On 11/22/2009 05:57 PM, David Gerard wrote: > 2009/11/22 Judson Dunn <[email protected]>: > >> And in defense of the bureaucratic morons, you might be surprised the >> number of super positive generous people that want their work on >> Wikipedia that are completely unwilling to allow 3rd parties to use >> their work. I don't personally make people say "The Great Sentence of >> Our Holy Secrets" but I would like some indication that they are ok >> with other people using their work commercially. Many people simply >> aren't, and it hasn't crossed their minds that when they give >> something to Wikipedia that is what they're signing up for. I think we >> owe it to those people to make sure they understand. > > > +1 > > This "free content" idea regularly EXPLODES PEOPLE'S HEADS. They > really, seriously, don't get it. Even when they say they do, they > frequently don't. > > The bureaucracy around submitting photos for Wikipedia is a goddamn > pain in the arse ... *but* there are extremely good reasons it came > about. > > What's the "shoot on sight" percentage on Commons like now? I > understand it was 10-12% a coupla years ago. (GMaxwell, I vaguely > recall you giving this figure, please correct if I'm wrong.) > > > - d. > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I am contributing to various Wikimedia projects since 2003 and I contributed my first piece of free software in 1999. Since late 1990s I am actively ideologically supporting free software in my country and in my part of the world. It is hard to imagine to me a kind of surprisingly new behavior from the side of people who makes their first touches with free software and free content. Actually, I am able to present many anecdotes related to such behavior. Actually, I am fully supporting position of both of you. If you read the content of the link which I posted inside of the first email, you could see that I had passed a variation of the same process. "Please, make the content free." "Yes, I will do it if it doesn't assume commercial interest." ... However, I've got permission as it is needed after one more ask. The point is that I came into the dead end with the demand to mark what may and what may not be included into Wikipedia. (Besides the fact that situation "Please repeat the next: ..." is solidly stupid if you have ~60 years old professor at the other side.) If I think constructively, I will need to do the next: * Analyze all the sites and find some generic way to cover given permissions as simple as it is possible. Probably, I will need some help (and I'll get it). * Write as shorter email as it is possible with as less as it is possible points. * Explain to the professor that this way of getting permissions is necessary even I think that it is stupid. * Send it to OTRS again and hope that I wouldn't have to do the process again. This task will consume a lot of time. Instead of spending that time on more constructive Wikimedian tasks, I will do it just to raise legal safety from 99% to 99.5%. Keep in mind that this is not about non-free content, this is not about a possibility that professor didn't understand all consequences of his approval; this is just about The Form. The Bureaucracy. Note, also, that this cooperation exists for four years. I don't think that it is reasonable. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
