Jump to content

User talk:Jimbo Wales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 03:50, 22 June 2021 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 246) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    WMF bullying of Harej, Deskana, Anomie and Adamw

    Harej, Deskana, Anomie and Adamw have been bullied by their employer, the WMF. Former bureaucrat WJBscribe had already asked if Jimbo could offer assurances that this will be properly investigated before Deskana, Anomie and Adamw joined Harej in stepping forward. Jimbo, I understand you're a busy man - but a response could be really reassuring here. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Clearly I am unable to comment on specific personnel matters, particularly since I've not been informed in any way privately of any details beyond the statements that have been made publicly. I can offer assurances - which may not be as meaningful as you and I both might like - about the general principles of a proper investigation and resolution of any allegations of bullying is incredibly important and of course the right thing to do. I have a regular call with Amanda Keton (normally to discuss global public policy issues that regularly arise) and we briefly spoke about this on our last call, and it sounded to me like the WMF is on the case.
    Please do keep in mind that I do not work at the WMF, no employees report to me, and so in a very real sense I'm a community member hearing about this in the same way that you are. I promise to be a strong voice for our movement principles, as represented for example by our Universal Code of Conduct, and a strong voice for WMF being a great place to work, absolutely free of bully, harassment, and discrimination.
    As I say, it would be wrong of me to speak about specific personnel matters when I'm not informed enough to do so.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad you made this statement and I understand you can't comment on specifics. I also share Adamw and Deskana's view that an "appeal to Jimmy" shouldn't be the way to get this on the WMF's radar. But it's more or less all we've got? It feels like your talk page is the primary "in" for the community to make the WMF aware of something. Most of the WMF staff hardly ever responds to anything on-wiki, or if they do, they have no power to do anything. Hearing you say that you don't work for the WMF, no employees report to you and that you are more or less just another community member is a bit scary. Because it means that one "in" to draw the attention of the WMF was an illusion after all. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alexis Jazz: It would be highly inappropriate governance for the Wikimedia Foundation for any staff member to report to Jimmy or any other Board member. The Executive Director reports to the Board as a whole, and then all staff ladder up to the Executive Director. Also, Board members are almost never considered employees of the company they direct. The Board is supposed to handle strategic direction and vision, not individual cases like those reported here. There's nothing unusual about any of this. --Deskana (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Deskana, I was repeating the points Jimbo made, the more important one of those was him being "in a very real sense a community member hearing about this in the same way that you are". If Jimbo as a board member and founder can't put an item on the agenda and demand it doesn't get ignored, maybe no one can. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I can certainly get things on the agenda at board meetings - as can any board member. And of course I agree with everyone who has said "If the channel to get the attention of the WMF is discussion on Jimbo's talk page, then that's not good" - but that fortunately isn't true. I don't think there *is* a channel for "some community members are unhappy about a personnel matter that is between a staff member and their manager" but nor should there be, for the same reasons. That is not to say that there should not be appropriate mechanisms (HR department, whistleblower policies that are enforced correctly, etc.) for this sort of thing (there are, and as in every organization they should be constantly re-examined for potential improvements), just that a stir on talk pages isn't really a particularly ideal way to handle any of this. (That isn't a criticism of anyone or anything that has happened here - it's a comment about a desire for a better set of arrangements.)
    In this case, I wouldn't expect any board member to respond to any specific questions about a specific personnel matter, and I don't think community members really expect that either. It would be... unhealthy... to say the least.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be nice to see more two-way communication at WP:VPWMF, our official place for community-WMF discussion. (Clearly, that's not a place for discussion of individual former WMF employees' workplace experience). There may be some corporate culture issues preventing that page from working (who is authorised to speak and are these the same people that understand the issues?), something the Board could think about. —Kusma (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deskana: Other organizations sometimes have impartial ombudspeople that report directly to the board and circumvent the existing "chain of command" so to speak. While appealing to Jimbo here might be inappropriate, the general idea of wanting a neutral figure that can bypass the WMF structure in cases of harassment is a good one. In my opinion the WMF should consider having an organization ombudsperson (not the existing m:Ombuds commission but someone to deal with complaints from WMF employees) so these issues have a better way of being addressed in the future. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 07:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my case, a now-former WMF "Vice President" set up a meeting with me (a rank and file developer) and refused my polite request to share the topic or agenda for the meeting. When I came to this meeting, the now-former WMF Vice President of Human Relations was also in attendance, though unannounced. I was informed that an internal staff email I had written, pushing back against what I saw as excesses of management, was cause for putting a formal complaint on my personnel file. I had used the phrase "red herring" and was told my "tone" was too forceful. The HR manager also told me that a handful of messages we had exchanged, a (in my opinion) friendly discussion about the potential for reform and possible ways to accomplish it, where this manager encouraged my exploration, were in fact undesired and they implied this would be recorded in the complaint as well.
    Coincidentally, at the time I was also trying to organize a union with many other employees, and as the main breadwinner for two small children I felt it necessary to shield myself from further retribution by pointing to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and other protections for whistleblowers and labor organizers. Perhaps also a coincidence, my full-time pay was soon reduced by at least 65% for several months while I lived in Peru, although I made it clear that I would be returning to the San Francisco Bay and would need every penny of my projected savings to re-enter the housing market there. I do feel that "bullying" is the right word for what I experienced. I've kept detailed notes and hardcopies of the context and exchanges, which I'm happy to provide.
    However, Jimmy Wales was a key member of the group I was pushing against: the Wikimedia Foundation Board. He still sits on the Board and as far as I can tell there has been no significant reform of the antidemocratic structure which legitimizes this Board. I resent the patriarchal premise of this talk page, that contributors are left to beg the most famous of Wikipedia's founders to investigate already well-known issues, in his volunteer capacity, rather than having a proper democratic means of oversight. I don't see what good can be accomplished by having a conversation here, and I will not be reassured short of a really extraordinary statement. —Adamw (talk) 08:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds a lot like union busting. MarioGom (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Alexis Jazz: I wasn't bullied. My experience left a bad taste in my mouth but it was quite different from what Harej and Adamw have described. Unlike Adamw, I have no issues with Jimmy Wales or the board; I acknowledge Adamw's concerns as legitimate, and I don't personally share them, and that's fine. I personally have little interest in pursuing this further. I shared my experience with Harej so that he'd know he's not alone, not so that it could be turned into some kind of investigation at the board level. I agree with Adamw that that an "appeal to Jimmy" has a strangely patriarchal tone to it, and I agree with Jimmy that speaking to him about it isn't an appropriate way to address this and that it'd be inappropriate for him to comment on specific cases. So, in summary, I don't think it's helpful to lump our experiences together, and I don't think a conversation on this page is the right way to do this. --Deskana (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am baffled at how people who grew up in tiny Connecticut towns where 95% of the people are white and the median income is over $200,000. were ever picked to run the outfit ? I mean, wtf is going on with the management selection process? CONTEXTKID (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a very odd comment, I must say.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saying our last CEO had a background of Council on Foreign Relations,Wilton, Connecticut,Eurasia Group which seems to me to be a background much too tilted toward American political, generational, and privileged Establishment to have been picked to run perhaps the broadest and least classist entity in existence. An entity which would likely require lots of experience managing a wide range of personalities, especially difficult and esoteric personalities; not just the predictable, flag waving, blue blooded, American types. I'm blaming the selection process, not the person selected. CONTEXTKID (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That kind of attitude exposes a bias that is just as unwanted as any other bias. Where you worked before is not who you are and does not determine your suitability for a role (or not) or make you more likely to be a bully. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking as someone from another one of those Connecticut towns, a little further northeast (close enough that I'm within easy driving distance of Wilton), you seem like you'd be stunned if you met me in person before I told you that. People here are just as varied here as anywhere else, hardly all of us are stereotypical scions of wealth; I, for one, am from a comfortably upper-middle-class family, but you wouldn't confuse me with the Kennedy clan, since the Irish on my side was very much working class. It always amazes me that people who say such things about diversity seem willing to reduce us to some monolith. And if you think Connecticut, about the most ridiculously Democratic state in the country, is a bunch of flag-waving bible-thumpers, you should come here sometime. I've been to every town in this state, and the KKK doesn't have their operations in the "Gold Coast"; they hang out up in Shelton, and no one would confuse that, the gateway to the Valley, as the region of generational wealth around here. (We can be a bit laconic, but seriously, we're generally happy to have anyone out of state actually stay for a visit!) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocking

    Has a admin ever blocked you? TigerScientist Chat > contribs 18:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, a few times. see log here. A variety of cases: In error, jokes, once my account was compromised, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to have had a rough year in 2007, with a minor relapse in 2016, but happily you’ve become a model Wikipedian since then. Jehochman Talk 10:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't know, 75% of his edits are on talkpages... ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Jimmy was always a model Wikimedian (I'm saying this as this isn't my home wiki). Just the other admins aren't ;) SHB2000 (talk) 09:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    If Google can do it, why can't we?

    Per this statement:

    Can Google determine copyright ownership?

    No. Google isn’t able to mediate rights ownership disputes. When we receive a complete and valid takedown notice, we remove the content as the law requires. When we receive a valid counter notification we forward it to the person who requested the removal. If there is still a dispute it’s up to the parties involved to resolve the issue in court.

    WP has some qualified and unqualified but well-meaning volunteers who are making determinations as to what is or isn't a copyvio, and at times are removing legitimate images as copyvios or not fair use because they don't fully understand either, and that doesn't even scratch the surface for the many varieties of copyright/fair use laws in different countries. WP is an educational source which already protects us in many ways under fair use, so why are we not taking advantage of that in our project wikis like en.WP, de.WP, fr.WP, etc.? I can understand the repercussions that apply to Commons uploads but some of what is happening on en.WP is concerning. Why not make the uploader responsible, or is that already the case? Atsme 💬 📧 21:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Google is a search engine and by design and intent, its human curation is minimal. It links to web search query relevant websites with little regard to reliability or unreported copyright violations. If you go searching for unreliable garbage, Google will serve it up to you, within reason. Wikipedia has an explicit goal to create freely licensed text summarizing reliable sources, without copyright violations, curated by intelligent human beings, and made freely available to humanity in every significant human language. Both ventures are important and worthy, but their underlying principles are different. Attempting to apply Google's policies to Wikipedia just won't fly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Cullen. I get your point, but I'll just add that, technically, Google is a tad more involved than just being a search engine: Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that specializes in Internet-related services and products, which include online advertising technologies, a search engine, cloud computing, software, and hardware. OTH, the WMF, is an NPO (charitable foundation) that consists of several WikiProjects, sister projects, and of course Commons, "a media repository of free-use images, sounds, other media, and JSON files". I think it's safe to classify en.WP as an educational resource of sorts, and as such, it opens all kinds of doors to fair use. Of course, copyright laws and all other legal decisions remain with WMF attorneys, not WP contributors, few of whom are copyright experts. It's always better for us to err on the side of caution - I get that - however, I am somewhat concerned that, far too often, some editors tend to disproportionately give more value to the interests of for-profit businesses over the educational/historic value of fair use inclusion where applicable & very much needed, such as a biography or BLP that has no images. I admittedly get a little frustrated when creating or editing articles of historic/educational significance when they lack coverage, which is customary for notable women throughout history. When I get lucky and find the perfect image for an article, upload it as fair use, and then discover a half-hour later that it was deleted per CSD, despite it being legal fair use, it can be an incentive killer. WP bureaucracy, policy and rules are typically the culprit, and IAR only works when there's consensus. It makes no sense to me for us to have criteria in WP:NFCCP policy that contradicts the very reason we opt for fair use in the first place.

    WP's mission statement reads “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”. I get all the legal aspects and the why nots...but are we inadvertently empowering or engaging for-profit businesses to develop free or PD licensing if we are disportionately respecting the "original market role of the original copyrighted material", and not properly utilizing fair use? As a former professional in that industry, I was supportive of the protections but I have a much different perspective today that aligns more closely with education and history. I'm of the mind that some editors are simply working too hard at diluting our fair use options when the opposite should be true. Jimmy's an idea man, and I trust his judgment, so hopefully he can contribute some ideas to this discussion. Atsme 💬 📧 19:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we get the balance right. Fair use is important, and we both should and do rely on it in relevant cases. A canonical example would be the Pulitzer Prize winning photo we show in Elián González.
    But encouraging more use of fair use opens the door to a lot of nonsense, and closes the door to a strong incentive for people to create freely licensed content.
    I strongly support Wikipedia:NFCCP.
    But this is the sort of discussion that might be more informative all around if we were discussing specific examples.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree and hopefully will have something to share by tomorrow - stay tuned. Atsme 💬 📧 01:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect to the non-free content policy providing a "strong incentive for people to create freely licensed content", File:Olympia Dukakis still at Pride Parade, from film Olympia by Harry Marvomichalis.jpg is a good example. It was originally uploaded as non-free content but the copyright holder agreed to release it under a free license when its use as non-free content to was challenged. See this FFD entry for the discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jimmy, the above image works fine to demonstrate part of what raises my concerns, but there are many situations that are similar and some not so similar but with the same results. To begin, based on my experiences, the aforementioned image identified under Ticket#2021041810000446 would have been fine as a fair use image, would it not? WMF was protected legally; however, by not accepting it under a fair use license, an Otrs (now Vrt) volunteer obtained permission from the (possible) owner of the copyright under circumstances they did not/could not properly verify, and that is what concerns me because of potential liability resulting from licensing an image under a free license without actually verifying that the license came from the actual copyright holder. It affects all volunteers, because we do not have the ability, much less the legal knowledge to pursue a proper license under a substantial number of situations. We cannot provide positive identification in various situations that the emails actually came from the copyright owners - we simply AGF. Our forms are not Adobe sign E-signatures. In the first example, the email address did not originate from a person's or authorized agent's identifiable email address, rather it came from a wide-ranging info@[whatever url.com] address, so anybody (including those without authority within the business or organization) could have sent us the free use form. Does that put the WMF in a precarious situation, and/or the volunteer who accepted the email and tagged the image with a free license that possibly should have remained "fair use"? That is one of the concerns that I would like to get cleared-up, if possible, and I hope it's not an issue but if that is the case, then I point to my original question in this thread.

      Another situation involves potential misunderstandings by good faith volunteers relative to wire services, and the fact that wire services don't automatically own copyrights of material they distribute when acting as a PR wire service. See the following sequence of events that created a substantial time sink - and I am not saying any of it was acted out in bad faith. In fact, I believe the opposite is true. One of the involved editors Whpq provided the first example above, another is an admin Fastily who did everything exactly as they should have and is an admin whose judgment I respect and trust, and two other contributors, Clindberg and Marchjuly who I would collaborate with in a heartbeat, despite my concerns of disproportionate respect for wire services et al (based on the policy you support, Jimmy) vs fair use that contributes to the stated mission of the project. I am not here to complain rather I just want your input for guidance, so please do not misunderstand my intentions. I truly do appreciate the diligence and reserve of the aforementioned thoughtful editors, but we need a more efficient system. Following is a chronological sequence of events to demonstrate the time sink for all of us:

    1. Original question after a file was tagged for CSD.
    2. Challenge and discussion
    3. Commons Village Pump discussion

    It's all relative to the following:
    1. Stanford
    2. Cornell

    Complex copyright laws that most volunteers do not fully understand (and are not expected to because we're not lawyers), including editors who are far less experienced in such situations or perhaps lack professional familiarity with relative copyright processes, are typically at the root of the issues. I do not claim infallibility because one law in particular that causes confusion is this one 1926-1977 that resulted in the Commons license PD-US-defective notice tag, not to mention all the variables that it entails. Not unlike other editors, I take my work seriously, and when an image I've uploaded under fair use is deleted within 20 minutes of the upload I am motivated to question it from both an en.WP and Commons perspective. I'm of the mind something needs to change to make the process more efficient in light of what I have presented above. I have also seen situations that have cost the project historic images, or useful images in general - it happens all the time. It is always better to err on the side of caution, but I'd rather not see hair-trigger deletions of historic images resulting from over-compensation or disproportionate protection under the misinterpretation that wire services own the copyrights to everything they distribute. But again, that's just one of several issues that I believe can be made to be far more efficient, but because of the potential liability to WMF, it may (or may not) be something for legal to consider. Atsme 💬 📧 18:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I was pinged in the above post, I guess it's OK to comment. I don't think I've ever actually posted anything here on this user talk page. It is a bit intimidating to be honest, but here I go anyway. The terms "fair use" and "non-free content" are used interchangeably on Wikipedia by many editors and even in some templates/notifications related to non-free content use created by the community, but they're not really the same thing when it comes to non-free file use on Wikipedia as explained here and here. I think it’s important to keep this in mind when discussing this kind of thing. So, while Astme might have uploaded a file in accordance with fair use, the disagreement was over whether the file was uploaded in accordance relevant Wikipedia policy. I don’t have firsthand knowledge as to why Wikipedia's policy was set up to be more restrictive than fair use (there are probably discussions buried in the WT:NFCC archives), but it was. So, relevant Wikipedia policy requires more than fair use, and a non-free file needs to meet all ten of the criteria listed here for it to be considered OK to use. When an editor has concerns over whether these criteria are being met, they may tag, prod or even nominate the file for deletion/discussion. An administrator review almost always takes place before any file is deleted and any deletion of a file can be challenged after the fact per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. That is my understanding of how things are supposed to work.
    So, Atsme uploaded a file as non-free content and added it to an article. Another editor (Whpq) came across the file and found what he believed was an issue and tagged the file for speedy deletion, and administrator (Fastily) reviewed the tag, felt that it was appropriate, and then deleted the file. The speed by which the file was deleted might seem to be too fast, but I've seen other pages and articles deleted just as fast if not even faster after they've been tagged for speedy deletion by someone. I've also seen pages speedily deleted by administrators without any tagging, warning or notification. Anyway, the file was deleted and Atsme posted a query on Whpq's user talk page about it that began with Are you auto tagging?. There were probably lots of other ways to to ask about the file than one which might be seen as an accusation of WP:MEATBOT, but Whpq explained why he tagged the file, and I commented on what I thought the issues were.
    The file was restored by Fastily, who started a discussion about it at FFD (the link to that discussion is provided above by Atsme) where further discussion takes place. At this stage the file was still licensed as non-free content which meant that the discussion was about whether the file met all ten criteria. A couple more editors participated in the discussion and you can read what they wrote yourself. That discussion was closed after Atsme, based on some new things she learned about the file, uploaded the file to Commons as "PD-ineligible-no notice" and requested that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The only problem I have with any part of that FFD discussion is this Based on some of the delete arguments, I am now wondering if other legitimate images have been deleted based on the same or similar reasons - and I must say that it is not a good sign when we're trying to build an encyclopedia. Collaboration/inclusion is key to building whereas resistance/deletion for no valid reason is quite the opposite. comment made by Atsme in one of her later posts in the discussion which like the Are you auto tagging? comment above seems to imply that others were automatically wrong just for disagreeing with her assessment. It's not only that they were wrong this time, but possibly on prior occasions as well. There have been lots of FFD discussions over the years; many ended up with a consensus to delete or remove, and many ended up with a consensus to keep or relicense. Atsme is more than welcome to dig through the FFD archives looking for files which she believes were incorrectly deleted due to "wrong" WP:!VOTEs being made. She can then seek to have the files restored based upon CLOSECHALLENGE.
    The FFD discussion was ended when Atsme decided that the file was actually PD and uploaded it to Commons. I didn't agree with that assessment; so, I started a discussion about it on Commons. I didn't nominate the file for deletion, but rather started a discussion about it. Another editor responded to my query and expressed similar concerns. Atsme's first post in that discussion included the sentence I already explained in detail at the FfD that those images are PD. The links you provided are capitalizing on PD photos. The email correspondence I received from newspapers.com in response to my query to them about their copyright clearly states, and I quote (my bold text): "Our Newspaper.com Basic subscription only covers non-copyrighted content on the site." I don't understand why you followed me here to Commons to beat a dead horse. which once again seems to automatically assume that she was right and those disagreeing with her were wrong. Another editor (who is a Commons administrator, a Wikipedia administrator, and a VRT volunteer) subsequently posted his concerns about whether the file is really PD; so, it's not like just one person was expressing concerns about the file's licensing. The rest of the discussion is there for anyone to see (the link is provided above by Atsme) . Eventually, things were resolved when Atsme was further able to clarify the provenance of the file. She apparently was working on tracking down the real source of the photo while all of the aforementioned discussions were taking place. It probably would've been helpful at the time to know she was making such efforts and most likely everyone disagreeing with her would've been happy to wait until the VRT team could resolve the matter.
    In my opinion, I don't think the process failed. A file was uploaded, concerns were raised, discussion ensued, and things were eventually resolved. There was a lot of disagreement along the way, but things ended up being resolved. I imagine that the same thing happens quite a lot in all type of WP:XFD discussions. Is Wikipedia's non-free content use policy too restrictive? I don't think so, but there are plenty of editors who feel strongly that it is. So, maybe the time has come to have another discussion about such a thing at WT:NFCC. If the policy as a whole is OK in principle, but rather some of the individual ten criteria need some reassessing or even possible need to be dropped altogether, then that's fine too. Once again, though that seems to be a discussion better suited for at WT:NFCC than on any one editor's user talk page. A consensus can change over time, but it should be changed the right way.
    FWIW, I personally think things would be much easier if the WMF and its copyright experts stepped in and took over non-free content assessment on Wikipedia. There are almost 900,000 files currently uploaded locally to Wikipedia and my guess is that the vast majority of these are non-free. That's with the current non-free content use policy having been in effect all of these years. So, if the consensus turns out to make this policy less restrictive (which is fine if that's what the community wants), then I think it would be reasonable to expect that the number of non-free files uploaded will explode in a relatively short period of time. However, unless someone is going to start trying to track down US copyright lawyers who are also Wikipedia editors and convince them to start participating in FFD discussions and assessing non-free content use, it's going to be left to discussions involving volunteer editors. If part of the problem is, as Atsme posts above, that these volunteer editors include those editors who are far less experienced in such situations or perhaps lack professional familiarity with relative copyright processes, are typically at the root of the issues., then maybe only "copyright experts" should be allowed to participate in such discussions. Moreover, maybe if all non-free files were be vetted by a group of "copyright experts" before they're allowed to be used, then there would be problems to try and sort out later on. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted quite a bit of wall of text above and my apologies for that. If people don't want to wade through it all, then I completely understand. I think it's important, however, to figure out what (if anything) is wrong with current Wikipedia policy and then perhaps what to do about it. The best place to do that would be at WT:NFCC, but I think the relevant question that needs to be answered before anything else is tacked is "What should Wikipedia policy on the use of copyrighted content be, total fair use or limited fair use?". If the community as a whole is unable to agree upon that, then trying to figure everything else out seems pointless. The current policy seems to reflect a "limited fair use" approach and although that might've have worked fairly well up to now, maybe it's time to reassess and figure out if its the best thing moving forward. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with a lot of what Marchjuly said, except for the bit about WMF getting involved, which I think won't happen for lots of reasons. Atsme, lots of people get upset when files they upload get deleted or nearly deleted, particularly if the file required a lot of effort to get and appears to get deleted after a few mouse clicks. But I think it important to see the process too from the POV of those admins and volunteers who review images for deletion and an awful lot of images are deleted for good reason. Most people have not the first clue about copyright but upload stuff anyway. I think your argument for just trusting the uploader would be less instantly dismissible if your example wasn't one where your upload under the non-free criteria was so quite obviously wrong. In one sense you are right, the uploader is legally responsible for what they upload, and the community isn't legally responsible. But the community believes that our free content mission requires community review of content to ensure to our best ability that it is freely reusable. It isn't perfect but then neither are we all professional writers and that doesn't seem to stop us trying.
    You ask if Google can do it then why can't we? But a Google approach would require Wikipedia to say "Wikipedia is not free content. You can't just freely reuse it. Most of the content here was likely just copy-pasted off some other part of the internet, and its owners haven't got round to sending us a Take Down notice. Our volunteers are deluded and clueless. They think they are creating a free resource. But a lot of it isn't. We don't know which bits. We haven't even looked. Honestly, if you are looking for a picture to use, go to a stock photo agency. Photos cost pennies these days, so why risk it?". -- Colin°Talk 07:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I happen to be one of those volunteers as a member of VRT (previously referred to as OTRS agents), so you're preaching to the choir, and I would very much appreciate it if your responses would be less condescending, intentional or otherwise. I've long since learned that flat-out calling someone wrong has contributed to a dwindling crow population. I believe Commons should more strictly adhere to copyright law and reject fair use as we're doing now but en.WP should be less strict and more open to accepting fair use images for our articles. I am very much up to speed on licensing and what copyright entails, not only because of my work on WP, but because of my RL professional/first-hand experiences. I initially posted to Jimmy's TP for his input, although I also appreciate input from others who are knowledgeable about copyright and fair use as I work to gather information/thoughts/ideas for a potential WP:VRT presentation during Wikimania. Jimmy requested examples of cases which I provided with respect and consideration for the editors I mentioned (and courteously pinged them), and I would appreciate the same consideration in return. My current focus is on the degree of risk and liability on behalf of volunteers and WMF relative to their extent of involvement in determining what is or isn't copyright infringement or fair use in instances where we actually have no means of verifying that a person/entity actually does own the copyright. I tend to liken the depth of involvement in making such a determination to be on parallel with the risks involved when a homeowner hangs a "Beware of dog" sign on their yard fence, and their dog bites the meter reader. IOW, WP editors/WMF are assuming responsibility when making such determinations, all with good intentions in an effort to protect the copyright holder (thus, the dog owner taking the extra step to hang a sign to protect innocent people from being bitten by their dog). By taking on such a responsibility, are we admitting that there may be a copyright issue? Does that open the door to liability if we tag an image under a free use license only to later discover that the license submitted was an incorrect license and not free use after all? What happens then? Who takes responsibility for having accepted the free license? I'm of the mind that a fair use license provides a bit more protection for volunteers & WMF, especially in dubious or questionable situations wherein we cannot verify the person who submitted the license as being the copyright holder. Perhaps Commons should adopt an e-sign process to replace the OTRS release generator? On en.WP, our first consideration should be on improving articles and providing our readers with the kind of information they need to better understand what is presented - and pictures speak a thousand words - but the current process sometimes fails us when a CSD nom made unwittingly by a volunteer results in the deletion of a fair use image. That doesn't even count the back and forth discussions after a file is deleted and what transpires afterward, or the time sink it creates for volunteers. Efficiency, accuracy and making good judgement are important to building an encyclopedia, and that is pretty much the crux of my concerns. Atsme 💬 📧 19:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Atsme, your opening post: "WP has some qualified and unqualified but well-meaning volunteers who are making determinations as to what is or isn't a copyvio, and at times are removing legitimate images as copyvios or not fair use because they don't fully understand either" (my bold). I would suggest heeding some of your own advice about "flat-out calling someone wrong". The other editors at those discussions seem to understand both fair use law and Wikipedia's non-free content policy. Uploading an image that didn't meet policy suggests you didn't understand the latter, are unhappy about what you learned, and now would like it changed. I'm not sure what alternative explanation there might be except that perhaps you fully understood our non-free image policy but uploaded an image you knew would be deleted in order to make a point. You don't seem to be arguing the policy is unclear or that your image was an edge case. Your post here is to change that policy and, apparently, be more like Google. The others in the linked discussions managed to avoid personal attacks, whereas your approach both then and now is to claim you alone are right, extremely knowledgable, and yet surrounded by idiots who just don't understand.
    Your rational for changing policy -- "some editors tend to disproportionately give more value to the interests of for-profit businesses over the educational/historic value of fair use inclusion where applicable & very much needed, such as a biography or BLP that has no images." -- isn't particularly original. When it comes down to "very much needed", I'll side with the press photographer who takes photos for a living and has to pay their mortgage and feed their kids, over "My Wikipedia biography article has no lead image".
    But I very very much hear your condescending "I was talking to Jimmy, actually" message, so, you know, unwatching. -- Colin°Talk
    (edit conflict) I'm not sure I get what you mean by but the current process sometimes fails us when a CSD nom made unwittingly by a volunteer results in the deletion of a fair use image.. Obviously, it's in reference to the initial tagging of the file by Whpq and again implies that he did something wrong even though you don't you don't flatly come out and say he did. What should he have done differently? Should he have done nothing at all? He tagged the file for speedy deletion because he thought it didn't meet WP:NFCC#2 of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and thus was eligible for speedy deletion per WP:F7; he didn't tag the file for being in violation of fair use. You originally uploaded the file with this non-free use rationale which gives its source as "Associated Press International"; that's the information Whpq was working on when he assessed the file. For the sake of argument, let assume that Whpq did make some error and tagged a file for speedy deletion that shouldn't have been tagged; maybe he was just "auto tagging" files without giving them any thought to them like you seem to suggest in your original post on his user talk. OK, so now there's still just a incorrectly tagged file awaiting administrator review and nothing has been deleted yet. Fastily who is an administrator and also is a VRT volunteer reviews the tag and deletes the file. He then posts this on Whpq's user talk page stating that he felt the tagging and deletion of the file were correct, which it my book means that Whpq did nothing wrong. You posted an admin Fastily who did everything exactly as they should have and is an admin whose judgment I respect and trust above which seems to mean that Fastily should've deleted the file. Is that correct?
    Fastily did subsequently restore the file so that further discussion about it could take place on FFD where it was better to do so. So, the discussion moved to FFD and continued to discuss the non-free use of the file. Fastily started the discussion and didn't !vote. I, Whpq and you pretty much restated what we posted on Whpq's user talk page, two new editors showed up mainly to discuss the possibility of the file being within the public domain (they didn't really !vote either way on what should be done with the file). It's possible that some more editors would've commented on the file if the discussion had remained opened, but you uploaded the file to Commons as PD and then requested that local non-free file be deleted. I'm assuming that's where you think the discussion should've stopped, but I didn't agree with your assessment that the file was PD; so, I asked about it at COM:VPC.
    Some other editor's commented at Commons that they also had concerns as to whether the file was PD for the reasons you were claiming; one of them is a Commons administrator, a Wikipedia administrator and also a VRT volunteer. More discussion ensued, but that pretty much stopped as soon as you posted that you had clarified the original source of the file. Nobody was criticizing you throughout any of this, they were disagreeing with you over first your claim that the file met the WP:NFCCP and then your claim that the file was PD; moreover, once you clarified the original source of the file, everyone pretty much backed off and thanked you for your efforts.
    Near the end of the Commons discussion, you posted Over the past week, I have been in correspondence with an executive and his assistant at Santa Anita Park, and just today received copies of the original photographs that were taken by the track's staff photographer at the time. I'm not sure what over the past week exactly means, but you made the comment June 19 (per my time zone). When did you start discussing things with the race track? Was it part of your research of the file before you uploaded it as non-free content? You newspapers.com about the photo so maybe you also contacted the track at roughly the same time. Did you try and contact them after the file was deleted the first time? Whpq tagged the file for speedy deletion on June 17 (again per my time zone) and the ensuing discussions about it took place over the next two days. Were you discussing things with the track while all of this was taking place? Why didn't you let any of the others involved know you were in contact with the track? Perhaps, if you did that, then the time sink you're unhappy about might've been mitigated. It wasn't only myself and Whpq who were disagreeing with you, but also others including administrators and VRT volunteers; so, at some point, if Whpq and myself were completely wrong and wasting everyone's time, then one of those others would've or should've said so.
    Anyway, moving forward, it's not clear how we should proceed. If you feel actual changes to the policy are necessary, then you can propose them at WT:NFCC. If you want complete "fair use", then propose so; if you want a lesser degree of "limited fair use", then propose that. If you feel that non-free content review and assessment should be left to VRT volunteers and administrators and perhaps those who have RL experience in the matter like you do, then you can propose that as well. I'm not sure how often frequent FFD, but if you feel you can help make things better there by making sure nobody !votes incorrectly, then please do so. There are always lots of files being discussed and not lots of editors discussing them. If we all mucked things up this time around, then perhaps through your efforts something similar can be avoided in the future. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Enrique Tarrio article... propaganda photos allowable on Wikipedia?

    Hi, Jimbo. At the Enrique Tarrio article, there's a discussion I started called "Propaganda image must go" regarding the lead image used by that article. I claim that image is clearly propaganda intended to show the subject in a positive way and therefore violates our NPOV content policy. Other editors, and I'll paraphrase here, have opposed my objection along the lines of "doesn't matter, this image is high resolution and shows his face" or the more challenging line of "that's just your interpretation that it's propaganda and therefore it stays" (not noticing that their view also entails interpretation).

    This is not the first case where I've seen ultra high quality posed images uploaded by close connections to a subject in a way to clearly try to manage and influence their public reputation... usually to portray somebody disreputable in a positive light. I've brought this here directly because this is a very high level topic. How do you see NPOV and its applicability to images? If NPOV applies to images, how can it be enforced when editors seem very willing to ignore these violations. In particular, what's your opinion on this particular photo? Does or should it violate NPOV? Is this kind of image what we want to encourage on Wikipedia? Jason Quinn (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've read the discussion with great interest. I very much agree with those who are arguing that us deciding "this is someone we don't like" and then making sure the photo is not too positive is very much the wrong approach for us.
    At the same time, I have to say that many people in the discussion accepted the core premise that this is an appealing photo that portrays him in a positive light. I think he looks ominous in the photo, and the particular flag behind him is one which has been used to symbolize far-right ideas: [[1]]. If he wanted to look patriotic, he might have used the contemporary American flag. But in current discourse it's a way to be oppositional to Colin Kaepernick and the Black Lives Matters movement. I therefore think that the picture is illustrative of who he is and the role he apparently seeks to play in society.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    OTRS image decision appeal

    I know, you don't overrule things any more. But in the spirit of WP:IAR, I need to try. I'm writing an article about an actress (also game inventor, TV producer, singer, author ... yeah, she's impressive ... but actress is the important part here). I wrote her and asked if she would release some photos under a free use license. She did, she sent in half a dozen head shots with a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike release. (They're gorgeous. For example:

    ). Head shots are images that actors use to apply for jobs, they mail them in to shows to get auditions, owning the right to reproduce them in the hundreds or more is the whole point. If she had put them up on her website with a statement that she owns the rights to them and releases them under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike, we would be accepting that without batting an eye. But I said she could also email them with that statement to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, per the OTRS form. OTRS says they accept her identity, but won't accept her word, she needs to produce the contract for the images. The images are 30 years old. The photo studios she had them taken have closed. Who of us keeps paperwork for a relatively minor purchase for 30 years? If she had put the statement up on her website, we'd have accepted it; but because she emailed it, we won't? Can we ignore some unreasonable rules to clearly benefit the Encyclopedia here? --GRuban (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=1029804544"