NonFreeWiki - Meta-Wiki
Jump to content
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This is a
proposal for a new
Wikimedia
sister project
Status of the proposal
Status
procedurally closed
Reason
Project has been launched by
Wiki Project Med
on Mar 13th 2021.
[1]
As of August 2021 efforts have collected more than a million, mostly medical, NC and ND licensed images.
Technical requirements
Summary
Tracked in
Phabricator
Task T108167
A proposed logo for this wiki, based on the
Wikimedia Commons logo
Alternate logo proposal
In 2007 the
Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
passed a
Resolution on licensing policy
, which required Wikimedia wikis to adopt an
Exemption Doctrine Policy
(EDP) if they wished to continue with local uploads. The idea was to limit the number of non-free images hosted on these wikis.
However
there are still numerous wikis with significant numbers of non-free images but who have not adopted an EDP. We have had plenty of time for this issue to be resolved at a local level. The proposed solution is to create a
new fair-use wiki
to host almost all of the
non-free content
currently hosted on all the other wikis and then stop all local uploads.
As of August 2015, there appear to be
51 wikis
(including 38 Wikipedias) that have or are close to having EDPs. However, there are at least
85 Wikipedias
that each host more than a thousand images, together with a further 70 Wikipedias that host 100 to 1,000 images each. In total there are about
2.4 million files
on the various Wikipedias, of which English Wikipedia alone hosts more than 800,000. A large proportion of those will undoubtedly be duplicates or effective duplicates, with a rough guess of a million files that don't really need to be hosted.
This proposal would move almost all the non-free content to one multilingual location together with all the related documentation and templates. The non-free content would then be available for use by other wikis on a limited basis, in the same way that Commons files can be linked to, but with a fair-use rationale for each use depending on the local restrictions.
Example
A single wiki would enable us to rationalise the amount of non-free content by eliminating duplicate or similar files for the same object. Note that although we say "local uploads", in fact almost all the actual images are stored at "upload.wikimedia.org". For example, we currently have numerous copies of the promotional posters for the 1997 movie "Titanic":
am:ስዕል:Titanic_poster.jpg
- the wiki has
no EDP
az:Şəkil:Titanic_poster.jpg
no EDP
be:Файл:Titanic_3D_Poster.jpg
- EDP is similar to enwiki
bn:চিত্র:Titanic_poster.jpg
- developing EDP similar to enwiki, but non-free images of living people
strongly discouraged
bs:Datoteka:Titanic.jpg
no EDP
ca:Fitxer:Titanic_poster.jpg
- non-free images of living people
strongly discouraged
ckb:پەڕگە:Titanic_poster.jpg
- only admins can upload
cy:Delwedd:Titanic_poster.jpg
no EDP
el:Αρχείο:Titanic_1997_poster.jpg
- non-free images of living people
not allowed
en:File:Titanic_poster.jpg
- non-free images of living people
strongly discouraged
eo:Dosiero:Titanic1997.jpg
fa:پرونده:Titanic_poster.jpg
fi:Tiedosto:Titanic_poster.jpg
- non-free images of living people
not allowed
ga:Íomhá:Titanic_poster.jpg
no EDP
hi:चित्र:टाइटैनिक_(१९९७_चलचित्र).jpg
no EDP
hr:Datoteka:Titanic_poster.jpg
hy:Պատկեր:Titanic_poster.jpg
- EDP is similar to enwiki
id:Berkas:Titanic_film.jpg
is:Mynd:Titanicplakattvo.jpg
- strict limits allow such files only when no free file is available
ka:ფაილი:Titanic_ver2.jpg
no EDP
lt:Vaizdas:Titanic_poster.jpg
lv:Attēls:Titanic_poster.jpg
mk:Податотека:Titanic_poster.jpg
ml:പ്രമാണം:Titanic_poster.jpg
- EDP is similar to enwiki
ms:Fail:Titanic_poster.jpg
- EDP is similar to enwiki but with some differences
pt:Ficheiro:Titanic_poster.jpg
ro:Fișier:Titanic_poster.jpg
- EDP is similar to enwiki
si:ගොනුව:Titanic_poster.jpg
- EDP is similar to enwiki
sl:Slika:TitanicDVD.jpg
- EDP is similar to enwiki
sr:Датотека:Titanic_poster.jpg
sw:Picha:Titanic_poster.jpg
no EDP
ta:படிமம்:டைட்டானிக்_திரைப்பட_உறை.jpg
- EDP still being worked on
tr:Dosya:Titanik_film.jpg
- non-free images of living people
strongly discouraged
uk:Файл:Titanic_poster.jpg
- EDP is similar to enwiki
vi:Tập_tin:Titanic_poster.jpg
zh:File:TITANIC.jpg
- EDP is similar to enwiki but non-free images of living people
strongly discouraged
74 articles
about the movie were checked to find the above images. If you click on any of the links above and then click the actual image, you will see that the image is stored at "upload.wikimedia", which is clearly not a local wiki. Clearly a large number of the Titanic posters are problematic, either with no EDP on their wiki or poorly presented attribution or they are hosted on wikis that strongly discourage non-free images of living people. If we have a single wiki for non-free images, we could detect and deal with this kind of problem more easily than at the moment. Instead of 36 images with varying levels of attribution and policy compliance, we could host just one image with full attribution and compliance and then allow it to be linked from a limited number of articles. In case it still isn't clear, the "local uploads" are not local, just the file information page, so the proposal is not to curb "local autonomy" but to get them to use the same image legally 20 times rather than 36 times illegally.
Solution
When NonFreeWiki is activated, all the other Wikipedias, Wikisources, Wikivoyages etc. would block local uploads and from then on file uploads would be made to either Commons or to NonFreeWiki depending on whether the file is free or not. There would be extra limitations such as preventing files from being used by other wikis, until they were fully compliant with the rules. So if the source information or the fair-use rationale was missing from an image, it would be blocked for use until such information was provided.
The NonFreeWiki EDP would be only as lenient as the most lenient existing EDP allows, which at the moment appears to be English Wikipedia, judging by the number of images, and whose EDP appears to be the basis of several other wikis EDP's.
All uploaded files would utilise a new "traffic light system" with four lights:
for files that cannot be used on other wikis, this would be the default for all uploaded files until a non-free usage rationale was added
for files that have a non-free usage rationale for a relevant article on a wiki, but the usage needs checking (by an admin or a reviewer)
for files that were yellow-light but have been checked and confirmed for use on restricted wikis
for files that have non-free usage rationales and have been confirmed for use only on the more lenient wikis
The file page of an uploaded file would initially have a big red light
and a banner saying: "This file cannot be used on any wiki until a non-free usage rationale is provided". Even if there was an attempt to link the image from an article, all it would show is the text that appears when you link a non-existent file. As soon as the uploader fills out a non-free usage rationale for a particular wiki e.g.
en:Titanic (1997 film)
, it would give the file a green light and the image could be linked from the article. It would then be necessary to fill out a non-free rationale for each of the other wikis before the file could be used there.
However, if a red-lit file is left for seven days and no fair-use rationale is provided, then the file would be automatically deleted, because there is no good reason to host such a file.
If an attempt was made to link the file from an article on a wiki with a more restrictive EDP, e.g.
ca:Titanic (pel·lícula de 1997)
on the Catalan Wikipedia, the uploader would still complete the non-free pro-forma but it would be tailored to ca-wiki. The file could be linked from the relevant article but there would be a yellow light on the file page and it would be automatically placed in a special category to let other users know that this usage needs checking and confirming. Once it had been checked, the light could be turned to blue.
For wikis that only allow Commons files, there would be no option in the non-free pro-forma to select such a wiki and if there was an attempt to link from an article on such a wiki, all it would show is a non-existent file. To illustrate the example, the very bottom part of the file page would look something like this:
File usage on other wikis
The following other wikis use this file:
Usage on ca.wikipedia.org
Titanic (pel·lícula de 1997)
Usage on en.wikipedia.org
Titanic (1997)
Thank you for reading this far down. Please consider signing the support page to show that you endorse this proposal. If you can come up with a better name, please let us know.
Domain names and alternatives
edit
Name
Domain
Suggested by
Comment
NonFreeWiki
Green Giant
and
Liu Xin Yu
FairUseWiki
TeleComNasSprVen
FairMediaWiki
Harrybrowne1986
Potential for confusion with
MediaWiki
CentralWiki
Harrybrowne1986
Just like the way we have central wiki login, the same way.
OneWiki
Harrybrowne1986
UnCommons
GregRundlett
and
Rich Farmbrough
Because it's like Commons but the opposite in legal terms. Their use should be
uncommon
とある白い猫
Wikimedia Commons Fairuse
or
or
or
or
User:C933103
Whichever that would make thing easier
Wikimedia Commons NF
User:Calvinkulit
From Rejected CommonsNF proposal.
Wikimedia Rares
User:Calvinkulit
Commons, but the opposite.
Commons-EDP/EDPCommons
User:Calvinkulit
no comment
CNFCWiki
User:Calvinkulit
entral
on
ree
ontent Wiki
See also
edit
Wikimedia Commons
, for which the proposed wiki would be a non-free counterpart
NonFreeWiki Demo
, an example to help illustrate the proposal.
NonFreeWiki (2)
, another proposal established based on this proposal
People interested
edit
Support
edit
Green Giant
, as proposer.
PC-XT
talk
) Centralized attention on fair-use files, with the goal of enforcing the different wikis' policies, within Wikimedia's policies makes sense to me.
This idea has been floated a few times in the past. Thank you for putting a well written proposal together.
John Vandenberg
talk
14:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
reply
Strong support.--
GZWDer
talk
13:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
reply
Also express strong support for this idea. I think this is a well thought out idea that solves a very real problem.
Zellfaze
talk
18:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
reply
Strong support --
Pierpao
talk
17:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
reply
Conditional support
--
Ricordi
samoa
02:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
reply
Same as
Ricordi
samoa
. --
The4DGovernment
talk
02:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
reply
Conditional support
--
Harrybrowne1986
talk
13:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
reply
This is a brilliant idea. As a Thai Wikipedian, I believe that it is very helpful for small and medium-sized wiki projects. We have spent significant amount of time dealing with fair-use image issues. The issues are somewhat redundant and can be avoided by a centralised system. --
Taweethaも
talk
00:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
Support
I think that the idea is effective and efficient. It is a waste of time for Users to re-upload images just because they need to use it on a local wiki. In addition, it will maintain a central place for images and that will help provide many accurate statistics for such class of images and why would users upload them.
Asaifm
talk
14:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
Strongly
Support
. --
Liuxinyu970226
talk
13:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
Support
good idea, it will save many things --
Ibrahim.ID
talk
05:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
reply
--
John123521
talk
15:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
reply
I had the same idea. Strong support -
Nizil Shah
talk
20:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
reply
I ended up on
commons
because I wanted a
CC-BY-NC
icon for
OEIS:
. And I like Lawrene Lessing's
On Free, and the Differences between Culture and Code
lecture. –
Be..anyone
talk
05:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
reply
Quite.
Andreas
JN
466
12:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
reply
Nikki
talk
09:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
reply
Alternate logo proposal
Support
I have been arguing about this for a long time, this would bring unfair use issue to a single location. We HAVE TO obey US copyright law and we choose to obey local laws where wikis are more widely used. This is just the existing practice and such a centralized unfree content wiki would eliminate a number of problems. I think files can be migrated to such an non-free content wiki without disrupting existing use. In fact preferably this should be done without re-downloading and re-uploading the files. Now that we have SUL fully integrated, attribution would not be an issue. One question is what would this wiki be called? edp.wikimedia.org? nfc.wikimedia.org? I would not want to call it uncommons. Such a shift may have positive legal consequences where we can mirror the entire file server on a European country because it is now entirely freely licensed. --
とある白い猫
chi?
12:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
reply
I would oppose the proposed logo as it will be confusing to distinguish commons from the non free content wiki for some people, especially if they are color blind. I would go for
File:Red copyright.svg
since that will be the only type of content on this wiki. Or it could be something inspired from it. --
とある白い猫
chi?
12:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
reply
The logo is not fixed so this is a good alternative. All I did with the logo was turn the Commons logo upside down and swapped the colours. The transfer to a single wiki could be done by bots, maybe even using an import right. The name also isn't fixed (although I've used NonFreeWiki in the requested demo). I've added the logo and the domains you suggested but feel free to make any changes you think are needed.
Green Giant
talk
13:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
reply
I am not a graphics artist. Perhaps this can be put on
Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop
where our more creative and talented users can come up with something? Perhaps we want to focus on WMF colors such as the case with incubator. --
とある白い猫
chi?
15:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
reply
General support for the concept.
The devil is in the details, but details can be worked out. Before NFW is created, basic policies and procedures should be developed. Then it should be clearly proposed that Commons host this, creating special tagging or classificationt of files. There would then not need to be any interwiki moves from Commons to NFW or vice-versa, it would become a page move (perhaps to a new namespace). Copyright expertise is needed to handle licensing issues, and, for better or worse, that expertise exists on Commons. To preserve local autonomy, any local usage of a file should establish NFW hosting. If that local usage is true copyvio, then, it will be visible and should be handled. The current situation is unsatisfactory. The goal of the WMF policy is that any non-free usages be machine-readably tagged with a rationale, so that commercial re-users are warned. If, however, NFW removes local autonomy as to what files they choose to host, I would be opposed. Local autonomy creates the possibility of conflict with global consensus, yet local autonomy is a very important safeguard. As usual, there are comments that imagine "copyvio" is illegal in the U.S. Not exactly. It depends, and the WMF is not at risk from hosted copyvio, as long as it promptly takes it down under a DMCA request, which it normally does. --
Abd
talk
15:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
reply
Support. Reducing the burden on local communities. --
minhhuy
talk
10:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
reply
Support --
Satdeep Gill
talk
19:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
reply
Support
ElGatoSaez
talk
23:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
Support.
CourtlyHades296
talk
20:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
reply
Support
. Less work for local small wikis. --
Stranger195
talk
contribs
03:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
reply
Support
--
Morten Haan
talk
02:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
reply
Support
finally, I was waiting for this, I think it has a great potential. It won't solve all the problems but at least some of them... I am it-N, I speak 6 languages, I know local communities and I am active on commons. Call me when you start.--
Alexmar983
talk
10:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
Support
--
Ruthven
talk
06:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
Support
of the strongest possible kind. NC licensed images could go here.
Doc James
talk
contribs
email
01:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
reply
Support
all NC photo can be upload on it
Richard923888
talk
15:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Support
--
Samuele2002
talk
23:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Moving my comments to
Talk:NonFreeWiki#Moving my lengthy comments from "interested people" subpage
. Will make newer, fresher comments
soon
probably someday
. --
George Ho
talk
12:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
; edited, 12:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
Support
. do not care if commons will be the "non free", and a "free commons" is created, or the new one is non-free. non free should contain everything which leads to trouble. the cease and desist honey pots from germany (cc 3.0, art libre, or even cc-4.0 images placed in articles, later on thousands of amateur persons sued 1000$ each to stop using). --
ThurnerRupert
talk
22:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
Support
--
Samuele
2002
(Talk!)
21:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
reply
Support
--
アンタナナ
21:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
reply
Conditional Strong Support
, the proposal would greatly ease file management. However,
Such wiki should probably be crafted in a way that users can upload it using the exact same tool as uploading copyright-free wiki, and it should present an option to users when the image were being uploaded to determine where the image would go to. As in, during the upload process, the upload tool should ask user what licenses their upload is, and then the tool should automatically direct the uploaded file to respective site afterward, without even letting user know the distinction behind the two sites. There should also be a way to easily shift image between two sites in one click in case of miscategorization.
The wiki should be made in a way that would allow a file's existence as long as the file is allowed to be used on any single wiki. In other words, as long as local wiki administration deemed the file is okay to be used on that wiki and it is also legally okay in certain related jurisdiction (even if it might not be the case in the US), the file should be allowed on the wiki.
If local wiki think it is necessary, local uploading should still be allowed at individual wiki
For situations where file usage is allowed in some geographical region but explicitly forbidden to host in e.g. the US where Wikimedia put its server, such wiki should have multiple server in multiple different countries around the world in order to provide images that would be allowed under different sets of regulations. If there are cases arose that some area need to host some files that are not legally acceptable in all the other area that wikimedia foundation operate a server, then local chapters in regions where such file were allowed, if they wish, should be able to setup a server to host such image and those servers setup by local chapters should be connected seamlessly to the proposed nonfreewiki
It would have been a strong support if points being raised above are addressed, or with equivalent solution being provided, but otherwise it will probably be problematic to push for this idea.
C933103
talk
15:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
reply
Support
from what I can tell the majority of the issues on Wikimedia Commons seems to be related to copyright © issues, so this would solve a lot of problems. --
Donald Trung
Talk 🤳🏻
) (
My global lock 😒🌏🔒
) (
My global unlock 😄🌏🔓
12:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
reply
Support
We need a place where non-open content can be stored until it becomes open (often dozens of years later). For instance if I take pictures of an art installation in Japan or an illuminated French town, currently I have no place to legally upload these. So these pictures will probably be lost. Ideally the server would keep the original I uploaded, but until the content becomes open, it should only allow a thumbnail (and all of the metadata) to be downloaded.
Syced
talk
03:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
Support
This will made editing for normal users much easier than it is today. --
Walter Klosse
talk
18:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
reply
Support
We have enough local copies. We should exterminate all of them.
Calvinkulit
talk
04:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
Support
This has been a great idea for years. I am reconsidering it in the context of the
WikiSpore
idea to incubate experimental new projects.
Blue Rasberry
(talk)
15:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
Support
Arep
Ticous
17:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
reply
Support
if community of the new wiki will be built from scratch, not by staffing the new site with people from Wikimedia Commons.
offer whatever job necessary in JavaScript (see
Special:PrefixIndex/user:Incnis_Mrsi/
), Lua, MediaWiki templates, CSS, image processing and design, and debugging (for all programming languages) on the condition above.
Incnis Mrsi
talk
11:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
reply
Support
helpful for small and medium-sized wiki projects.--
Kitabc12345
talk
05:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
Strong support
during the Diversity WG discussions for the strategy was one of the proposal for the NC & ND licenses --
Camelia
talk
07:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
Support
it can reduce number of file copies on servers, it can help small projects, and, of course, it can hold copyright conflict that grows inside Commons.
Красный
wanna talk?
13:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
Support
--
Epì
dosis
20:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
Support
--
Susanna Giaccai
talk
06:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
Support
Also easier to identify LTA that focused on cross-wiki local-file-uploading.
Veracious
talk
08:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
Support
RaFaDa20631
talk
13:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
Support
----
MONUMENTA
talk
13:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
reply
Support
--
Kuatrero
talk
00:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
Support
Ivanbetanco43
talk
19:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
Support
- In SqWiki we have struggled for years if not decades with images. Currently our pending changes and unreviewed pages lists have a backlog of more than 3 years. We are struggling a lot with just plain accepting/refusing vandalism or factchecking sources. Hunting down licenses above that would be an almost impossible deed for us and it's been years we've stopped local uploading. This has led to almost all our art related articles to be without images (book covers, album covers, movie posters, etc.) and it's been quite a while we've been hoping for a solution like this. (Not to mention the many copyrighted images we may already be hosting there for years from the time we stopped the local upload without knowing nothing about their licenses. I estimate the majority part of images shouldn't be there.) The only concern is how easy will it be to actually hunt down all the local laws about licenses globally. I have the feeling this would be a requirement that would be needed to be done by the local wikis which wouldn't be much of help for us because in decades we haven't had 1 single lawyer volunteer to do that work and I doubt we ever will in the near future. This is why we chose to "let Commons deal with it". But again, that's better than nothing and in the very long run it may present itself as beneficial even for us. -
Klein Muçi
talk
13:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
reply
Support
--
Zblace
talk
15:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
reply
Oppose
edit
Strong Opppose - Problems block implementation that
must
be dealt with before this could move forwards
: The proposal fails to deal with issues such as en-wiki allowing files that are out of copyright in America, but not on Commons. Implementing this could be
disasterous
if done without a concrete, coherent proposal for dealing with such issues. It also separates the non-free files from their fair-use content, and makes problems with orphaned fair use much harder to deal with in absence of concrete systems for dealing with such. As well, a good number of supposed "non-free" files, when checked, turn out to be public domain when checked; for example, it's not uncommon for pre-1923 American books and music scores to have first edition covers uploaded under fair use, which is simply wrong.
Adam Cuerden
talk
14:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
reply
I'm not seeing the objection as being to the concept of NFW, rather as being a concern about implementation details, and I'm not getting that Adam Cuerden understands the proposal. "Fair Use" is one example of Non-free content, not something clearly separate. Under WMF policy, fair use is actually required for NC licensed material to be hosted; however, NFW would classify such files to keep the issue distinct; and thus NFW would become a source for finding NC files for NC users. Two birds with one stone. "Orphaned fair use" is an oxymoron, it is not fair use if not used. However, I would suggest that instead of deleting orphaned files, they be replaced with thumbnails, if they are not already thumbnails. I.e., what Google search does: display thumbnails for file identification, then show links to pages where the files are hosted. Generally, license information provided should not be deleted unless clearly fraudulent, and it is arguable that even that should not be deleted, merely annotated and hidden. NFW should be maximally transparent. I see no looming "disaster" here. If a file is legal to host in the U.S., say under fair use, and not legal in another jurisdiction, this "problem" already exists. Local language wikis may decide to follow local law, that is completely up to them. That a file is hosted on NFW does not make its use locally automatically legitimate. It does make it possible. --
Abd
talk
15:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
reply
Files would be restricted in usage unlike commons. Wiki's that choose to use these files must have a compatible local fair use. So for instance German wikipedia will not be able to use these files - be it files fully copyrighted, or only free in the US. --
とある白い猫
chi?
18:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
reply
Oppose
as long as it hasn't been clarified who's going to do the monitoring and policing of the uploads and rationales. Who's going to form the admin force on the new wiki? How are local-wiki admins going to be able to monitor who's uploading things on NFW and then inserting them on the local wiki? Keep in mind that checking uploads and rationales is not just formal paperwork, at least once we go beyond the most clear-cut of standard cases, like cover art etc. As soon as we are dealing with stuff like historic photographs, non-free portraits and the like, anybody who wishes to check the justification of a file needs to be able to read and understand both the (individually worded) non-free use rationale, and the target article where it's used. The small problem wikis that have failed to adhere to Foundation policy in the past have no admin force willing or able to do such checks, so we can't expect them to delegate admins to work effectively on NFW either. As long as that's the case, NFW will only shift a problem from one place to another without solving it.
Fut.Perf.
10:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
reply
It could start with NC and ND licensed content which we can legally use right now except we choose not to.
Doc James
talk
contribs
email
01:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
reply
a wiki can just opt out of non-free if it is too much admin hassle. when cloning en wikipedia e.g. for offline (kiwix, ... ) it can be easy excluded by url. amateurs linking to images out of their wordpress blog can be sure that they won't get sued. currently commons, and images in the wikipedia itself is much to difficult to explain and handle. wikipedia has an educational mission and a related tax exemption, this means safe reuse without hiring lawyers is key, otherwise its a "mission failed". --
ThurnerRupert
talk
22:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
Oppose
I anticipate this being a miserable fail for Wikinews archival image use. Our archives at Wikinews are a major asset, their preservation and curation an important part of our charge (as I write this, our archives at English Wikinews have grown to about 21,000 articles). One of our major problems — despite, it should be said, lots of great folks on other sister projects who are supportive in a positive collegial spirit — is that over time our image-hosting needs that differ from those of Wikipedia are overlooked, neglected, and ignored by a central image-hosting project where large numbers of people treat the central repository as a practical adjunct to Wikipedia. Image deletion is cumulative over time, so that in the long run the treatment of Wikinews images by a central repository suffers cumulative destruction from widespread (though obviously not universal) indifference, ignorance, and sometimes active antipathy, toward the needs of Wikinews. It's a source of persistent frustration to us that several percent of our archived articles have holes in them due to images deleted from Commons. Some of those holes, we would be unable to fix by local upload either, because our fair-use policy (hammered out years ago with Wikimedia legal) does not allow fair use of images under copyright by competing news agencies, but a great many of those image holes could in principle be filled, and perhaps at some point we'll have the opportunity to do so — but predictably, if our fair-use images had to be hosted on a centralized non-Wikinews site, in the long run the centralized project would collectively ignore (if not actively defy) the differences between Wikinews and Wikipedia and the image holes in our archives would grow substantially. --
Pi zero
talk
13:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
Sorry,
Pi zero
, but the proposed project would not (and should not) control how local wikis handle non-free images. If some images are non-transferable to the proposed project, as how some images are non-transferable to Commons, then let's not upload them there. Nevertheless, having one image in many local wikis would reduce too many copies of a similar image. One thing for certain: Japanese language projects, like Japanese Wikipedia, would not allow non-free images. I'm certain that the project would respect the jurisdictions of Japanese Wikipedia. As for Wikinews... well, its huge issues (e.g. limited participation) have been discussed in English Wikinews locally, and how Wikinews handles non-free images should not affect the outcome of this proposal. Neither should the state of Wikinews itself. --
George Ho
talk
04:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
George Ho
The proposal, even if implemented in its exact form here, describes a reduction of local control — a deleting authority at the central repository decides (afaict) whether or not they're satisfied that local requirements have been met after seven days, which means local authorities are not able to exercise their judgement, neither in how long to allow before deleting without a rationale, nor in what rationales are or are not adequate (or, even more nuanced, what rationales are
temporarily
adequate) in a particular case. Furthermore, Commoners already have much difficulty consistently enforcing inclusion/exclusion rules, when there's just one set of rules for the whole repository; it strikes me as fanciful that a central authority could make high-quality judgements about rationales under many different sets of rules. In practice, any project whose rules are atypical — such as Wikinews — would get shafted.
Central authority is subject to abuse, and institutional structures such as the Foundation consistently favor centralizing authority. Although details of this proposal just as stated describe some authority remaining local, the proposal doesn't particularly emphasize it (just for example, the
Summary
only mentions this point in its last dozen words; I sympathize with the difficulty of writing these things, but that doesn't change my assessment that the point is deemphasized).
These concerns about the relationship between local admins and the central authority are, in essence, another form of the concerns expressed above by another user about coordination; and such situations naturally gravitate toward a state in which the central authority dominates and imposes strong deletion rules that override local authorities and, ultimately, subvert local knowledge, local judgement, and local policy. --
Pi zero
talk
13:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
First part... Well, I see your point on the deletion part, but local wikis can simply remove a file without deleting the proposed project's copy. Therefore, any editor at the proposed (supposedly centralized) project can tell other readers not to add the file in certain wikis.
Second part... I'm sure NonFreeWiki would not be as centric toward non-free images as Commons is toward free images... Actually, Meta-wiki's OTRS service (currently understaffed and backlogged) centralizes Commons's handling of permissions. Also, NonFreeWiki wouldn't impact Japanese Wikipedia's prohibition on non-free images, and I'm sure that it would respect the wishes of Wikinews. The relationship between English Wikipedia and NonFreeWiki, however... I don't know. Nevertheless, en wiki's policies toward non-free images are too burdensome, and NonFreeWiki would be less centric toward non-free images than English Wikipedia does. By the way, you can keep a local copy, while NonFreeWiki can have its own (central) copy. Some local wikis keep their own copies of free images as Commons keep theirs.
Off-topic, but I read the
2013 events about Croatian Wikipedia
. I wonder how local authority is any different from central authority. If local authority affects everyone negatively, then central authority may have rights to interfere. Otherwise, I'm sure that central authority can respect and would not infringe local authority, i.e. NonFreeWiki is very motherly to every wiki... and will be sisterly to Commons.
Wondering... what would be the relationship among NonFreeWiki, Commons, and Meta-wiki's OTRS (OTRS... ugh)?
Would the trio be the Axis of Powers-like, Allied Powers-ish, or the Three Musketeers
(Must... not... insert... smileys...)
--
George Ho
talk
17:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
; edited. 17:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
George Ho
You say "local wiki can simply remove a file without deleting the proposed project's copy." This seems to be addressing a very different concern than I was raising. I was concerned with a central authority removing things, thereby removing a local authority's ability to decide not to remove them. You're talking about safeguarding a local site's ability to delete a file even if the central authority doesn't. I admit I'm
also
not entirely convinced by what you say about that; it seems likely to me that the centralization-minded Foundation would not care about preserving any vestige of local control, on the contrary the Foundation naturally favors removing control from local projects.
You say "I'm sure NonFreeWiki would not be as centric toward non-free images as Commons is toward free images..." Your confidence sounds unfounded to me. The tendency of central authorities to accumulate power to themselves is not limited by the intentions of the person who first gave it to them. You are evidently naively optimistic about what might be done, but my experience of central authorities leads me to be more concerned with the damage they can do — especially, in this case, damage to decentralized grassroots communities. We may both agree that a central NonFreeWiki could not do as good a job of making these decisions as the local projects, but I do not think that would deter the central authority from making the decisions, rather I take it to mean they would make bad decisions.
You say "By the way, you can keep a local copy, while NonFreeWiki can have its own (central) copy." Tbh, I entirely disbelieve that. I believe that you believe it; I just think you're wrong. The Foundation would not do both; if they create NonFreeWiki they would take it for granted that centralized is better and they would continue in that direction until NonFreeWiki is the only repository of non-Commons images. That is their
nature
--
Pi zero
talk
21:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
reply
Pi zero, I hope you forgive me for my ignorance about the
whole
proposal. I swear I either overlooked or was careless about the "blocking" part. I haven't switched to "oppose" yet, but I admit you have a point about central authority. --
George Ho
talk
03:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
reply
Oppose
for 2 main reasons:
yet another wiki, with yet another set of rules and presumably English-based will make it even harder for casual users to upload non-free images. We have all the pains in the world explaining why they can't upload in their native tongue and with a single set of rules to care about, it will be incredibly difficult to explain with more than one set of rules.
no simple technical solution on whether an image can or cannot be displayed on a specific wiki according to the local EDP. That makes the "semaphore system" error-prone, with the difference that local users who notice the problem might not be willing to fix it (because on another wiki).
What would be acceptable would be a NC repository, such as for no-FoP images, and, unrelated to that, a ban on local uploads on wikis with no EDP. --
Strainu
talk
16:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
reply
I hate to admit that some images would be nontransferable to the proposed project,
Strainu
. Nevertheless, because
some smaller wikis
could not upload its own files locally, which I forgot to mention, this project can do it for those wikis if they can allow NFC. Also, as said above... well local wikis and this central wiki may not control each other.
I also see your point on
technical issues with local file descriptions and global ones, but... I still believe that this project can work. --
George Ho
talk
18:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
; see below. 22:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
reply
Scratch that. I re-read the second point and realize that you were discussing local display and global display of non-free content.
I think any local wiki could disable or modify a global display of any non-free content stored in NonFreeWiki, wouldn't it?
--
George Ho
talk
22:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
reply
See my newer comments at the Support section. --
George Ho
talk
03:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
reply
Oppose
, quite strongly. I do not think that this proposal is thought through. The first step before even thinking about such a proposal should be to consult with Wikimedia's Legal Team and ask them if something like this would be legally possible. Are they aware of this proposal? After all, I suppose that "NonFreeWiki" would be a public wiki where anyone could access the non-free content, out of the article context where "fair use" provisions as in U.S. law are applicable. It's, in my opinion, already rather problematic that non-free images, due to the way MediaWiki works, are also accessible out of article context, isolated, on the image description pages in the individual wikis that allow non-free content. English Wikipedia is trying to remedy that issue by adding a specific fair use rationale to each individual non-free file, explicitly stating for which purpose in which article that particular file is intended. Still, people can find and access the image out of its "fair use" context. A separate "NonFreeWiki" as a collection of non-free files that are deemed acceptable on some wikis and not on others would aggravate that issue.
Gestumblindi
talk
20:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
reply
I recently contacted the Legal Team about this proposal. I'm awaiting its responses. --
George Ho
talk
06:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
reply
INTENSELY OPPOSED
to the first line of the proposed "solution". It is unacceptable to shut down local image uploads. While the intent of this project may be good, this is a proposal for
one community to seize critical content control away from all other communities
. The fact that content can be hosted locally is a critical safety value that prevents the possibility of inter-community warfare, allowing controversial content to be hosted by the local community in the event of a dispute. I am not prepared to entrust the integrity of articles such as
Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia
to this new community.
Alsee
talk
18:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
reply
Oppose
- Non Free images do not belong to Wikimedia. They're non free. That's it. -
Theklan
talk
18:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
reply
Theklan
: If a non-free image doesn't belong to Wikimedia, deletion can be proposed in any way at either a local wiki or a central project, like this one. --
George Ho
talk
03:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
reply
User:George Ho
: That's my point. Fair use is not free. Fair use is a lazy thing that undermines the huge work of having free content. So I oppose both this proposal AND having non free images in any Wikimedia project. Making a nonfree Wiki would be a suicidal move for our movement. -
Theklan
talk
09:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
reply
"Fair use" content has been used in certain projects, like
some or most local
Wikipedia
sites
. Of course, the Foundation has (strongly?) encouraged free content, especially article content. "Content" has been broadly used in this discussion, so I'll specify. Certain video and audio clips are subject to copyright because... those media are extraordinary and unique and highly appealing. Images... well, are also appealing, but they are safer to use than the other media due to their two-dimensional format. Hmm... if free content is strongly(?) encouraged, there are other "free" contents that are free in the US but copyrightable in their own host countries, like the
en:File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg
. The scope of this proposal, i.e. focusing on non-free content, has caused some opposition. If the scope of this proposal is widened a bit, then maybe the opposition would be lessened. --
George Ho
talk
14:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
; amended. 17:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
reply
George Ho
"Fair use" content has been used in certain projects, like Wikipedia
: For the sake of precision, let's clarify: in English-language Wikipedia and certain other language versions of Wikipedia where local law seems to allow for "fair use" or a similar kind of using non-free content; there are also language versions where non-free content is entirely banned, such as German-language Wikipedia (except for text quotes in encyclopedic context as far as the law allows for), the "real" second largest language version (Cebuano and Swedish Wikipedia contain lots of bot-generated stubs, so don't really count IMHO).
Gestumblindi
talk
17:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
reply
Got it; thanks. I modified my above reply to reflect what you said. --
George Ho
talk
17:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
reply
┌──────┘
Theklan
But things of Wikimedia itself can also be non-free (e.g. contents of
CheckUser Wiki
where said
Content is copyrighted (© all rights reserved) by the Wikimedia Foundation
, and CC BY-NC-SA things of huwiki and itwiki). --
Liuxinyu970226
talk
00:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Oppose
When I started reading through all the supporting votes, I quickly was persuaded that this project would be a good idea. However, I am afraid that there will be significant problems caused by the different policies of Wikipedia versions and how individuals can communicate across language barriers. At least with Commons, the content rules are
relatively
straightforward and translated into many languages. The NonFreeWiki, in contrast, will frequently have to deal with conflicts between rules on different Wikipedia versions. A major issue will be resolution of images (how big is enough). Since there are no fixed guidelines on resolution, I foresee disagreements as to the appropriate size and difficulty communicating between languages (or at least dominated by anglophones) on resolving this issue. And what happens when one version has a stricter requirement than another? What about when one language's fair use rationale is lengthy but another's is short? Also consider the following example: English-language version of article X contains a fair use photograph and prose for which the photograph is essential for understanding but that image is used in another language WP article without prose justifying its use. If the image is removed from the English WP article, then it would still be left on the other language's article without adequate justification. I have a feeling that many WP project in lesser-edited languages will start using these images en masse without adequately understanding the need for fair use rationale. In this scenario, I think the project will end up hosting a lot of images without adequate justification. Also, unlike Commons, which has many active users and a scope independent of Wikipedia, the NFW project has a very narrow scope and will likely attract very few active editors.
In my opinion, the efficiency of hosting content locally (no language barriers, one policy in the language of the project) outweigh any efficiency from having a central repository. While there are many editors that speak multiple languages, few are fluent/very proficient in more than one language and those that are are mostly limited to English plus a European language. The Wikimedia Foundation needs to spend resources on promoting use/editing in numerous other languages and I think that a common repository for non-free media will create barriers between different language Wikipedia projects, ostracizing editors who don't understand English well, and be dominated by anglophones (and, for the record, I'm a native English speaker who only has an intermediate knowledge of French).
That said, there could be other ways of making content more available across Wikipedia versions. For starters, how about a cross-language WP search engine to find files on other projects that may not be allowed on Commons but are freely-licensed in at least the US? I am not a fan of the Commons policy that all media must be freely-available in both the US
and
the source country, a policy that prevents photographs of architecture when the country where the building is located does not have a freedom of panorama law. I really wish this Commons policy would be changed. US Copyright law "The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place." (
[2]
) The scope of copyright protection is
NOT
affected by the copyright laws of other countries: "No right or interest in a work eligible for protection under this title may be claimed by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto. Any rights in a work eligible for protection under this title that derive from this title, other Federal or State statutes, or the common law, shall not be expanded or reduced by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto." (
[3]
). So if a building is located in a country without FoP, in the US, and thus for Wikimedia servers in the US, there is no copyright claim for the architects to photos of a constructed building (even when the building is outside the US). Several WP projects host such photographs, since they can't be uploaded to Commons. For an example, I uploaded
this photo
to English WP which I had found
on French WP
. I don't check Meta very often, so ping any replies so I'll see a notification when on other projects.
AHeneen
talk
02:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
AHeneen
, may I reformat your post with the
please? The
::
seems to have broken the automatic numbering format. Thanks. --
George Ho
talk
15:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Feel free to remove this message please.
--
George Ho
talk
15:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
That's fine. But it doesn't allow them to be indented.
AHeneen
talk
03:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Reformatted,
AHeneen
. --
George Ho
talk
08:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
This will force those who maintain non-free images on local projects to either run for adminship on some new project or stop working on maintaining non-free images. I consider this a
substantial
cost of moving to this "central" system. This is especially the case given that Commons is basically non-functional from an administrative perspective right now. You have deletion requests open from
October
. When the existing central platform for free files is running without massive backlogs in basic areas, then we can perhaps start talking about creating even more central areas where local admins can't participate without passing another RfA. I also find it massively objectionable that this doesn't appear to have been advertised in any way on enwiki or any other affected wiki. Are you really trying to push through a stealth change of local policy (turning off file uploads) without notifying any local project? ~
Rob
13
Talk
00:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
reply
Also, what do you plan to do about all of the images hosted on enwiki that are PD in the US but not in the source country? Local policy allows us to host those. Commons policy does not. Do they just disappear, or are you also proposing a FreeButKindaNotInSomeCountriesWiki? ~
Rob
13
Talk
00:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
reply
Oppose
in practice this is creating
Copyright Violation Wiki
. Not that all local projects do this great, but Commons already has a massive issue with hosting copyrighted content centrally, when it is not allowed to host non-free content. Having a centralized repository for this would make the problem even worse because the issues involved with non-free file use are much more complex.
TonyBallioni
talk
00:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
reply
Oppose
- fair use content requires close oversight by the community that actually uses the content. Putting all our fair use images onto a separate project will make copyright violations far more likely, and could easily end with Wikipedia having no accessible fair use content at all.
Brad
01:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
reply
Strong Opppose
- inclouding deletion of all "Fair use" images. The hosting of such images ar against our mission and an affront to the idea of free knowledge. Every single "fair use" image is an image in the way for a real free image. This brings answers like "but you already have found a way" by people who are sitting on the images. There is no middle way between freedom and unfreedom. Just a bit free is unfree. --
Marcus Cyron
talk
18:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
Oppose
, per above, especially Bradv. Use of nonfree content must have serious restrictions and close oversight by the community using the content. --
Yair rand
talk
21:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
Oppose.
As others have noted, fair use style exemptions must be negotiated in the context of a specific community's use of a file, and its specific policies. This would likely turn into a wiki dominated by a few large wikis like en.wp, who would at the same time be frustrated by having to go to some separate website to have those discussions.--
Eloquence
talk
06:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
reply
Other comments
edit
Green Giant
, thank you for the proposal you made, and I give you support to this.
About this statement
from the project page
: "
...and then stop all local uploads
". Seems that it prompted six people into opposing this project. May you please amend or remove "stop all local uploads"? Seems that, as opposers pointed out, central authority would conflict with local authority. If amended, the local authority would be retained. I still favor this proposal as long as the central project would not take away local wikis' handling of non-free content. Is that fine?
--
George Ho
talk
20:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
; edited. 20:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
reply
I misread the whole proposal. Seems that blocking all local wikis from uploading non-free content locally is part of the whole proposal. --
George Ho
talk
03:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
reply
Blocking local uploads is currently part of the main proposal, but that aspect can (and must) be dropped. Dealing with which wikis can use which images would probably get a bit ugly, but the idea of consolidating all of the duplicate files, and making them available for wider use, is an interesting idea.
Alsee
talk
09:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
reply
Thinking about this proposal more, it makes things extremely complicated and confusing to have separate Commons and NonFreeCommons sites. Especially for new users who already find uploading and copyright to be confusing. I think it would be vastly simpler to just expand Common's mission, adding firm mechanisms to separate and restrict NonFree images. That gives you one site, with one well developed community, organizing them all. When a file is evaluated as Free/NonFree, a status change can be handled simply by tagging it differently. There would be no need to transfer it to another site/community for re-processing.
Alsee
talk
09:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
reply
Alsee
, Commons is severely understaffed and heavily backlogged; so is OTRS. How would allowing fair use images in Commons help the situation? That would increase more workload for Commons admins than if such content is allowed. Like other projects, as I've been told already, Commons is a voluntary service.
Being recruited an admin is a nice offer... but I hear such workload would burn an admin out. I don't know whether more recruitments can help the situation.
--
George Ho
talk
03:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
; edited. 03:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
reply
In order for a non-free images wiki to grow a community, I expect it would substantially be cannibalizing people from Commons. I think trying to split images-work across two wikis would be less efficient. The total workload is roughly the same for one wiki vs two wikis, except that moving some general labor would be duplicative and moving images between sites would be more labor intensive .
Alsee
talk
22:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
reply
The existing arrangement seems to me rather optimal re division of labor, as dealing with non-free images is handled by users on the specific wiki that
wants
the non-free images, the very place where users outside the Commons community care enough to deal with those images, relieving Commons admins of the burden. --
Pi zero
talk
20:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
reply
There is the alternative (but almost similar) proposal,
NonFreeWiki (2)
. --
George Ho
talk
08:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
The above comments seem to conflate two separate concepts; being repositories on the one hand "fair use" material (good luck persuading Disney that gallery pages of their images are held for "fair use"!), and on the other for "NC" licenced material. These are not the same.
Andy Mabbett
Pigsonthewing
);
Talk to Andy
Andy's edits
13:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
reply
Project launch
edit
NC Commons
has been launched by
Wiki Project Med
. Its goal is to collect creative commons licensed material that is under NC and ND licenses. The goal is only to collect existing material rather than permit individuals to newly upload material under these licenses. Ability to edit also requires approval. The project is not at this point in time considering hosting "fair-use" material. Reach out if you are interested in being involved. Best
Doc James
talk
contribs
email
04:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
Retrieved from "
Categories
Closed new project proposals
Proposed projects
NonFreeWiki
Add topic