Wikinews:Water cooler/policy

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Refresh

Archive


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.


Use CC BY 3.0 and/or CC BY 4.0?[edit]

I asked five months ago whether Wikinews can switch to or add CC BY 4.0 for licensing. There wasn't much response, so I would like to ask again whether the project can do so. Or how about CC BY 3.0? Currently, CC BY 2.5 is used, but I find it less clear and less convenient than later versions especially for "open content" use. I will welcome any comments related to CC BY please. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 06:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Changing the license that way isn't something Wikinews should be doing; we use a different license because it's appropriate for our function. It's not surprising there wouldn't be much to say about it; it's just that simple. --Pi zero (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
How is version 2.5 more suitable than later versions? Is it more similar or what? --George Ho (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Clarifying slightly: en.WN is licensed CC-BY 2.5. Current CC-BY licenses are backwards compatible; items licensed under 2.5 may be relicensed under 3.0 or 4.0 without altering the rights previously granted. Later versions are notably more global, more readable (in the code), and more explicit (in 4.0) in allowing attribution via a specified url (which is en.WN practice even though not perfectly clearly supported in 2.5 or 3.0.) - Amgine | t 19:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Section 2(b) of CC BY 4.0 explicitly says to either waive or agree not to assert most of moral rights "to the limited extent necessary to allow You to exercise the Licensed Rights, but not otherwise." Previous versions either are vague on or do not explicitly mention moral rights. --George Ho (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to not move to CC BY 4.0. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

That's need some effort to mark archives with the old version and the newly created articles with some new version. Also I think Pi zero said the older licence serves the purpose of news creation better and I do not think I understand the distinction clearly; I would be glad to know it either as a reply or a link to a reply which was added somewhere previously. Gryllida (talk) 03:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Marking the archive could easily done by bot or by AWB—it's not logistically that difficult. If Pi zero wants to qualify what he wrote, that would be extremely helpful but as of now, it's just useless—what about CC BY 4.0 is so bad and how is 2.5 so conducive to collaborative citizen journalism...? —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
"I see no reason not to" is no reason at all. I see no reason why all projects should not have CC BY license, does not mean the idea would be entertained.
27.59.47.82 (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I guess that is partly a reference to the above remark about improved clarity and link-based attribution above, which is some sort of improvement. Gryllida (talk) 05:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't see what supports that. Amgine notes relicensing is possible, which seems to remove a whole class of motivations for changing. Seems to me there'd need to be a clearly compelling reason to tamper with the license, and thus far nothing I've seen here has come across to me as clearly compelling. I strive to be at once cautious and open-minded; so, if someone has a reason they feel should be compelling, I invite them to try to clarify it for me. --Pi zero (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
The page about different versions explains that version 2.5 and prior versions don't address "moral rights". Version 3.0 addresses moral rights in various jurisdictional licenses, while agreeing to version 4.0 would mean waiving moral rights in order to allow licensees to use content freely. I guess "moral rights" would include rights to preserve integrity of distributing content unless I'm proven wrong. "Moral rights" are recognized in other countries outside US, which I'm unsure about. Not only "moral rights", later versions were made for better clarity and less ambiguity, like version 4.0 saying that trademark rights are not licensed. --George Ho (talk) 09:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I stopped reading at the second sentence, as I don't know what are moral rights in copyright context. Gryllida (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I guess they are not easy to explain basically, but links say that moral rights vary, depending on jurisdictions or cultures: [1][2][3]. Moral rights are simply rights of creators to decide based on one's own ethics what to do with content, especially when content containing info about one person can affect that person (and probably the creator). A wrong, unethical decision can affect a creator's reputation, so a creator would have a moral right to be ethical about distributing a content. For example, a picture of a person giving a facial negative reaction would be used in a news article or televised news report, no matter how the pictured subject would react to such usage; that would be less ethical. Another site describes the basics more well than I could. --George Ho (talk) 10:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
This is an excellent reason to change licenses, George. Especially for news, which strives to be factual and not tempered by the author or subject's personal preferences or ideology. This is a very compelling reason to switch ASAP, thank you. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be also a reason not to switch to CC BY 4.0? I'll clarify more about CC BY 4.0: if you waive most of your moral rights by agreeing to use that version, you would also either lose or never assert your right to integrity with content and/or your ethical right about presenting facts/inaccuracies (or something like that). Nevertheless, the reason would also be compelling enough to switch to CC BY 3.0, which instructs a licensee not to "distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation." --George Ho (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I re-read section 3(c) from the terms of CC BY 3.0, which says that a Licensor must either "waive or not assert" some of moral rights in order to allow adaptations. --George Ho (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
This moral rights thing is not sounding attractive to me. It sounds ambiguously restrictive, a bad combination. --Pi zero (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Well... in contrast to the Unported version, various jurisdictional ports of licenses address moral rights variously. The CC BY 3.0 United States doesn't address moral rights; it's almost (if not exactly) similar to CC BY 2.5 Generic, which is based on US law. --George Ho (talk) 04:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Whether to accept noncommercial-only and NoDerivates multimedia content and any more of them[edit]

If the project continues to allow images licensed under either an NC or ND license, like ones tagged as such, what to do with statements saying that Wikinews wouldn't accept such content, especially per WMF? Why can't they be treated supposedly as "fair use"? Also, what to do with templates, like {{Non-com}}? Have opinions changed since one discussion from 13 years ago and another from seven years ago, or what else is going on? I'm unsure whether last year's discussion helps; it lacked replies. --George Ho (talk) 09:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

creative commons no derivs is allowed, via local upload, as a last resort. Should this change? Gryllida (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Um.... most of the images tagged with CC BY-NC-ND, which should have been compiled with {{non-deriv-non-com}}, and CC BY-ND, which should have had {{non-deriv}}, are lacking rationales and not tagged with {{fair use}}, which the templates say they should be. Is that acceptable? --George Ho (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I'll clarify further: shall we accept non-free images currently lacking fair-use rationale? --George Ho (talk) 05:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm ok with images under CC BY-NC-ND whose licence is verified, but not with images with unverified or unspecified licence. Gryllida (talk) 07:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
All right. Is rationale required? --George Ho (talk) 08:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Personally I don't see a need, if there are no other free images for a story. If there are other free images for the story then this non-free image needs to provide unique content (illustrative or informative). I think this decision to take an image out if needed is a part of article review. Gryllida (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Then why do {{non-deriv}}, {{non-com}}, and {{Non-deriv-non-com}} say that those templates "MUST be used with a valid fair use tag and a valid fair use rationale or the image WILL be deleted"? Does the requirement statement need to be scrapped or what if that's no longer necessary? --George Ho (talk) 08:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Did not use any fair use rationale in my uploads. I do not mind it if someone corrects me. Gryllida (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)