, when the WMF got GNU to draft a new version of the GFDL license, which could be migrated to, which in turn allowed any works to be dual-licensed with CC-BY-SA. However, getting both Creative Commons and GNU to release new versions of their licenses which allow free material to be mixed with non-free licenses would seem to be exceedingly unlikely, to say the least.

If the desire is indeed to move away from the "free" movement, I would expect the "negatives" section to go into depth (with specific examples) as to why that stance is now a net negative. Instead, it just says All change has negative connotations to some members of the community with no discussion or examples. There are many editors who contribute *because* of the free content policy, and we could lose those editors, for example. There could also be ways that other users could use that ability to non-proportionally push minority (or worse) viewpoints, and then not allow those sections to be edited. There are some vast implications in that desire which are not even discussed. Wikipedia is both "the free encyclopedia" and "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and both of those would no longer be true after a change such as this. I would expect there to be acknowledgement of that, and a seriously-backed rationale for it.

In short, I seriously doubt it's legally possible to move Wikipedia off of the current licenses, which means there can not be any ND nor NC sections, and the recommendations should be aware they need to stay within that reality.

When it comes to NC images, that is much more possible, but there are further issues there. While there are currently EDP policies, they typically follow the U.S. "fair use" law (or similar allowances in laws from other countries). Those are typically uses where it's OK (i.e. not a copyright violation) for anyone to use it, based on the context of its use. If a re-user copies an article from Wikipedia, typically the illustrations are all OK to be used with it, since the context is the same (or should be). If NC images are allowed, now that allows only *some* re-users to copy that; if for example a non-profit organization copies the article somewhere, they would now possibly be committing a copyright violation, if their use was deemed commercial (such as fund-raising), if it does not fall under fair use. Similar for ND works -- if there is a feature to make articles available on, say, smaller devices and they are cropping images to save some visual space, that could then be a problem where it is not today. None of the negatives of this far-reaching change are discussed at all. Clindberg (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks to Clindberg for a detailed examination of the issues with the proposed changes to the core licencing for the text elements of our projects, and to further examine the problems inherent with accepting NC and ND media. I believe it would be prudent for WMF Legal Counsel to explain what parts of the proposal they believe WMF could implement and what parts are legally impossible, with further input from the WMF Developers who can explain what is technically impossible. Nick (talk) 11:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
+1 Thank you, this is great work. The licensing proposal should have presented the motivating use-cases, to better understand the purpose, for which there might be a solution without the controversy of just plain simply allowing NC, ND licenses without any constraints. — Aron M (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
These look like valid points. More reasons why any use of not-so-free material should be restricted to new projects or those that already allow it. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Case studies to support recommended changes[edit]

Rather than hypothetical claims or analytical thinking that bias must exist, case studies from Wikimedia projects would be a far better way to convince the wider community that a change is needed, and what changes might be effective. Presumably the Working Group have discussed case studies, so listing a half dozen here should be possible. Thanks! -- (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  1.  ?

Junk sources being used in the recommendations[edit]

The current recommendations appear to randomly throw in almost entirely irrelevant, misquoted and misleading sources. These should be removed as they give a fake impression of the text being based on reliable sources, when the recommendation text may simply be personal opinions with zero reliable sources. This is not simply bad practice, doing this gives the impression of political spin rather than credible recommendations that can help the wider community understand why change is needed, and for the wider community to be convinced that they should support the recommendations. -- (talk) 07:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

To remove: "Strengths and weaknesses in a human rights-based approach to international development – an analysis of a rights-based approach to development assistance based on practical experiences"[edit]

This source is being used to justify that action is needed to counter "limit the aims of the movement to diversify or to represent broader kinds of knowledge", however the source is about the importance of human rights when NGOs are planning projects to improve development in poorer countries. The source is very high level and throws no light at all on the recommendation, it's entirely unhelpful and irrelevant. -- (talk) 07:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

To remove: "Scaling up from the grassroots and the top down: The impacts of multi-level governance on community forestry in Durango, Mexic"[edit]

This source is being used to justify that action is needed to counter "limit the aims of the movement to diversify or to represent broader kinds of knowledge", however the source is irrelevant. It includes discussion of "multi level arrangements", but provides no evidence that is directly relevant to the recommendation. -- (talk) 07:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

To remove: "Classical Versus Grassroots Development", Cultural Survival Quarterly Magazine[edit]

This source is a very generic article about grass roots development and is fairly strong in criticising the generic concept of bureaucracy. It is the type of source that gets quotes in business management essays about top down management, but is not helpful in illustrating the recommendation apart from giving a false impression that the statements being made in the recommendation are built on evidence hidden in sources elsewhere. It contains no evidence relevant to Wikimedia projects. -- (talk) 07:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

To remove: "Who Should Own Photos of Slaves? The Descendants, not Harvard, a Lawsuit Says", NYT[edit]

This is an unusual property dispute against Harvard. The case is ongoing so is not yet useful as a legal precedent, nor is it clear that it will set any case law precedent. As the case is about 170 year old photographs, as an example this is inflammatory rather than illustrative. This source is being used to justify "Present licensing for both text and photographs should change to allow restrictions for non-commercial use and no derivative works", however it does not justify the use of NC or ND, if anything if this is a case that the wider Wikimedia community accepts as "misappropriation", then Wikimedia projects should not host these photographs in the legal case at all under any license. -- (talk) 07:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

To remove: "Appropriating traditional culture - the controversy, consequences and challenges", House Marques, March 2013[edit]

This source is being used to justify "Present licensing for both text and photographs should change to allow restrictions for non-commercial use and no derivative works", however in no way does this very high level "legal brief" justify this recommendation. Again it does the opposite, as it simply would encourage businesses to put "possible indigenous rights claims into a clearance checklist." All this source would justify is for Wikimedia projects to avoid hosting any material with possible indigenous rights claims rather than working around them with NC or ND restrictions. In the words of the source because the impact could "resulting in lost sales and corrective advertising expenses, and may even adversely affect the company's stock price." This source is so irrelevant, it appears to have been slapped as an afterthought in the recommendations based on a Google search for some links with the same keywords.

P.S. if anyone can explain what "House Marques" is, it would be much appreciated. It does not appear to be a peer reviewed journal still in publication and my suspicion is that this may be a "trade" publication for "brand owners" who are members of Marques rather than an academic publication. -- (talk) 07:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Misattribution: "the Foundation views its responsibility as being to the long-term health of all Wikimedia projects"[edit]

This is a misattribution as the recommendations state We need to create such policy considering that the “the Foundation views its responsibility as being to the long-term health of all Wikimedia projects” as it has been discussed previously by the Trust & Safety Team. However the quote is actually from the WMF CEO in what appears to be a 1,300 word open letter in the Fram ban case. Using this quote to justify the recommendations is unhelpful as it cherry-picks a part of a sentence from a personal letter specifically in response to the Fram case, rather than a WMF board resolution, or the WMF board official response or WMF approved policy. When the WMF CEO wrote their personal statement it was not intended to be used as a replacement to the Trust & Safety team's actual policies, nor the WMF board's passed resolutions. This needs to be given the correct context, or preferably removed as these specific words are not a WMF position statement or a WMF policy. -- (talk) 08:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)