Policies and guidelines and the Style guide contain or link to most of the current en.Wikinews policies and guidelines, however policy is based on the accepted practices of the day on Wikinews, often these might not be written down. This section of the Water cooler focuses on discussions regarding policy issues.
You may wish to check the archives to see if a subject has been raised previously.
License harmonization with Wikipedia
A long, long time ago, in wiki-time, Wikinews culminated a long discussion by voting on a license under which to publish, moving from PD to CC-BY. This was a large move from the most-permissive stance on copyright to something *much* stricter but not as strict as the GFDL 1.2 which was the sole license used at the time by Wikipedia. A few years later, Wikipedia agreed to allow dual-licensing under CC-BY-SA and the GFDL after some important changes to the GFDL now known as GFDL 1.3.
The incompatibility between Wikinews's current license, CC-BY 2.5, and the two licenses used on Wikipedia, CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL 1.3, has been a source of irritation to both projects. Yesterday a bureaucrat on fr.WN was complaining to me about it. This got me thinking about two things:
- We have the Wikinews Group nearly established. A cross-language discussion regarding the project's licensure is *exactly* the kind of thing this affiliate group can sponsor.
- Wikinews doesn't need to 'migrate' our past contributions. We currently host hundreds of articles which were originally published into the PD, and that cannot be rescinded. Everything after the approval of CC-BY is released under that license. Why couldn't we likewise decide to use a harmonious license for future published content? (The CC-BY articles would require the addition of a template stipulating the terms under which that article was published, just as we currently do for the PD articles.)
I found at least 20 different discussions, in a very shallow search through the history of this page, which pointed out the difference of Wikinews's license with Wikipedia's. That's several times each year every year since the change was made. We stepped a long way toward harmonizing then, from PD to CC-BY. Maybe it's time to close the gap by moving to CC-BY-SA? - Amgine | t 15:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- Afaics, we're not public domain because we want to be credited (people should credit stuff by other people even if they don't have to, it's common courtesy really, but much of intellectual property law doesn't lend itself to courtesy, especially since it involves corporations rather than people; and really, nobody respects public domain news content, which is reasonable since if it had any value its authors would want credit for it), and we're not share-alike because that's inappropriate to news: we want news to be spread as widely as possible. We shouldn't be borrowing content from Wikipedia anyway, since their workflow inherently lacks the sort of rigor we apply and all their content needs to be put through the wringer on its way into our system.
- So on one hand I don't see importing from Wikipedia as inherently desirable, and on another hand I don't see more restrictive licensing as desirable either. --Pi zero (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd have no problem with a transition to a more-current CC-BY license, and I know the same 'pathway' could-well be taken to a license allowing import of Wikipedia content. That's the wrong direction for content to move in, it should be news reporting that forms the basis upon which an encyclopædia is built.
With the benefit of hindsight, it's easy to see how Wikipedia is the first, logical, project to crowd-source as an online reference; that's given Wikinews a few issues, because the entire ecosystem largely exists to serve the encyclopædia. Recalling the spread of— and, the issues getting articles to retain the same version of the map documenting the spread — a lot of subtle little issues exist for the project.
- Support shift to CC-BY 4.0 for content; I don't know why we've kept CC-BY 2.5 here for so long; the newer versions offer clearer legal code. But for templates; I think we need to have an exemption in order to allow code sharing between projects; i.e. "CC-BY unless otherwise noted", but the only "unless otherwise noted" license can be the Wikimedia license agreement. ViperSnake151 (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)