Re: [Wikimedia-l] Planned school curriculum by MPAA

2013-09-26 Thread Laura Hale
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:

  I'd be OK if they simply gave some space in the training materials to
 talk
  about public domain, free licenses and fair use. That's not likely to
  happen given who's in control of those lesson plans.
 

 You're still just arguing about the correctness of the material. I agree
 that this curriculum is stupid and misleading, but that doesn't explain why
 the WMF should care enough to make a statement, or even continue
 discussion, about it.


One alternative option would be to work with the Education folks and create
Wikimedia centric lesson plans for teachers to use that share the values
people are expressing.  These can be linked on education outreach pages,
distributed to chapters, etc.  Or general handouts can be made that explain
these concepts ad the linked on
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bookshelf . This is a nice option
because it is pro-active and community driven.  If some one does approach
the WMF externally asking for support on this issue, they have the
materials to then work with.

-- 
twitter: purplepopple
blog: ozziesport.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Planned school curriculum by MPAA

2013-09-26 Thread Andrew Lih
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:40 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 25 September 2013 19:33, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:

  It has something to do with countering falsehoods and educating folks
 about
  the full range of content rights.
 
  Their 2nd grade materials state:
  Property comes in many forms: when we buy a book, we own that book. It’s
  our property, but we don’t own the right to reproduce that book and then
  sell it or give it away. That’s stealing.
 
  Um, no. A Creative Commons SA book,


 The course covers creative commons.


Not that I can see. Creative Commons in not in the lesson plan for 2nd
graders.

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2013/09/Grade-2-Copyright-Lesson.pdf

Creative Commons is introduced in 5th grade.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Planned school curriculum by MPAA

2013-09-25 Thread Andrew Lih
I disagree that this is simply political.

It is very much a culture of ownership -- and a corporate one at that --
being instituted earlier to American kids.

If you remember, it was exactly this problem that inspired Lawrence Lessig
to start Creative Commons in the first place. He observed that there was a
critical inflection point -- when kids are first taught to share and
cooperate and then are flipped to hoard and restrict.

This amplifies hoarding and restricting at the same time kids are taught to
share. I'm glad I moved out of California before this propaganda was
introduced to my kids.

-Andrew





On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:

 What exactly does this have to do with the WMF? Just because we encourage
 open sharing of data doesn't mean we need to comment on every political
 debate that shows up on the news.

 *-- *
 *Tyler Romeo*
 Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016
 Major in Computer Science


 On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 1:21 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:

  On 24 September 2013 17:42, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
 
   http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/09/mpaa-school-propaganda/
  
   “This thinly disguised corporate propaganda is inaccurate and
   inappropriate,” says Mitch Stoltz, an intellectual property attorney
   with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who reviewed the material at
   WIRED’s request.
  
   “It suggests, falsely, that ideas are property and that building on
   others’ ideas always requires permission,” Stoltz says. “The
   overriding message of this curriculum is that students’ time should be
   consumed not in creating but in worrying about their impact on
   corporate profits.”
  
  
   I suggest we see if WMF commenting, possibly in a blog post or
   similar, would help avert such anti-sharing foolishness.
  
  
   - d.
  
 
  Might not be a great idea
  Its an improvement on previous attempts (to start with It doesn't appear
 to
  violate the GFDL) and we would actually benefit from our uploaders
 having a
  working knowledge of copyright. Knowing all the exceptions is something
  best left to more experienced users.
 
  --
  geni
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Planned school curriculum by MPAA

2013-09-25 Thread Andrew Lih
It has something to do with countering falsehoods and educating folks about
the full range of content rights.

Their 2nd grade materials state:
Property comes in many forms: when we buy a book, we own that book. It’s
our property, but we don’t own the right to reproduce that book and then
sell it or give it away. That’s stealing.

Um, no. A Creative Commons SA book, a public domain work or expired
copyright work can indeed be reproduced. And it's not stealing.

We are careful to acknowledge the work of authors and creators and respect
their ownership. We recognize that it’s hard work to produce something, and
we want to get paid for our work.

No, not all people want to get paid for their work.


I'd be OK if they simply gave some space in the training materials to talk
about public domain, free licenses and fair use. That's not likely to
happen given who's in control of those lesson plans.





On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:

  I disagree that this is simply political.


 This doesn't answer my original question. What does this have to do with
 WMF? Wikipedia does not own any public schools in California, nor will
 Wikipedia be affected by this curriculum should it be implemented. The only
 similarity is that is has something to do with knowledge, which is
 extremely vague.

 *-- *
 *Tyler Romeo*
 Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016
 Major in Computer Science
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Planned school curriculum by MPAA

2013-09-25 Thread Tyler Romeo
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:

 I'd be OK if they simply gave some space in the training materials to talk
 about public domain, free licenses and fair use. That's not likely to
 happen given who's in control of those lesson plans.


You're still just arguing about the correctness of the material. I agree
that this curriculum is stupid and misleading, but that doesn't explain why
the WMF should care enough to make a statement, or even continue
discussion, about it.

*-- *
*Tyler Romeo*
Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016
Major in Computer Science
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Planned school curriculum by MPAA

2013-09-25 Thread Andrew Lih
The California school system is the back yard (actually front yard) of both
Wikimedia Foundation and Creative Commons.

From the message on the web site, the WMF is a nonprofit charitable
organization dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and
distribution of free, multilingual, educational content, and to providing
the full content of these wiki-based projects to the public free of charge.

Inside a California public school, the WMF should indeed have an interest
in making sure that students using Wikipedia don't think to themselves that
using such material is stealing and that someone is expecting to be
paid.




On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:

  I'd be OK if they simply gave some space in the training materials to
 talk
  about public domain, free licenses and fair use. That's not likely to
  happen given who's in control of those lesson plans.
 

 You're still just arguing about the correctness of the material. I agree
 that this curriculum is stupid and misleading, but that doesn't explain why
 the WMF should care enough to make a statement, or even continue
 discussion, about it.

 *-- *
 *Tyler Romeo*
 Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016
 Major in Computer Science
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Planned school curriculum by MPAA

2013-09-25 Thread David Gerard
On 25 September 2013 20:23, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:

 From the message on the web site, the WMF is a nonprofit charitable
 organization dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and
 distribution of free, multilingual, educational content, and to providing
 the full content of these wiki-based projects to the public free of charge.
 Inside a California public school, the WMF should indeed have an interest
 in making sure that students using Wikipedia don't think to themselves that
 using such material is stealing and that someone is expecting to be
 paid.



Pretty much. It's in our direct interest that this not go ahead as planned.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Planned school curriculum by MPAA

2013-09-25 Thread Michael Snow

On 9/25/2013 11:33 AM, Andrew Lih wrote:

I'd be OK if they simply gave some space in the training materials to talk
about public domain, free licenses and fair use. That's not likely to
happen given who's in control of those lesson plans.
Because the program in question is intended for elementary schools, they 
claim that the children aren't ready to handle the level of nuance and 
abstract thought involved in those concepts. I might be willing to 
accept that objection, but it really should be taken a step farther. At 
that stage, most children aren't developmentally ready for the level of 
abstraction involved in copyright, period. Neither the things it forbids 
nor the things it allows.


A second-grader who wants to draw Buzz Lightyear, because that's her 
favorite cartoon character and she wants to be an astronaut, is never 
going to understand that Pixar owns the rights to that character and she 
can't do whatever she wants with it. (Honey, why don't you just put 
away the crayons and come play with your action figure instead?) (Yes, 
I know Grandma buys your artwork for a quarter so she can put it on her 
refrigerator, but you're not allowed to give her this one.) You can 
tell her what's allowed and what's not, and she may even comply, but 
there's no way she will understand the reasons, in her mind they will 
simply be rules that you made up.


That's a particularly good sign that the purpose of the materials is 
really propaganda and indoctrination. Regardless of whether the 
curriculum is suitably balanced, the concepts are beyond what's 
developmentally appropriate to be teaching at that level.


--Michael Snow

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Planned school curriculum by MPAA

2013-09-25 Thread James Alexander
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:

 You are right, that the lack of a national US chapter holds us back.

 The obvious solution is to create a new group: Committee of Wikipedian
 Parents Interested in Education, aka COWPIE


I feel like I'm obligated to make some kind of COWPIE/WALRUS related joke
here but I can't come up with one yet.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Planned school curriculum by MPAA

2013-09-25 Thread Kat Walsh
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 9:42 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

 http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/09/mpaa-school-propaganda/

[...]


 I suggest we see if WMF commenting, possibly in a blog post or
 similar, would help avert such anti-sharing foolishness


I doubt it would avert it, though pointing it out might at least draw
attention. I agree with the comment that it's a ridiculous idea to
introduce in elementary school (and I would be surprised if it did not
simply die on its own, along with many actual good ideas for curriculum
supplementation that simply can't be packed in to the school day).

Creative Commons now has a blog post up from Jane Park, criticizing the
program and pointing out the alternatives that exist:
https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/39781

(I am reminded of the clever If you don't talk to your children about
copyright, who will?, also available in bumper-sticker format:
http://questioncopyright.com/qco-stk-chld.html )

-Kat

-- 
Your donations keep Wikipedia free: https://donate.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Planned school curriculum by MPAA

2013-09-25 Thread geni
On 25 September 2013 19:33, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:

 It has something to do with countering falsehoods and educating folks about
 the full range of content rights.

 Their 2nd grade materials state:
 Property comes in many forms: when we buy a book, we own that book. It’s
 our property, but we don’t own the right to reproduce that book and then
 sell it or give it away. That’s stealing.

 Um, no. A Creative Commons SA book,


The course covers creative commons.


 a public domain work or expired
 copyright work can indeed be reproduced. And it's not stealing.


Varies. what can catch you out there is that it may be possible to
copyright typography (in the UK that copyright lasts for 20 years).



geni
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

[Wikimedia-l] Planned school curriculum by MPAA

2013-09-24 Thread David Gerard
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/09/mpaa-school-propaganda/

“This thinly disguised corporate propaganda is inaccurate and
inappropriate,” says Mitch Stoltz, an intellectual property attorney
with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who reviewed the material at
WIRED’s request.

“It suggests, falsely, that ideas are property and that building on
others’ ideas always requires permission,” Stoltz says. “The
overriding message of this curriculum is that students’ time should be
consumed not in creating but in worrying about their impact on
corporate profits.”


I suggest we see if WMF commenting, possibly in a blog post or
similar, would help avert such anti-sharing foolishness.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Planned school curriculum by MPAA

2013-09-24 Thread geni
On 24 September 2013 17:42, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

 http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/09/mpaa-school-propaganda/

 “This thinly disguised corporate propaganda is inaccurate and
 inappropriate,” says Mitch Stoltz, an intellectual property attorney
 with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who reviewed the material at
 WIRED’s request.

 “It suggests, falsely, that ideas are property and that building on
 others’ ideas always requires permission,” Stoltz says. “The
 overriding message of this curriculum is that students’ time should be
 consumed not in creating but in worrying about their impact on
 corporate profits.”


 I suggest we see if WMF commenting, possibly in a blog post or
 similar, would help avert such anti-sharing foolishness.


 - d.


Might not be a great idea
Its an improvement on previous attempts (to start with It doesn't appear to
violate the GFDL) and we would actually benefit from our uploaders having a
working knowledge of copyright. Knowing all the exceptions is something
best left to more experienced users.

-- 
geni
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe