Spartaz retired, another fair use casualty Options

[Bob Boy]

Spartaz has apparently retired over attacks on his decision on a deletion review.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=..._cannot_believe

It's sad, Spartaz was one of the good ones.

Wikipedia needs to get its shit together on use of other people's copyrighted work. Spartaz is just one of many to retire over this issue, and joins others like Durin, Black Kite, Abu badali, and more.

[michael]

He retired earlier, in December, but came back. At the time he cited that he was just really tired...this time it looks to be good, over another issue.

[LaraLove]

Spartaz has apparently retired over attacks on his decision on a deletion review.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=..._cannot_believe

It's sad, Spartaz was one of the good ones.

Wikipedia needs to get its shit together on use of other people's copyrighted work. Spartaz is just one of many to retire over this issue, and joins others like Durin, Black Kite, Abu badali, and more.

Another dramatic retirement. Shocking.

[Rootology]

So now we have a DW Cabal (Doctor Who) to go with the ID Cabal?

But this does suck.

[Bob Boy]

Spartaz has apparently retired over attacks on his decision on a deletion review.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=..._cannot_believe

It's sad, Spartaz was one of the good ones.

Wikipedia needs to get its shit together on use of other people's copyrighted work. Spartaz is just one of many to retire over this issue, and joins others like Durin, Black Kite, Abu badali, and more.

Another dramatic retirement. Shocking.

Well, taken by itself, I see your point. But people who enforce the copyright policy seem to be leaving faster than they are replaced. This so-called "pillar" is rapidly becoming a joke. I've taken a couple of quick scans through Requests for Adminship recently - people ask lots of questions about stuff like Verifiability and Neutrality, but I never see any questions about copyright. So people are promoted to admin that are basically astonishly ignorant of this pillar, which seems shocking to me.

[LaraLove]

Spartaz has apparently retired over attacks on his decision on a deletion review.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=..._cannot_believe

It's sad, Spartaz was one of the good ones.

Wikipedia needs to get its shit together on use of other people's copyrighted work. Spartaz is just one of many to retire over this issue, and joins others like Durin, Black Kite, Abu badali, and more.

Another dramatic retirement. Shocking.

Well, taken by itself, I see your point. But people who enforce the copyright policy seem to be leaving faster than they are replaced. This so-called "pillar" is rapidly becoming a joke. I've taken a couple of quick scans through Requests for Adminship recently - people ask lots of questions about stuff like Verifiability and Neutrality, but I never see any questions about copyright. So people are promoted to admin that are basically astonishly ignorant of this pillar, which seems shocking to me.

I worked with images quite a bit just before and for some time after gaining adminship. It does get annoying, which is why I stopped doing it. I'll probably get back into it at some point, but I just don't see the point in retiring over a task you can just stop doing. It's certainly sad to see good users go. But I guess the whole retire in protest thing is just worn out now.

[Cla68]

Spartaz has apparently retired over attacks on his decision on a deletion review.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=..._cannot_believe

It's sad, Spartaz was one of the good ones.

Wikipedia needs to get its shit together on use of other people's copyrighted work. Spartaz is just one of many to retire over this issue, and joins others like Durin, Black Kite, Abu badali, and more.

I've done my share of uploading copyrighted images under fair use rationale and many of them have been subsequently deleted, which I have accepted usually without comment or complaint. There is some ambiguity around the use of copyrighted images but I appreciate the editors who engage in the thankless task of trying to enforce the rules on it. It wouldn't surprise if Wikimedia someday gets sued over the use of a copyrighted image and in response orders all images with fair use tags be deleted immediately.

[prospero]

Spartaz has apparently retired over attacks on his decision on a deletion review.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=..._cannot_believe

It's sad, Spartaz was one of the good ones.

Wikipedia needs to get its shit together on use of other people's copyrighted work. Spartaz is just one of many to retire over this issue, and joins others like Durin, Black Kite, Abu badali, and more.

Another dramatic retirement. Shocking.

Well, taken by itself, I see your point. But people who enforce the copyright policy seem to be leaving faster than they are replaced. This so-called "pillar" is rapidly becoming a joke. I've taken a couple of quick scans through Requests for Adminship recently - people ask lots of questions about stuff like Verifiability and Neutrality, but I never see any questions about copyright. So people are promoted to admin that are basically astonishly ignorant of this pillar, which seems shocking to me.

I have to agree with LL. Black Kite left in a fit because people would not subscribe to the hard-line on opposing fair use as he saw it. I think it is necessary to clarify that there is a difference between the law, which most have no problems with, and hard-line GNU "freedom", which many do not fully subscribe to. IANAL, but I've asked around and one said there would be little merit for a case. For one thing, plaintiffs have to actually show they tried to remedy the problem first through contacting the foundation (AKA take-down notices). Secondly, as a non-profit, the foundation is not likely to have substantial assets to make a lawsuit worth the time or effort. Most infringement lawsuits seek to gain restitution from the direct profiting off the material, anyway. Since the people who do redistribute Wikipedia for profit already remove fair use, this is not a problem. The point is, most of this is a debate over ideological freedom versus inclusionism and/or DGAF. That's really what it comes down to and if some don't get their way, they take their ball and go home. So what if lists are decorated with fair use? So what if fair use is on user pages? It is silly squabbling over nothing that only results in some just rolling their eyes at the image specialist while it rubs others the wrong way. Like Laura says, retiring in protest is silly.

This post has been edited by prospero: Thu 10th July 2008, 10:51pm

[Alex]

Spartaz has apparently retired over attacks on his decision on a deletion review.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=..._cannot_believe

It's sad, Spartaz was one of the good ones.

Wikipedia needs to get its shit together on use of other people's copyrighted work. Spartaz is just one of many to retire over this issue, and joins others like Durin, Black Kite, Abu badali, and more.

Another dramatic retirement. Shocking.

Reminds me of this for some reason. Can't think why.

[KamrynMatika]

Spartaz has apparently retired over attacks on his decision on a deletion review.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=..._cannot_believe

It's sad, Spartaz was one of the good ones.

Wikipedia needs to get its shit together on use of other people's copyrighted work. Spartaz is just one of many to retire over this issue, and joins others like Durin, Black Kite, Abu badali, and more.

Another dramatic retirement. Shocking.

Reminds me of this for some reason. Can't think why.

Or this? (or this, to save you the effort)

[Alex]

Spartaz has apparently retired over attacks on his decision on a deletion review.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=..._cannot_believe

It's sad, Spartaz was one of the good ones.

Wikipedia needs to get its shit together on use of other people's copyrighted work. Spartaz is just one of many to retire over this issue, and joins others like Durin, Black Kite, Abu badali, and more.

Another dramatic retirement. Shocking.

Reminds me of this for some reason. Can't think why.

Or this? (or this, to save you the effort)

My point is, we've all (most of us) done it at some point, and the sarcasm wasn't necessary. Big deal. Yes, people "retire". Most people come back after realising it was a bad idea. Some never return, sadly. This essay on the subject is rather amusing.

This post has been edited by Alex: Thu 10th July 2008, 11:44pm

[jch]

Why doesn't Wikipedia just disable uploads completely?

Force all new uploads to Commons, and over time phase out old, non-free images in favor of free ones.

[Somey]

...Force all new uploads to Commons, and over time phase out old, non-free images in favor of free ones.

That would be too logical...?

You kind of get the impression that someone wants to do something with Wikipedia that could make a great deal of money for the someone in question, but that requires the removal of all fair-use images now rather than "later." I can't think of any other valid reason for the Big Hurry. The real downside of this is that they're making the whole concept of "fair use" out to be some sort of bad thing, which it most certainly isn't. Nearly all American educational institutions, at nearly all levels, get a great deal of benefit from it, as do churches, charities, and so on.

And can we really even say that they've (for all intents and purposes) eradicated "copyvio" commercial imagery from WP? I doubt it, but if they have, maybe the anti-fair-use effort is just the remnants of that earlier effort - carried on by people who can't think of anything else they can legitimately do over there.

[Giggy]

Why doesn't Wikipedia just disable uploads completely?

Force all new uploads to Commons, and over time phase out old, non-free images in favor of free ones.

It's a good idea that's not going to happen. 1) Commons would have to deal with all the EnWP crap that Black Kite (he left! ), Spartaz, etc. have been dealing with. With ~250 admins it'd have a tough time. 2) Some people just love their nonfree content.

This post has been edited by Giggy: Fri 11th July 2008, 7:13am

[guy]

Some sites have diasbled upload, like Wikinews.

[Kelly Martin]

Why doesn't Wikipedia just disable uploads completely?

Force all new uploads to Commons, and over time phase out old, non-free images in favor of free ones.

It's a good idea that's not going to happen. 1) Commons would have to deal with all the EnWP crap that Black Kite (he left! ), Spartaz, etc. have been dealing with. With ~250 admins it'd have a tough time. 2) Some people just love their nonfree content.

Indeed, whenever a midsized project has decided to disable uploads, it has created a strain on Commons; I remember that for both eswiki and itwiki. I can't imagine what it would be like if enwiki did it.

The only upside is that at least most of the Commons admins read and write English; it was quite a lot harder when much of the content was coming from people who did not have a language in common with most of the Commons admins.

[JoseClutch]

I've done my share of uploading copyrighted images under fair use rationale and many of them have been subsequently deleted, which I have accepted usually without comment or complaint. There is some ambiguity around the use of copyrighted images but I appreciate the editors who engage in the thankless task of trying to enforce the rules on it. It wouldn't surprise if Wikimedia someday gets sued over the use of a copyrighted image and in response orders all images with fair use tags be deleted immediately.

Indeed, no admins should be closing IfDs unless their goal is to become extremely unpopular. Any other motivation and they'll burn out fast.

[Sceptre]

I think Spartaz overreacted here. Sure, he made a bad judgement call, but if someone highlights it on AN, you don't quit Wikipedia. It makes you look bad, at best.

At the heart of this issue, my main problem is with the behaviour of anti-FU editors. We've learnt from Betacommand, Episodes and characters, and even Moulton that being right doesn't preclude being disruptive. There needs to be balance. Now, Black Kite was a pleasant user to converse with, but many anti-FU editors are not.

What most people don't realise is that the NFCC is only part of the EDP. The actual EDP is NFC, which transcludes NFCC as undisputable policy. Per NFC, screenshots (like the ones in infoboxes) may be used for critical commentary, so long as it increases the reader's understanding. Now, there are differing opinions on how this is applied, from a sentence or two to the entire article. My viewpoint is that I don't upload fair-use images myself unless at least a paragraph can be written about either the screenshot or the subject of the screenshot.

I can almost say that the increase in Doctor Who image deletions is my fault. It's a no-win situation - I couldn't've got articles to featured without following the infobox standard, but them being in the infobox would make them more susceptible to deletion.

So now we have a DW Cabal (Doctor Who) to go with the ID Cabal?

But this does suck.

If there was, I'd know about it. While Tony/Anticipation/Jenny, I, and Edokter normally have similar viewpoints, there are noticeable schisms and disputes within WPDW: most notably, the level of detail the continuity analysis sections in episode articles (Me and Jenny want it to be a minimum, Edokter is a bit more lenient).

Some sites have diasbled upload, like Wikinews.

Wikiquote too. I don't see why Wikiquote even needs images.

[prospero]

Why doesn't Wikipedia just disable uploads completely?

Force all new uploads to Commons, and over time phase out old, non-free images in favor of free ones.

It's a good idea that's not going to happen. 1) Commons would have to deal with all the EnWP crap that Black Kite (he left! ), Spartaz, etc. have been dealing with. With ~250 admins it'd have a tough time. 2) Some people just love their nonfree content.

Indeed, whenever a midsized project has decided to disable uploads, it has created a strain on Commons; I remember that for both eswiki and itwiki. I can't imagine what it would be like if enwiki did it.

The only upside is that at least most of the Commons admins read and write English; it was quite a lot harder when much of the content was coming from people who did not have a language in common with most of the Commons admins.

It appears that there are some malcontents on the Italian Wikipedia who are pushing for reinstating fair use and thus local image uploads.

[Poetlister]

Wikiquote too. I don't see why Wikiquote even needs images.

To humour Kalki and his crowd of "acolytes" who like garnishing articles with pretty but irrelevant images.