Wikinews:Water cooler/assistance/archives/2020/September


Why did Wikinews switch to the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License on September 25, 2005?--Kitabc12345 (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In order to encourage sharing the news with fewer restrictions. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Is that so? I was under the impression prior to CC BY, Wikinews used PD.
2401:4900:16AD:E178:6591:A25A:FD1B:9B78 (talk) 10:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, our very earliest articles were public-domain. Afaik, the point of a narrower license is to ensure that we get credit for our efforts (for the various reasons one would want that). I've not researched our discussion archives on the matter, though. --Pi zero (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer. --Kitabc12345 (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kitabc12345: Koavf is correct, I believe, as to why we chose a more permissive license than that used by the other projects: while an encyclopedia is typically just read in-place, news is mean to be very widely and quickly distributed. It's also important (come to think) to know where news comes from, because that tells you something about its reliability, and that is one of the major reasons why we would want our articles credited to us (along with directing more potential volunteers to our site). --Pi zero (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my recollection is that the goal was to make news-sharing as frictionless as possible to disseminate it quickly. It's good to have dreams. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I've seen it work quite well, though atm it really seems it could use a shot of WD-40. I have my eye on a possible source of some. --Pi zero (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
E.g.? —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't something new. Dialog-based semi-automated assistants (essay). Part of the premise behind my design strategy is that there are some worthwhile software applications that cannot be developed in a comercial environment exactly because the lead time is long and our economic system has gone complete insane toward short-term goals. --Pi zero (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I mean, "when have you seen anyone federating/reproducing/syndicating/etc. Wikinews as a method of keeping the public informed"? —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hm? Syndication happens sometimes. We don't go out of our way to track it. --Pi zero (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote (emphasis added) "Oh, I've seen it work quite well" in response to me writing "we licensed Wikinews so that it could be published easily", so I'm assuming you were saying, "I have seen others republish/rehost/etc. Wikinews very easily and it worked quite well" and then I asked for examples. Has licensing Wikinews in the way that it has been licensed actually lead to disseminating information any easier? I thought you were saying yes and had examples but maybe we're miscommunicating. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I guess I'd kind of drifted off the thread topic. As for syndication, yeah, several years ago there was an e-paper (I forget where, exactly; for some reason I'm thinking Canada) that we discovered was routinely syndicating all our science articles. --Pi zero (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I ask is because some templates need to be imported from Wikipedia because of the difference in copyright licenses between Wikinews and Wikipedia, and most templates require the permission of the original author to import Wikinews, but some templates are so old that the original authors of those templates have faded from Wikipedia, and there is usually more than one author. --Kitabc12345 (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kitabc12345: I look for cases where tool-copyright (templates, javascript) can simply be bypassed. Sufficiently simple templates simply won't reach the threshold of originality for copyright. Some templates can be rewritten. What templates do you have in mind? --Pi zero (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi zero: Thank you very much for your kindness, there was a need for this before, but there is no need for this now, thanks :D --Kitabc12345 (talk) 03:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use

I am the administrator of Chinese Wikinews and we are discussing the issue of fair use of uploads, I would like to ask what are the objections when fair use is enabled on English Wikinews?--Kitabc12345 (talk) 09:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kitabc12345: From what I understand (this too was before my time on the project), our Fair Use policy was thoroughly negotiated with Wikimedia Legal, and carries a particular restriction on it that we are not permitted to claim Fair Use on any image that is under copyright by a "competing news organization". Looking at the text of our policy, I see the "competing news organizations" restriction is also suggestively associated with the fact that our material is allowed to be used commercially (the significance of the choice of the 2.5 license). --Pi zero (talk) 12:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kitabc12345: It is my understanding a lot of sister projects do not allow Fair Use because using non-free images will weaken the overall agenda of making media available for free. But frankly, news organisations rely on Fair Use all the time -- without which, there is a degradation of the quality. FU is important for news.
•–• 06:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]