- User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Per Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." This MFD discussion was incorrectly closed as "no consensus", despite the fact that it was clearly established that User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses violates Wikimedia Foundation policy regarding non-free content. Summary of argument:
- (1) I initially requested the deletion of User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses on the grounds that it violated WP:NFCC#9, which prohibits non-free content in userspace.
- (2) Milomedes argued that WP:NFCC#9 was inapplicable to text. What portion of the policy is applicable to text, according to him? Only the statement that "Articles may in accordance with the guideline use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author." So, according to Milomedes, WP:NFCC imposes no limitation on non-free text in userspace at all.
- (3) My response was threefold:
- (a) As the express stated purpose of WP:NFCC is to "[limit] the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law", Milomedes' construction of WP:NFCC as permitting any use of non-free text that isn't an actual copyright violation in userspace is inconsistent with the intent of the policy.
- (b) The "Other non-free content" to which the numbered non-free content criteria apply includes non-free text in userspace, since the term "other" is used in relation to "brief verbatim textual excerpts" in "articles".
- (c) Even assuming, arguendo, that WP:NFCC does not specifically discuss non-free text in userspace, silence in this context is prohibitory, since, per wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, non-free content is only permitted as expressly allowed by projects' EDPs, which, for our purposes, is WP:NFCC
- (4) Milomedes' response to (c) was a claim that non-free text is not considered to be "uploaded" within the meaning of wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. Thus ensued a discussion concerning the construction of the term "upload" as used in the context of the Foundation resolution. I now regard the precise interpretation of "upload" as moot, since wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy applies to "content", whose meaning clearly includes text, not "uploads" or "media": provision 1 states that "All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License..." If there were any intent to exempt text from the application of the Resolution, it would state "All projects are expected to host only media which is under a Free Content License...", or otherwise clearly indicate the exception. The subsequent references to media in the policy do not render provisions 1, 2, and 3 inapplicable to text.
As User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses is in violation of wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, its continued retention endangers Wikipedia's self-governance. An issue of this magnitude cannot be properly resolved with "no consensus". Erik9 (talk) 03:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Erik9's reasoning 100%, and as I stated, I felt policy to be very clear. I did not count heads, and I did not count heads then, either. So when I made the closure the first time, too many people disagreed for my comfort. Enough people are dead convinced that an argument based out of US law despite Wikimedia law that it's actually meaningful, since consensus is the vox populi so to speak. With a more non-ambiguous situation like an image, we could easily get almost all of the people agreeing or disagreeing, since it's spelled out. However, as we learned from this MfD, it is not spelled out for whatever reason. Obviously for me to vote "endorse closure" is dumb, but before we subject more of these kinds of pages to deletion discussions, the situation must be clarified since enough experienced Wikipedians are defending the page. @harej 03:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When administrators retain non-free content that clearly violates Wikimedia Foundation policy because "too many people disagreed for my comfort", it's a dark day for Wikipedia. Administrators are expected to enforce WP:NFCC and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy to the best of their abilities, irrespective of the number of anti-policy arguments advanced, or the number of editors articulating them. Please don't do this again. Erik9 (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a consensus on the policy but not a consensus on this special case which appears to be unique somehow. I'd like to know myself why this is considered to be an exception (aside from the reasons already articulated, of course). @harej 03:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no "userspace loophole" for non-free content. Claims that you can have as much non-free text in your userspace as you want, subject only to legal limitations on fair use, are absurd, unsupported by policy, and purely smoke and mirrors. Erik9 (talk) 03:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, statements like "I did not count heads, and I did not count heads then, either. So when I made the closure the first time, too many people disagreed for my comfort. Enough people are dead convinced..." may easily be construed as self-contradictory. Erik9 (talk) 03:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. There was nothing out of process about this decision, which is what DRV is meant to address. DRV is not AFD part 2. UnitAnode 03:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean MFD part 2. :P @harej 03:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So, um, you consider the fact that the discussion had run for an adequate period of time, and that an administrator closed it, to reflect adherence to our deletion process, irrespective of the substantive incorrectness of the action taken? Erik9 (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There was nothing out of process about how it was closed. Disagreeing with a "no consensus" close isn't enough to overturn it. You have a particular point of view about how the policy should be applied in re:Jack's userpage. Other's disagreed. This isn't MFD part 2 (Thanks for that, Harej). UnitAnode 03:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At the risk of being repetitive, per Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." An MFD closure which is grossly contrary to policy, such as WP:NFCC and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, is unacceptable. Erik9 (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At the risk of being repetitive, this is not MFD part 2. It is your opinion that Jack's userpage is "grossly contray to policy." I'm not going to reargue the MFD with you. I've endorsed the close as within guidelines for admins closing MFDs. That's all I have to say about it. UnitAnode 03:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per our deletion guidelines, XFD closures require substantive evaluation of the merits of the arguments advanced, which appears to have been missing here. Erik9 (talk) 03:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec)Agreed, but it is also not determined by admins choosing what they think is best. The closing admin felt that both sides had good arguments and that consensus was not reached. His/her closure was perfectly reasonable. And the "too many people disagreed for my comfort." merely reflects the fact that the admin is human. - Drew Smith What I've done 03:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec again)and for the record, endorse. - Drew Smith What I've done 03:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue in a nutshell: is a good-faith belief by "The closing admin... that both sides had good arguments" enough, or is the question of whether "both sides had good arguments" subject to review here? I would argue for the latter, so that we are not at the mercy of bad closures merely because the closing administrator genuinely believes that he's doing the right thing. Erik9 (talk) 04:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, we generally expect the judgments of administrators and the community regarding the merits of arguments to coincide; however, even an administrator with a overall favorable record of XFD closures might be wrong in a particular case. Erik9 (talk) 04:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<--- "whether "both sides had good arguments" subject to review here" Thats where you're wrong. That would be MfD 2, not DRV. In light of that, I propose this DRV be closed as "wrong forum" or some such. - Drew Smith What I've done 04:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't accept that the evaluation of arguments an administrator performs in closing an XFD discussion is unreviewable -- administrators don't have such a level of autocratic authority. Deletion review may properly consider the substantive basis on which discussions were closed (and would have very little activity if it couldn't.) Erik9 (talk) 04:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats not what any of us are saying. All we're trying to say is that this isn't the place for it. Go to MFD and try get more (neutral) people to look at it this time around. - Drew Smith What I've done 04:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To renominate the user subpage for deletion, immediately after the closure of a previous MFD discussion, with no intervening changes of policy or other material facts would likely be seen as highly disruptive. Substantive review of XFDs shouldn't be shirked because "you can just keep renominating it until it gets deleted." Incidentally, though not relevant to the present case, your position makes it absolutely impossible for the community to restore a previously deleted article or other page when consensus changes, since deletion review would confined to the question of narrowly construed procedural correctness in closing the initial XFD. Erik9 (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Eric about the mechanics of the process here... this DRV is appropriate and should be run to its conclusion. Taking this matter back to MfD, absent time passing or some policy change/clarification, would not likely result in a different outcome and would be pointless. ++Lar: t/c 06:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse no consensus close. The substance of Erik's argument here, as I understand it, is that this particular passage of text is so large that the de facto exemption from the en:wp NFCC (which exempts one or two line quotations) and the underlying EDP does not apply, and thus the normal consensus process does not apply either, that the closing admin erred in not summarily ruling in favor of deletion despite the lack of consensus. Erik has not conclusively demonstrated that to be the case. (it takes an extraordinary consensus, or extraordinarily clear cut and unambiguous policy statements, to agree not to use consensus) The next step here is to run an RfC to ask the community to clarify policy in this area, and then armed with a new, clarified and more precise policy, run the MfD again. If the community fails to come to consensus on this matter and fails to produce additional precision in the NFCC, that would be that, absent the WMF board itself stepping in to impose clarity by fiat, since Mike Godwin has apparently declined to do so. ++Lar: t/c 06:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies then. I was under the impression that only deleted artciles, and non-deleted articles that where wrongly closed were DRV'd. That is the way the DRV page sounds to me, and probably others as well, so we may want to change the wording. - Drew Smith What I've done 07:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since policy represents far a broader consensus than a particular XFD discussion, such discussions should be closed in a manner consistent with policy, unless there is a consensus to do otherwise. "the de facto exemption from the en:wp NFCC (which exempts one or two line quotations) and the underlying EDP" is not policy, and does not, in any case, affect the application of WP:NFCC and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy to issues not squarely within its remit, such as 617 words of non-free text in userspace. As there was no consensus not to delete the non-free content as mandated by WP:NFCC and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, the policies should be upheld. Erik9 (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You see this as clear cut, as a case where fiat-ed policy handed down from the WMF overrides, but others don't. You haven't shown that "the de facto exemption from the en:wp NFCC (which exempts one or two line quotations)" isn't policy. Policy at en:wp is what we do, not what's written down, so in fact, it IS policy, and you have tacitly admitted it is. When what's written down lags, we fix it to match what we do. Until it's clear cut, and everyone agrees it is clear cut, you can't ask for a summary judgment this way. Get the RfC going so that it DOES become clear cut. That would be a good place to invest energy instead of rearguing the MfD. Once you do, you'll find me arguing there that the defacto exemption for one or two line quotes should be made official, and that quotes this large should be disallowed, by policy.++Lar: t/c 19:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming, arguendo, that "the de facto exemption from the en:wp NFCC (which exempts one or two line quotations)" is policy whose meaning is elucidated by common practice, then the meaning of the "exemption" can be ascertained with reasonable precision by reference to common practice: as no evidence has been offered that we have ever permitted quotations anywhere near as large as 617 words of non-free content in userspace, the "exemption" may reasonably be construed as being restricted to cases with respect to which evidence of common practice was submitted: "one or two line quotations", and is thus inapplicable to Jack Merridew's 617 words of non-free text. You seem to be arguing that the "exemption" has some characteristics of policy, but not others: it's policy, to the extent that it effectually modifies the written policy at WP:NFCC and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, but it's not policy, insofar as its dim and uncertain contours prevent its precise meaning from being determined. I don't support the recognition of "quasi-policy": either
- (a) "the de facto exemption from the en:wp NFCC" is policy, and is restricted by its own terms and justifying evidence to "one or two line quotations", in which case it is irrelevant to a 617-word non-free quotation in userspace, which may nonetheless be deleted per WP:NFCC and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy or
- (b) the "exemption" isn't policy, so a 617-word non-free quotation in userspace may be deleted per WP:NFCC and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. Erik9 (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a courtroom. Using Latin words and phrases such as "arguendo" is unhelpful has been deprecated for some time. Please stop that practice, it reduces clarity, just say the English equivalent (and please remember that not everyone here speaks English as their first language). Also, you're putting up a straw dog here by arguing against something I do not advocate. Let me reiterate my closing sentence (that you were replying to): Once you do "[get an RfC going]", you'll find me arguing there that the defacto exemption for one or two line quotes should be made official, and that quotes this large should be disallowed, by policy... what was unclear about that, exactly? The MfD was closed properly as no consensus, there's a hole in written policy, and it needs fixing to match what we actually do here. Work to get it fixed instead of skirmishing. Unless skirmishing is what you enjoy more? ++Lar: t/c 19:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That you support the modification of policy such that 617-word non-free quotations would be prohibited in userspace does not refute my argument against the position you have taken in the MFD discussion and here regarding the acceptability of the quotation under current policy: you have argued for the retention of Jack Merridew's extensive non-free text since the beginning of the MFD[2], using the specious argument that since one-sentence quotations of non-free content have been permitted in userspace contrary to the letter of WP:NFCC and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, we should also retain Jack's multi-paragraph non-free userspace quotation, as if the quantity of non-free content used were of little significance. The prospect of an RFC regarding potential modifications to WP:NFCC does not by itself establish the legitimacy of retaining non-free content which violates both WP:NFCC and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy as current written. Erik9 (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Much of that is rearguing the MfD. Given that you are not arguing that there actually was a consensus which the closing admin missed, you need to show that the close, no consensus was improper, that is, that under current policy, as written and more importantly as practiced, it is unambiguously clear that consensus does not apply in this case and that the closing admin was bound to find for deletion regardless of consensus. You have failed to do so. You are basing your argument on a difference in degree (length), not in kind. You are wasting time rearguing this, at length, when you could be spending that time getting policy changed. Ineffective as an approach, and likely to further alienate people who might be your allies if you showed reasonableness. ++Lar: t/c 23:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete, local consensus, where it exists, cannot override foundation-level policy requiring that non-free content be permitted by projects' exemption doctrine policy, and Wikipedia's EDP only applies to images. Stifle (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If only the foundation level policy were that clear cut. The existance of so many de minimis quotes says it's vague and needs fixing. ++Lar: t/c 19:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The existence of extremely small, one sentence, non-free quotations in userspace does not impugn the application of WP:NFCC and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy to Jack Merridew's 617-word monstrosity -- there's no evidence that such significant quantities of non-free text have ever been permitted in userspace. Erik9 (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1/2 of 1 percent of the total size of the work is one person's "monstrosity" and another person's de minimis, I suspect. ++Lar: t/c 20:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An interesting DRV that raises some points I had not previously considered.
I shall not fault the closer for deciding there was no consensus to delete the material. That was a correct reading of the consensus, so I endorse it. Also, I would like to praise Jack Merridew for finding an interesting, memorable and creative way of making his argument. However, the consensus was wrong. To the extent that the said material contributes to building an encyclopaedia, it could be phrased differently. In other words, the use of copyrighted text in that instance is not necessary and I do not think it is justified either. So I would like to overturn the consensus itself and delete the offending material. I would also like to make a general point here:- Everyone has freedom of speech, but freedom of speech does not include the right to write on someone else's wall. Wikipedia is someone else's wall (specifically it's the property of the Wikimedia Foundation) and its use is granted subject to compliance with their rules. This includes userspace. In other words, your userspace is not your property and what you write in it still needs to comply with Wikipedian rules. This includes copyright. I want to warn DRV participants here that this decision could have far-reaching consequences. We must not establish a principle that it's okay to write whatever you like, even in your userspace.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "We must not establish a principle that it's okay to write whatever you like, even in your userspace" I agree with you there. But I hope it's fairly clear by now that this case's outcome, whatever it may be, shouldn't set such a precedent. ++Lar: t/c 20:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I hope so too, Lar. I think most DRV regulars would agree.
On the other hand, I still think the point should be made. DRV occupies a unique position. Wikipedia has many procedures for resolving conduct disputes, but in terms of resolving content disputes, DRV is "the highest court in the land", in the sense that if you disagree with a DRV closure, there's nowhere else to go to appeal it. In other words, DRV decisions are typically final. And this is a matter of content, not conduct, so our consensus here is really the end of the line. Also, we don't often see matters related to userspace at DRV, except in the special case where someone wishes to move a userfied article back into mainspace (which isn't really the same thing). Most of our decisions relate to XfD closures or speedy deletions of content bound for mainspace. I've found this DRV has helped shape my thoughts on what's appropriate in userspace and what isn't, and I should imagine that at least some others have had the same experience. And finally, DRV tends to be consistent. That is to say, where an issue has been decided one particular way, other issues of the same kind usually follow the established pattern—which isn't quite the same thing as establishing a precedent, but does have a similar effect. I think that's because the population of DRV regulars is relatively small and our views tend to crystallise more and more each time a similar discussion is repeated. So I do think that needed saying. Others will disagree, and quite rightly, they will disregard me. :)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point about DRV being the highest court, or just about. There's always a content RfC (which I've been advocating, anyone here not yet realise I think one on this topic to clarify and firm up the NFCC would be a good idea??? :) ) but it's not exactly the same, is it? ++Lar: t/c 21:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think having the text is the wrong thing, but our policies don't address this. Per IAR I think this should be deleted. But if that's not going to happen, I think we should update polices and guidelines and _then_ delete this. That's what this close suggested, so endorse. Though I'd certainly have closed it as delete, I think that no consensus is also a reasonable close. It also pushes us to fix our polices ASAP. Hobit (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Or we could just spend lots of time on the DRV. ++Lar: t/c 20:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse The consensus was right, that it does not violate reasonable fair use. If this particular use is not specified in NFCC, we can still accept it via IAR. Contra S Marshall, IAR runs both ways. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- IAR may allow us to ignore our own, internal rules, but it does not allow us to ignore directives from the Wikimedia Foundation, especially one which says, quite bluntly, that it "may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects. (italics in original, boldface/emphasis added by me) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- that we have a policy limiting the fair use of material is a directive from the foundation; what precisely it says within broad limits is up to us. How we interpret it is up to us. If the foundation thinks we are blatantly wrong, they have the tools of office actions and instructions pr advice from the foundation attorney. And, more specifically, the Foundation does allow IAR: "Their use, with limited exception. must be..." Note the: "with limited exception". DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The trouble with IAR, DGG, is that it does hinge on "things that prevent you improving the encyclopaedia". I think it's a bit hard to apply that to a userspace page, because I do not think it would be possible to show that the said page was improving the encyclopaedia in any way.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the truth of "the said page was" [or wasn't] "improving the encyclopaedia in any way" is a matter of opinion, and I suspect that opinion may not be universally shared. ++Lar: t/c 20:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true. Fortunately, we have ways of resolving matters of opinion.
In the case of copyright, our way of resolving it is to place a burden on the editor wishing to use copyrighted material. That editor must produce a rationale for the community to discuss. In this case, I do not believe it possible to produce a rationale that would satisfy DRV that a userspace page that is not intended to become mainspace material contributes significantly to the encyclopaedia.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that unless you say that NO user page contributes significantly, you're making a value judgment. But I think some user pages in fact DO. Consider this pretty bauble: User:CatherineMunro/Bright Places, a wonderful commentary and inspiration, or this work page User:Lar/Liberal Semi... these pages contribute significantly, at least IMHO. Jack has advanced the theory that his quoting from that work is important commentary on the encyclopedia itself, commentary he wants folk to heed, and apparently commentary that can't be made as effectively without the quote itself. Others may not agree. I'm not sure I do myself, in fact, but to agree or disagree is a value judgment. So yes, the burden is on Jack to show that this quote, much larger than what is routinely accepted, is necessary. And that's what the MfD was supposed to address. Not to belabor the point, but we shouldn't revisit the MfD and the arguments... we should be deciding if the no consensus outcome should stand, or should be overturned because the NFCC and the EDB (and by extension upwards, the actions of the WMF board) override consensus in this case, despite precedent for smaller quotes. ++Lar: t/c 21:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm entirely with you up until you get to "We shouldn't revisit the MfD and the arguments". Before that point, I agree with every word you say, and I would add that the various essays in S Marshall's userspace are models of enlightened thought that would instantly bring perfection to the encyclopaedia if only users would adhere to them religiously.But when you say "We shouldn't revisit the MfD and the arguments", I start to disagree. Please look again at the nomination statement we are considering. How on Earth could we do that if we did not evaluate the strength of the arguments? And how could we discuss the matter without saying which arguments we think have greater weight, and why? DRV closers typically allow wide latitude for such discussions for precisely this reason, and they usually allow discussion of which arguments should have been presented as well. In fact, I think any argument is permissible here providing its good faith purpose is to improve the encyclopaedia.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First, on your user page, why no "edit of the year 2006"? Couldn't top Jimbo and ClueBot blocks?... Second, well I suppose you're right about what's arguable at DRV, to a point. But there are conflicting forces here. One being that what you say makes sense... IAR says we don't play moot court and say one can't advance certain arguments because it's too late, but the other side of that is that DRV isn't supposed to be MFD II... you need to advance something new not just re-re-re-rehash (which, truth be told, this DRV seems to be doing some of, as does any conversation of any length here, it seems). I wouldn't be dumping most of my free edit time today into this topic if I didn't think it was important and interesting... but the actual important question to me now is not the substance of the argument itself, but rather the meta one... how do you tell when (fiat based) policy must trump consensus (or the clear lack of it, as in this case, which is a special kind of consensus, the consensus to do nothing), which is one I've delved into before. Oddly, it was on the other side, arguing that a policy needed to trump consensus, and trying to show why. However I think that hasn't happened here, those saying trumping is needed haven't made their case clearly and unassailably in my view. ++Lar: t/c 22:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it best if I reply on your talk page, since the questions you raise are interesting and I would like to discuss them, but they do not seem immediately relevant to this DRV.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Clearly no consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endrose closure per Lar. As much as I feel that the page should be deleted (see my comments in the MfD), a "No Consensus" close was within admin discretion. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regretfully endorse I think that the page fails WP:NFCC#9 big time (non-free content is only allowed in articles, see also #7 and #8), but, regretfully, this is not MfD part 2. The commenters in the MfD really didn't agree on how to interpret the policy and they thought that "fair use" applied here, so the admin had the possibility of closing like this.
- Editors pointed to the intro of WP:NFCC "Articles may in accordance with the guideline use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author. Other non-free content (...) may be used (...) only where all 10 of the following criteria are met." arguing that WP:NFCC#9 didn't cover merridew's page because it's a verbatim quote. I think that "Articles may" clearly excludes non-article pages, but, then again, this was also discussed there, and this is not MfD part 2.
- The main argument was that brief text quotes are covered by "fair use", which meant that they were automatically not covered by WP:NFCC#9, even if the policy didn't specify it. In other words, the WP:FAIRUSE policy does not invalidate the editor's right to apply the Fair Use doctrine to copyrighted text. Others said that, by the de minimis rule, this appliesonly to quotes of one or two sentences, and not to Merridew's quoting of several paragraphs (about 617 words). Others said that many users had quotes in userspace, so it was a de facto practice, with other saying that this went against the spirit of the Wikimedia's foundations policy in licensing policy which says that exemptions for non-free content must be minimal. I find the references to WP:CC-BY-SA to be a red herring, since the text is clearly quoted and attributed to the copyright holder so Merridew is not erroneously releasing this copyrighted text as his own.
- IMO, the root problem here is that US law allows "fair use" of brief quotes, and our copyright policy doesn't explicitly allow or disallow them outside of articles. Wikipedia, as a private website, can decide to forbid all copyrighted material outside of articles including fair use material, but the current policy does not do that. Policy needs to clarify if it's allowing "fair use" brief quotes outside of articles, or these discussions will keep closing as "no consensus". (Good luck getting consensus for the change, mind you) --Enric Naval (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; it's got a speedy tag on it, now.[3] Seems out-of-process, to me. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regretful endorse It's a shame that people can read NFCC 9 and somehow miss that userspace==/== articlespace, but that's what happened. There is no point in coming by for another bite at the apple and obviously no point in getting folks to understand our non-free content policy. Protonk (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's more of a rules-lawyer problem. Our non-free content policy doesn't seem to address text in user space. I think it's painfully obvious that anything not acceptable for article space isn't acceptable for user space (and in fact we'd be much more conservative in user space), but it is a loophole that people are driving a truck through. Hobit (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure Whatever else the NFCC may be, they are not bright line rules with no ambiguity. Applying them requires judgment, and it is completely possible for reasonable editors to disagree on whether or not a given piece of content satisfies the criteria as used in a particular context. Accordingly, arguments asserting that content does not meet those criteria are not the sort of arguments that trump consensus. And it is transparently obvious that there was not a consensus in the MFD. So "no consensus" was the only viable closure of the MFD. GRBerry 14:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure, in the hopes that this will force an improvement to the non-free content policy, that makes it address non-free text in user space more clearly. If everyone who argued to keep were misinterpreting the NFCC, then the effort should be put into improving the policy, not reversing the "no consensus" closure, which was correct. decltype (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
