4 ms·
>Stolen content (i.e. content not explicitly licensed as GFDL/CC by the author) is stolen content. Do you mean by wikipedia's definition of stolen? Because so
by blhack 11y ago
>Stolen content (i.e. content not explicitly licensed as GFDL/CC by the author) is stolen content.
Do you mean by wikipedia's definition of stolen? Because some things, like for instance: the description of Lora taken from the website that exists to provide descriptions of Lora to people, has an implicit usability.
Like I said, this irked me more than it probably should. I totally get sometimes stuff will get caught in the margins.
- mschuster91 11y agoWikipedia's mission is NOT about usability, but to provide an encyclopedia that can be used, edited, forked, reproduced EVERYWHERE without anyone having to fear lawyer attacks. It's not a "free as in free beer" encyclopedia, it's a "free as in truly free" encyclopedia. (Yes I know that this is only valid for the text content, images (e.g. logos) and screenshots are not free but used under different legal regimes in different countries)
- karmakaze 11y agoWith all the fundraising activity, it should be about usability and put some aside for those instances.
- sangnoir 11y ago> Wikipedia's mission is NOT about usability, but to provide an encyclopedia that can be used, edited, forked, reproduced EVERYWHERE without anyone having to fear lawyer attacks. To that, I say [citation needed]. Where in their mission statement do they state this particular stance on lawyer attacks?
- Hello71 11y ago> the description of Lora taken from the website that exists to provide descriptions of Lora to people, has an implicit usability that's not how copyright law works. you may argue that it should work that way, but it does not work that way unless you petition Congress to modify it
- zenir 11y agoStill wouldn't change much because, thanks god, the US law is not global ^^
- tracker1 11y agoThe U.S. has trade negotiations which tend to include mutual or compatible copyright law with most of the countries in the world.
- kzrdude 11y agoYes, they are among the biggest copyright aggressors of the world. Just like L Lessig, I care about common sense copyright policy, which forces me to care about reforming the U.S. campaign finance system so that congress can represent the people again.
- cookiecaper 11y agoYeah, but it's a relatively safe bet that an organization would rather be represented by their own carefully-reviewed, professionally-crafted verbiage than one hastily thrown together by a volunteer editor, and thus would not pursue action against the publisher. I'm not saying that Wikipedia should use content without the appropriate licensure, but in practice, copyright is violated as a matter of routine to provide some fairly basic services. Copyright law should be amended to prevent liability for conventional uses.
- stouset 11y agoMultiply that "relatively safe bet" times the millions of times this would happen if Wikipedia relaxed their stance.
- cookiecaper 11y agoLike I said, I don't think it'd be a good idea for Wikipedia to start copying and pasting from random websites without the appropriate clearances. I do think it'd be a good idea to revise the law so that normal uses are not illegal anymore.
- ghaff 11y agoThen the organization should have provided the text under an appropriate free license if they wanted it to be broadly reused. (Which is actually a good idea and more organizations should probably do for boilerplate they'd like others to cut and paste.)
- eru 11y agoOrganizations would put the boiler plate under a "You can copy and paste, but no modifications, please." licence. Wikipedia would need special support (machine enforced or not) for blocks of text that can only be used or removed in their entirety, but not changed. Come to think of it, that's not too different from how quotations work. So they might be able to deal with them.