NonFreeWiki

• It is almost seven years since the Wikimedia Foundation board passed a resolution on licensing policy, which required local wikis to adopt an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) if they wished to continue with local uploads. The idea was to limit the number of non-free images hosted on the wikis.
• However, as of February 2014, there are still numerous wikis with significant numbers of non-free images but no EDP. We have had plenty of time for this issue to be resolved at a local level. The proposed solution is to create a new fair-use wiki to host almost all of the non-free content currently hosted on all the other wikis and then stop all local uploads.
• At the moment 36 wikis appear to have or are close to having EDPs, but there are at least 80 wikis that host more than a thousand images each. In total there are about 2.2 million files on the various Wikipedias, of which English Wikipedia alone hosts more than 800,000. A large proportion of those will be duplicates or effective duplicates, with a rough guess of a million files that don't really need to be hosted? As a comparison, Commons has more than 20 million files at the moment, which suggests that approximately 10% of the files on all projects are non-free content. It would be fantastic for the community to be able to reduce that number to about 5%.
• This proposal would move almost all the non-free content to one multilingual location together with all the related documentation and templates. The non-free content would then be available for use by other wikis on a very limited basis, in the same way that Commons files can be linked to, but with a fair-use rationale for each use depending on the local restrictions.
• A single wiki would enable us to rationalise the amount of non-free content by eliminating duplicate or similar files for the same object. For example, we currently have numerous copies of the promotional posters for the 1997 movie "Titanic":

1. am:ስዕል:Titanic_poster.jpg - the wiki has no EDP
2. az:Şəkil:Titanic_poster.jpg - no EDP
3. be:Файл:Titanic_3D_Poster.jpg - EDP is similar to enwiki
4. bn:চিত্র:Titanic_poster.jpg - developing EDP similar to enwiki, but non-free images of living people strongly discouraged
5. bs:Datoteka:Titanic.jpg - no EDP
6. ca:Fitxer:Titanic_poster.jpg - non-free images of living people strongly discouraged
7. ckb:پەڕگە:Titanic_poster.jpg - only admins can upload
8. cy:Delwedd:Titanic_poster.jpg - no EDP
9. el:Αρχείο:Titanic_1997_poster.jpg - non-free images of living people not allowed
10. en:File:Titanic_poster.jpg - non-free images of living people strongly discouraged
11. eo:Dosiero:Titanic1997.jpg
12. fa:پرونده:Titanic_poster.jpg
13. fi:Tiedosto:Titanic_poster.jpg - non-free images of living people not allowed
14. ga:Íomhá:Titanic_poster.jpg - no EDP
15. hi:चित्र:टाइटैनिक_(१९९७_चलचित्र).jpg - no EDP
16. hr:Datoteka:Titanic_poster.jpg
17. hy:Պատկեր:Titanic_poster.jpg - EDP is similar to enwiki
18. id:Berkas:Titanic_film.jpg
19. is:Mynd:Titanicplakattvo.jpg - strict limits allow such files only when no free file is available
20. ka:ფაილი:Titanic_ver2.jpg - no EDP
21. lt:Vaizdas:Titanic_poster.jpg
22. lv:Attēls:Titanic_poster.jpg
23. mk:Податотека:Titanic_poster.jpg
24. ml:പ്രമാണം:Titanic_poster.jpg - EDP is similar to enwiki
25. ms:Fail:Titanic_poster.jpg - EDP is similar to enwiki but with some differences
26. pt:Ficheiro:Titanic_poster.jpg
27. ro:Fișier:Titanic_poster.jpg - EDP is similar to enwiki
28. si:ගොනුව:Titanic_poster.jpg - EDP is similar to enwiki
29. sl:Slika:TitanicDVD.jpg - EDP is similar to enwiki
30. sr:Датотека:Titanic_poster.jpg
31. sw:Picha:Titanic_poster.jpg - no EDP
32. ta:படிமம்:டைட்டானிக்_திரைப்பட_உறை.jpg - EDP still being worked on
33. tr:Dosya:Titanik_film.jpg - non-free images of living people strongly discouraged
34. uk:Файл:Titanic_poster.jpg - EDP is similar to enwiki
35. vi:Tập_tin:Titanic_poster.jpg
36. zh:File:TITANIC.jpg - EDP is similar to enwiki but non-free images of living people strongly discouraged

• I checked 74 articles about the movie to find the above images. Clearly a large number of them are problematic, either with no EDP on their wiki or poorly presented attribution or they are hosted on wikis that strongly discourage non-free images of living people. If we have a single wiki for non-free images, we could detect and deal with this kind of problem more easily than at the moment. Instead of 36 images with varying levels of attribution and policy compliance, we could host just one image with full attribution and compliance and then allow it to be linked from a limited number of articles.
• Once the wiki was activated, all the other wikis would block local uploads and from then on file uploads would be made to either Commons or to NonFreeWiki depending on whether the file is free or not. There would be extra limitations such as preventing files from being used by other wikis, until they were fully compliant with the rules. So if the source information or the fair-use rationale was missing from an image, it would be blocked for use until such information was provided.
• The NonFreeWiki EDP would be only as lenient as the most lenient existing EDP allows, which at the moment appears to be English Wikipedia, judging by the number of images, and whose EDP appears to be the basis of several other wikis EDP's.
• All uploaded files would utilise a new "traffic light system" with four lights:

• for files that cannot be used on other wikis, this would be the default for all uploaded files until a non-free usage rationale was added
• for files that have a non-free usage rationale for a relevant article on a wiki, but the usage needs checking (preferably by another registered user)
• for files that were yellow-light but have been checked and confirmed for use on restricted wikis
• for files that have non-free usage rationales and have been confirmed for use on the more lenient wikis

• The file page of an uploaded file would initially have a big red light and a banner saying: "This file cannot be used on any wiki until a non-free usage rationale is provided". Even if there was an attempt to link the image from an article, all it would show is the text that appears when you link a non-existent file. As soon as the uploader fills out a non-free usage rationale for a particular wiki e.g. en:Titanic (1997 film), it would give the file a green light and the image could be linked from the article. It would then be necessary to fill out a non-free rationale for each of the other wikis before the file could be used there.
• However, if a red-lit file is left for seven days and no fair-use rationale is provided, then the file would be automatically deleted, because there is no good reason to host such a file.
• If an attempt was made to link the file from an article on a wiki with a more restrictive EDP, e.g. ca:Titanic (pel·lícula de 1997) on the Catalan Wikipedia, the uploader would still complete the non-free pro-forma but it would be tailored to ca-wiki. The file could be linked from the relevant article but there would be a yellow light on the file page and it would be automatically placed in a special category to let other users know that this usage needs checking and confirming. Once it had been checked, the light could be turned to blue.
• For wikis that only allow Commons files, there would be no option in the non-free pro-forma to select such a wiki and if there was an attempt to link from an article on such a wiki, all it would show is a non-existent file. To illustrate the example, the very bottom part of the file page would look something like this:

File usage on other wikis

• The following other wikis use this file:

• Usage on ca.wikipedia.org

Titanic (pel·lícula de 1997)

• Usage on en.wikipedia.org

Titanic (1997)

Thank you for reading this far down. If you can come up with a better name, please let me know. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed by

• User:Green Giant

Alternative names

• FairUseWiki (suggested by User:TeleComNasSprVen)

Related projects/proposals

• Wikimedia Commons, for which the proposed wiki would be a non-free counterpart

Domain names

• https://nonfree.wikimedia.org
• https://fairuse.wikimedia.org (suggested by User:TeleComNasSprVen)
• https://uncommons.wikimedia.org

Demos

• User:Green Giant/NonFreeWiki, an example to help illustrate the proposal.

People interested

Support

1. Green Giant, as proposer.
2. PC-XT (talk) Centralized attention on fair-use files, with the goal of enforcing the different wikis' policies, within Wikimedia's policies makes sense to me.
3. This idea has been floated a few times in the past. Thank you for putting a well written proposal together. John Vandenberg (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
4. Strong support.--GZWDer (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
5. Also express strong support for this idea. I think this is a well thought out idea that solves a very real problem. Zellfaze (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
6. Strong support --Pierpao (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
7. Conditional support --Ricordisamoa 02:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
8. Same as Ricordisamoa. --The4DGovernment (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
9. Conditional support --Harrybrowne1986 (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
10. This is a brilliant idea. As a Thai Wikipedian, I believe that it is very helpful for small and medium-sized wiki projects. We have spent significant amount of time dealing with fair-use image issues. The issues are somewhat redundant and can be avoided by a centralised system. --Taweethaも (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
11.  Support I think that the idea is effective and efficient. It is a waste of time for Users to re-upload images just because they need to use it on a local wiki. In addition, it will maintain a central place for images and that will help provide many accurate statistics for such class of images and why would users upload them. Asaifm (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
12. Strongly  Support. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
13.  Support good idea, it will save many things --Ibrahim.ID (talk) 05:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
14. --John123521 (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
15. I had the same idea. Strong support -Nizil Shah (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
16. I ended up on commons because I wanted a CC-BY-NC icon for OEIS:. And I like Lawrene Lessing's On Free, and the Differences between Culture and Code lecture. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
17. Quite. Andreas JN466 12:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
18. Nikki (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

19. 

    Alternate logo proposal

     Support I have been arguing about this for a long time, this would bring unfair use issue to a single location. We HAVE TO obey US copyright law and we choose to obey local laws where wikis are more widely used. This is just the existing practice and such a centralized unfree content wiki would eliminate a number of problems. I think files can be migrated to such an non-free content wiki without disrupting existing use. In fact preferably this should be done without re-downloading and re-uploading the files. Now that we have SUL fully integrated, attribution would not be an issue. One question is what would this wiki be called? edp.wikimedia.org? nfc.wikimedia.org? I would not want to call it uncommons. Such a shift may have positive legal consequences where we can mirror the entire file server on a European country because it is now entirely freely licensed. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 12:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

    I would oppose the proposed logo as it will be confusing to distinguish commons from the non free content wiki for some people, especially if they are color blind. I would go for File:Red copyright.svg since that will be the only type of content on this wiki. Or it could be something inspired from it. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 12:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

    The logo is not fixed so this is a good alternative. All I did with the logo was turn the Commons logo upside down and swapped the colours. The transfer to a single wiki could be done by bots, maybe even using an import right. The name also isn't fixed (although I've used NonFreeWiki in the requested demo). I've added the logo and the domains you suggested but feel free to make any changes you think are needed. Green Giant (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

    I am not a graphics artist. Perhaps this can be put on Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop where our more creative and talented users can come up with something? Perhaps we want to focus on WMF colors such as the case with incubator. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 15:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

20. General support for the concept. The devil is in the details, but details can be worked out. Before NFW is created, basic policies and procedures should be developed. Then it should be clearly proposed that Commons host this, creating special tagging or classificationt of files. There would then not need to be any interwiki moves from Commons to NFW or vice-versa, it would become a page move (perhaps to a new namespace). Copyright expertise is needed to handle licensing issues, and, for better or worse, that expertise exists on Commons. To preserve local autonomy, any local usage of a file should establish NFW hosting. If that local usage is true copyvio, then, it will be visible and should be handled. The current situation is unsatisfactory. The goal of the WMF policy is that any non-free usages be machine-readably tagged with a rationale, so that commercial re-users are warned. If, however, NFW removes local autonomy as to what files they choose to host, I would be opposed. Local autonomy creates the possibility of conflict with global consensus, yet local autonomy is a very important safeguard. As usual, there are comments that imagine "copyvio" is illegal in the U.S. Not exactly. It depends, and the WMF is not at risk from hosted copyvio, as long as it promptly takes it down under a DMCA request, which it normally does. --Abd (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
21. Support. Reducing the burden on local communities. --minhhuy ^(talk) 10:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
22. Support --Satdeep Gill (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
23.  Support ElGatoSaez (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
24. Support. CourtlyHades296 (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
25. Support. Less work for local small wikis. --Stranger195 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
26.  Support --Morten Haan (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
27.  Support finally, I was waiting for this, I think it has a great potential. It won't solve all the problems but at least some of them... I am it-N, I speak 6 languages, I know local communities and I am active on commons. Call me when you start.--Alexmar983 (talk) 10:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
28.  Support --Ruthven (talk) 06:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
29.  Support of the strongest possible kind. NC licensed images could go here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
30.  Support all NC photo can be upload on it Richard923888 (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
31.  Support --Samuele2002 (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

    Moving my comments to Talk:NonFreeWiki#Moving my lengthy comments from "interested people" subpage. Will make newer, fresher comments soonprobably someday. --George Ho (talk) 12:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC); edited, 12:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

32.  Support. do not care if commons will be the "non free", and a "free commons" is created, or the new one is non-free. non free should contain everything which leads to trouble. the cease and desist honey pots from germany (cc 3.0, art libre, or even cc-4.0 images placed in articles, later on thousands of amateur persons sued 1000$ each to stop using). --ThurnerRupert (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
33.  Support --Samuele2002 (Talk!) 21:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
34.  Support --アンタナナ 21:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
35. Conditional Strong Support, the proposal would greatly ease file management. However,

    • Such wiki should probably be crafted in a way that users can upload it using the exact same tool as uploading copyright-free wiki, and it should present an option to users when the image were being uploaded to determine where the image would go to. As in, during the upload process, the upload tool should ask user what licenses their upload is, and then the tool should automatically direct the uploaded file to respective site afterward, without even letting user know the distinction behind the two sites. There should also be a way to easily shift image between two sites in one click in case of miscategorization.
    • The wiki should be made in a way that would allow a file's existence as long as the file is allowed to be used on any single wiki. In other words, as long as local wiki administration deemed the file is okay to be used on that wiki and it is also legally okay in certain related jurisdiction (even if it might not be the case in the US), the file should be allowed on the wiki.
    • If local wiki think it is necessary, local uploading should still be allowed at individual wiki
    • For situations where file usage is allowed in some geographical region but explicitly forbidden to host in e.g. the US where Wikimedia put its server, such wiki should have multiple server in multiple different countries around the world in order to provide images that would be allowed under different sets of regulations. If there are cases arose that some area need to host some files that are not legally acceptable in all the other area that wikimedia foundation operate a server, then local chapters in regions where such file were allowed, if they wish, should be able to setup a server to host such image and those servers setup by local chapters should be connected seamlessly to the proposed nonfreewiki

    It would have been a strong support if points being raised above are addressed, or with equivalent solution being provided, but otherwise it will probably be problematic to push for this idea.

    C933103 (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

36.  Support from what I can tell the majority of the issues on Wikimedia Commons seems to be related to copyright © issues, so this would solve a lot of problems. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 12:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
37.  Support We need a place where non-open content can be stored until it becomes open (often dozens of years later). For instance if I take pictures of an art installation in Japan or an illuminated French town, currently I have no place to legally upload these. So these pictures will probably be lost. Ideally the server would keep the original I uploaded, but until the content becomes open, it should only allow a thumbnail (and all of the metadata) to be downloaded. Syced (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
38.  Support This will made editing for normal users much easier than it is today. --Walter Klosse (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
39.  Support We have enough local copies. We should exterminate all of them. Calvinkulit (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
40.  Support This has been a great idea for years. I am reconsidering it in the context of the WikiSpore idea to incubate experimental new projects. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
41.  Support Arep Ticous 17:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
42.  Support if community of the new wiki will be built from scratch, not by staffing the new site with people from Wikimedia Commons. I offer whatever job necessary in JavaScript (see Special:PrefixIndex/user:Incnis_Mrsi/), Lua, MediaWiki templates, CSS, image processing and design, and debugging (for all programming languages) on the condition above. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
43.  Support helpful for small and medium-sized wiki projects.--Kitabc12345 (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
44.  Strong support during the Diversity WG discussions for the strategy was one of the proposal for the NC & ND licenses --Camelia (talk) 07:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
45.  Support it can reduce number of file copies on servers, it can help small projects, and, of course, it can hold copyright conflict that grows inside Commons. Красный^{wanna talk?} 13:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
46.  Support --Epìdosis 20:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
47.  Support --Susanna Giaccai (talk) 06:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
48.  Support Also easier to identify LTA that focused on cross-wiki local-file-uploading. Veracious (talk) 08:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
49.  Support RaFaDa20631 (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
50.  Support ----MONUMENTA (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
51.  Support --Kuatrero (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
52.  Support Ivanbetanco43 (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
53.  Support - In SqWiki we have struggled for years if not decades with images. Currently our pending changes and unreviewed pages lists have a backlog of more than 3 years. We are struggling a lot with just plain accepting/refusing vandalism or factchecking sources. Hunting down licenses above that would be an almost impossible deed for us and it's been years we've stopped local uploading. This has led to almost all our art related articles to be without images (book covers, album covers, movie posters, etc.) and it's been quite a while we've been hoping for a solution like this. (Not to mention the many copyrighted images we may already be hosting there for years from the time we stopped the local upload without knowing nothing about their licenses. I estimate the majority part of images shouldn't be there.) The only concern is how easy will it be to actually hunt down all the local laws about licenses globally. I have the feeling this would be a requirement that would be needed to be done by the local wikis which wouldn't be much of help for us because in decades we haven't had 1 single lawyer volunteer to do that work and I doubt we ever will in the near future. This is why we chose to "let Commons deal with it". But again, that's better than nothing and in the very long run it may present itself as beneficial even for us. - Klein Muçi (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
54.  Support --Zblace (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Opppose - Problems block implementation that must be dealt with before this could move forwards: The proposal fails to deal with issues such as en-wiki allowing files that are out of copyright in America, but not on Commons. Implementing this could be disasterous if done without a concrete, coherent proposal for dealing with such issues. It also separates the non-free files from their fair-use content, and makes problems with orphaned fair use much harder to deal with in absence of concrete systems for dealing with such. As well, a good number of supposed "non-free" files, when checked, turn out to be public domain when checked; for example, it's not uncommon for pre-1923 American books and music scores to have first edition covers uploaded under fair use, which is simply wrong. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

   I'm not seeing the objection as being to the concept of NFW, rather as being a concern about implementation details, and I'm not getting that Adam Cuerden understands the proposal. "Fair Use" is one example of Non-free content, not something clearly separate. Under WMF policy, fair use is actually required for NC licensed material to be hosted; however, NFW would classify such files to keep the issue distinct; and thus NFW would become a source for finding NC files for NC users. Two birds with one stone. "Orphaned fair use" is an oxymoron, it is not fair use if not used. However, I would suggest that instead of deleting orphaned files, they be replaced with thumbnails, if they are not already thumbnails. I.e., what Google search does: display thumbnails for file identification, then show links to pages where the files are hosted. Generally, license information provided should not be deleted unless clearly fraudulent, and it is arguable that even that should not be deleted, merely annotated and hidden. NFW should be maximally transparent. I see no looming "disaster" here. If a file is legal to host in the U.S., say under fair use, and not legal in another jurisdiction, this "problem" already exists. Local language wikis may decide to follow local law, that is completely up to them. That a file is hosted on NFW does not make its use locally automatically legitimate. It does make it possible. --Abd (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

   Files would be restricted in usage unlike commons. Wiki's that choose to use these files must have a compatible local fair use. So for instance German wikipedia will not be able to use these files - be it files fully copyrighted, or only free in the US. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 18:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

2. Oppose as long as it hasn't been clarified who's going to do the monitoring and policing of the uploads and rationales. Who's going to form the admin force on the new wiki? How are local-wiki admins going to be able to monitor who's uploading things on NFW and then inserting them on the local wiki? Keep in mind that checking uploads and rationales is not just formal paperwork, at least once we go beyond the most clear-cut of standard cases, like cover art etc. As soon as we are dealing with stuff like historic photographs, non-free portraits and the like, anybody who wishes to check the justification of a file needs to be able to read and understand both the (individually worded) non-free use rationale, and the target article where it's used. The small problem wikis that have failed to adhere to Foundation policy in the past have no admin force willing or able to do such checks, so we can't expect them to delegate admins to work effectively on NFW either. As long as that's the case, NFW will only shift a problem from one place to another without solving it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

   It could start with NC and ND licensed content which we can legally use right now except we choose not to.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

   a wiki can just opt out of non-free if it is too much admin hassle. when cloning en wikipedia e.g. for offline (kiwix, ... ) it can be easy excluded by url. amateurs linking to images out of their wordpress blog can be sure that they won't get sued. currently commons, and images in the wikipedia itself is much to difficult to explain and handle. wikipedia has an educational mission and a related tax exemption, this means safe reuse without hiring lawyers is key, otherwise its a "mission failed". --ThurnerRupert (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

3. Oppose I anticipate this being a miserable fail for Wikinews archival image use. Our archives at Wikinews are a major asset, their preservation and curation an important part of our charge (as I write this, our archives at English Wikinews have grown to about 21,000 articles). One of our major problems — despite, it should be said, lots of great folks on other sister projects who are supportive in a positive collegial spirit — is that over time our image-hosting needs that differ from those of Wikipedia are overlooked, neglected, and ignored by a central image-hosting project where large numbers of people treat the central repository as a practical adjunct to Wikipedia. Image deletion is cumulative over time, so that in the long run the treatment of Wikinews images by a central repository suffers cumulative destruction from widespread (though obviously not universal) indifference, ignorance, and sometimes active antipathy, toward the needs of Wikinews. It's a source of persistent frustration to us that several percent of our archived articles have holes in them due to images deleted from Commons. Some of those holes, we would be unable to fix by local upload either, because our fair-use policy (hammered out years ago with Wikimedia legal) does not allow fair use of images under copyright by competing news agencies, but a great many of those image holes could in principle be filled, and perhaps at some point we'll have the opportunity to do so — but predictably, if our fair-use images had to be hosted on a centralized non-Wikinews site, in the long run the centralized project would collectively ignore (if not actively defy) the differences between Wikinews and Wikipedia and the image holes in our archives would grow substantially. --Pi zero (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

   Sorry, Pi zero, but the proposed project would not (and should not) control how local wikis handle non-free images. If some images are non-transferable to the proposed project, as how some images are non-transferable to Commons, then let's not upload them there. Nevertheless, having one image in many local wikis would reduce too many copies of a similar image. One thing for certain: Japanese language projects, like Japanese Wikipedia, would not allow non-free images. I'm certain that the project would respect the jurisdictions of Japanese Wikipedia. As for Wikinews... well, its huge issues (e.g. limited participation) have been discussed in English Wikinews locally, and how Wikinews handles non-free images should not affect the outcome of this proposal. Neither should the state of Wikinews itself. --George Ho (talk) 04:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

   @George Ho:

   • The proposal, even if implemented in its exact form here, describes a reduction of local control — a deleting authority at the central repository decides (afaict) whether or not they're satisfied that local requirements have been met after seven days, which means local authorities are not able to exercise their judgement, neither in how long to allow before deleting without a rationale, nor in what rationales are or are not adequate (or, even more nuanced, what rationales are temporarily adequate) in a particular case. Furthermore, Commoners already have much difficulty consistently enforcing inclusion/exclusion rules, when there's just one set of rules for the whole repository; it strikes me as fanciful that a central authority could make high-quality judgements about rationales under many different sets of rules. In practice, any project whose rules are atypical — such as Wikinews — would get shafted.
   • Central authority is subject to abuse, and institutional structures such as the Foundation consistently favor centralizing authority. Although details of this proposal just as stated describe some authority remaining local, the proposal doesn't particularly emphasize it (just for example, the Summary only mentions this point in its last dozen words; I sympathize with the difficulty of writing these things, but that doesn't change my assessment that the point is deemphasized).

   These concerns about the relationship between local admins and the central authority are, in essence, another form of the concerns expressed above by another user about coordination; and such situations naturally gravitate toward a state in which the central authority dominates and imposes strong deletion rules that override local authorities and, ultimately, subvert local knowledge, local judgement, and local policy. --Pi zero (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

   First part... Well, I see your point on the deletion part, but local wikis can simply remove a file without deleting the proposed project's copy. Therefore, any editor at the proposed (supposedly centralized) project can tell other readers not to add the file in certain wikis.

   Second part... I'm sure NonFreeWiki would not be as centric toward non-free images as Commons is toward free images... Actually, Meta-wiki's OTRS service (currently understaffed and backlogged) centralizes Commons's handling of permissions. Also, NonFreeWiki wouldn't impact Japanese Wikipedia's prohibition on non-free images, and I'm sure that it would respect the wishes of Wikinews. The relationship between English Wikipedia and NonFreeWiki, however... I don't know. Nevertheless, en wiki's policies toward non-free images are too burdensome, and NonFreeWiki would be less centric toward non-free images than English Wikipedia does. By the way, you can keep a local copy, while NonFreeWiki can have its own (central) copy. Some local wikis keep their own copies of free images as Commons keep theirs.

   Off-topic, but I read the 2013 events about Croatian Wikipedia. I wonder how local authority is any different from central authority. If local authority affects everyone negatively, then central authority may have rights to interfere. Otherwise, I'm sure that central authority can respect and would not infringe local authority, i.e. NonFreeWiki is very motherly to every wiki... and will be sisterly to Commons.

   Wondering... what would be the relationship among NonFreeWiki, Commons, and Meta-wiki's OTRS (OTRS... ugh)? Would the trio be the Axis of Powers-like, Allied Powers-ish, or the Three Musketeers? (Must... not... insert... smileys...) --George Ho (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC); edited. 17:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

   @George Ho:

   • You say "local wiki can simply remove a file without deleting the proposed project's copy." This seems to be addressing a very different concern than I was raising. I was concerned with a central authority removing things, thereby removing a local authority's ability to decide not to remove them. You're talking about safeguarding a local site's ability to delete a file even if the central authority doesn't. I admit I'm also not entirely convinced by what you say about that; it seems likely to me that the centralization-minded Foundation would not care about preserving any vestige of local control, on the contrary the Foundation naturally favors removing control from local projects.
   • You say "I'm sure NonFreeWiki would not be as centric toward non-free images as Commons is toward free images..." Your confidence sounds unfounded to me. The tendency of central authorities to accumulate power to themselves is not limited by the intentions of the person who first gave it to them. You are evidently naively optimistic about what might be done, but my experience of central authorities leads me to be more concerned with the damage they can do — especially, in this case, damage to decentralized grassroots communities. We may both agree that a central NonFreeWiki could not do as good a job of making these decisions as the local projects, but I do not think that would deter the central authority from making the decisions, rather I take it to mean they would make bad decisions.
   • You say "By the way, you can keep a local copy, while NonFreeWiki can have its own (central) copy." Tbh, I entirely disbelieve that. I believe that you believe it; I just think you're wrong. The Foundation would not do both; if they create NonFreeWiki they would take it for granted that centralized is better and they would continue in that direction until NonFreeWiki is the only repository of non-Commons images. That is their nature.

   --Pi zero (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

   Pi zero, I hope you forgive me for my ignorance about the whole proposal. I swear I either overlooked or was careless about the "blocking" part. I haven't switched to "oppose" yet, but I admit you have a point about central authority. --George Ho (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

4. Oppose for 2 main reasons:
   1. yet another wiki, with yet another set of rules and presumably English-based will make it even harder for casual users to upload non-free images. We have all the pains in the world explaining why they can't upload in their native tongue and with a single set of rules to care about, it will be incredibly difficult to explain with more than one set of rules.
   2. no simple technical solution on whether an image can or cannot be displayed on a specific wiki according to the local EDP. That makes the "semaphore system" error-prone, with the difference that local users who notice the problem might not be willing to fix it (because on another wiki).

   What would be acceptable would be a NC repository, such as for no-FoP images, and, unrelated to that, a ban on local uploads on wikis with no EDP. --Strainu (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

   I hate to admit that some images would be nontransferable to the proposed project, Strainu. Nevertheless, because some smaller wikis could not upload its own files locally, which I forgot to mention, this project can do it for those wikis if they can allow NFC. Also, as said above... well local wikis and this central wiki may not control each other. I also see your point on technical issues with local file descriptions and global ones, but... I still believe that this project can work. --George Ho (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC); see below. 22:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

   Scratch that. I re-read the second point and realize that you were discussing local display and global display of non-free content. I think any local wiki could disable or modify a global display of any non-free content stored in NonFreeWiki, wouldn't it? --George Ho (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

   See my newer comments at the Support section. --George Ho (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

5. Oppose, quite strongly. I do not think that this proposal is thought through. The first step before even thinking about such a proposal should be to consult with Wikimedia's Legal Team and ask them if something like this would be legally possible. Are they aware of this proposal? After all, I suppose that "NonFreeWiki" would be a public wiki where anyone could access the non-free content, out of the article context where "fair use" provisions as in U.S. law are applicable. It's, in my opinion, already rather problematic that non-free images, due to the way MediaWiki works, are also accessible out of article context, isolated, on the image description pages in the individual wikis that allow non-free content. English Wikipedia is trying to remedy that issue by adding a specific fair use rationale to each individual non-free file, explicitly stating for which purpose in which article that particular file is intended. Still, people can find and access the image out of its "fair use" context. A separate "NonFreeWiki" as a collection of non-free files that are deemed acceptable on some wikis and not on others would aggravate that issue. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

   I recently contacted the Legal Team about this proposal. I'm awaiting its responses. --George Ho (talk) 06:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

6. INTENSELY OPPOSED to the first line of the proposed "solution". It is unacceptable to shut down local image uploads. While the intent of this project may be good, this is a proposal for one community to seize critical content control away from all other communities. The fact that content can be hosted locally is a critical safety value that prevents the possibility of inter-community warfare, allowing controversial content to be hosted by the local community in the event of a dispute. I am not prepared to entrust the integrity of articles such as Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia to this new community. Alsee (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
7.  Oppose - Non Free images do not belong to Wikimedia. They're non free. That's it. -Theklan (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

   @Theklan: If a non-free image doesn't belong to Wikimedia, deletion can be proposed in any way at either a local wiki or a central project, like this one. --George Ho (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

   @User:George Ho: That's my point. Fair use is not free. Fair use is a lazy thing that undermines the huge work of having free content. So I oppose both this proposal AND having non free images in any Wikimedia project. Making a nonfree Wiki would be a suicidal move for our movement. -Theklan (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

   "Fair use" content has been used in certain projects, like some or most local Wikipedia sites. Of course, the Foundation has (strongly?) encouraged free content, especially article content. "Content" has been broadly used in this discussion, so I'll specify. Certain video and audio clips are subject to copyright because... those media are extraordinary and unique and highly appealing. Images... well, are also appealing, but they are safer to use than the other media due to their two-dimensional format. Hmm... if free content is strongly(?) encouraged, there are other "free" contents that are free in the US but copyrightable in their own host countries, like the en:File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg. The scope of this proposal, i.e. focusing on non-free content, has caused some opposition. If the scope of this proposal is widened a bit, then maybe the opposition would be lessened. --George Ho (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC); amended. 17:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

   @George Ho: "Fair use" content has been used in certain projects, like Wikipedia: For the sake of precision, let's clarify: in English-language Wikipedia and certain other language versions of Wikipedia where local law seems to allow for "fair use" or a similar kind of using non-free content; there are also language versions where non-free content is entirely banned, such as German-language Wikipedia (except for text quotes in encyclopedic context as far as the law allows for), the "real" second largest language version (Cebuano and Swedish Wikipedia contain lots of bot-generated stubs, so don't really count IMHO). Gestumblindi (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

   Got it; thanks. I modified my above reply to reflect what you said. --George Ho (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

8. ┌──────┘
   @Theklan: But things of Wikimedia itself can also be non-free (e.g. contents of CheckUser Wiki where said Content is copyrighted (© all rights reserved) by the Wikimedia Foundation, and CC BY-NC-SA things of huwiki and itwiki). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
9. Oppose When I started reading through all the supporting votes, I quickly was persuaded that this project would be a good idea. However, I am afraid that there will be significant problems caused by the different policies of Wikipedia versions and how individuals can communicate across language barriers. At least with Commons, the content rules are relatively straightforward and translated into many languages. The NonFreeWiki, in contrast, will frequently have to deal with conflicts between rules on different Wikipedia versions. A major issue will be resolution of images (how big is enough). Since there are no fixed guidelines on resolution, I foresee disagreements as to the appropriate size and difficulty communicating between languages (or at least dominated by anglophones) on resolving this issue. And what happens when one version has a stricter requirement than another? What about when one language's fair use rationale is lengthy but another's is short? Also consider the following example: English-language version of article X contains a fair use photograph and prose for which the photograph is essential for understanding but that image is used in another language WP article without prose justifying its use. If the image is removed from the English WP article, then it would still be left on the other language's article without adequate justification. I have a feeling that many WP project in lesser-edited languages will start using these images en masse without adequately understanding the need for fair use rationale. In this scenario, I think the project will end up hosting a lot of images without adequate justification. Also, unlike Commons, which has many active users and a scope independent of Wikipedia, the NFW project has a very narrow scope and will likely attract very few active editors.

   In my opinion, the efficiency of hosting content locally (no language barriers, one policy in the language of the project) outweigh any efficiency from having a central repository. While there are many editors that speak multiple languages, few are fluent/very proficient in more than one language and those that are are mostly limited to English plus a European language. The Wikimedia Foundation needs to spend resources on promoting use/editing in numerous other languages and I think that a common repository for non-free media will create barriers between different language Wikipedia projects, ostracizing editors who don't understand English well, and be dominated by anglophones (and, for the record, I'm a native English speaker who only has an intermediate knowledge of French).

   That said, there could be other ways of making content more available across Wikipedia versions. For starters, how about a cross-language WP search engine to find files on other projects that may not be allowed on Commons but are freely-licensed in at least the US? I am not a fan of the Commons policy that all media must be freely-available in both the US and the source country, a policy that prevents photographs of architecture when the country where the building is located does not have a freedom of panorama law. I really wish this Commons policy would be changed. US Copyright law "The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place." ([1]) The scope of copyright protection is NOT affected by the copyright laws of other countries: "No right or interest in a work eligible for protection under this title may be claimed by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto. Any rights in a work eligible for protection under this title that derive from this title, other Federal or State statutes, or the common law, shall not be expanded or reduced by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto." ([2]). So if a building is located in a country without FoP, in the US, and thus for Wikimedia servers in the US, there is no copyright claim for the architects to photos of a constructed building (even when the building is outside the US). Several WP projects host such photographs, since they can't be uploaded to Commons. For an example, I uploaded this photo to English WP which I had found on French WP. I don't check Meta very often, so ping any replies so I'll see a notification when on other projects. AHeneen (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

   AHeneen, may I reformat your post with the <p> please? The :: seems to have broken the automatic numbering format. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

   Feel free to remove this message please. --George Ho (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

   That's fine. But it doesn't allow them to be indented. AHeneen (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

   Reformatted, AHeneen. --George Ho (talk) 08:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

10. This will force those who maintain non-free images on local projects to either run for adminship on some new project or stop working on maintaining non-free images. I consider this a substantial cost of moving to this "central" system. This is especially the case given that Commons is basically non-functional from an administrative perspective right now. You have deletion requests open from October. When the existing central platform for free files is running without massive backlogs in basic areas, then we can perhaps start talking about creating even more central areas where local admins can't participate without passing another RfA. I also find it massively objectionable that this doesn't appear to have been advertised in any way on enwiki or any other affected wiki. Are you really trying to push through a stealth change of local policy (turning off file uploads) without notifying any local project? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

    Also, what do you plan to do about all of the images hosted on enwiki that are PD in the US but not in the source country? Local policy allows us to host those. Commons policy does not. Do they just disappear, or are you also proposing a FreeButKindaNotInSomeCountriesWiki? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

11. Oppose in practice this is creating Copyright Violation Wiki. Not that all local projects do this great, but Commons already has a massive issue with hosting copyrighted content centrally, when it is not allowed to host non-free content. Having a centralized repository for this would make the problem even worse because the issues involved with non-free file use are much more complex. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
12. Oppose - fair use content requires close oversight by the community that actually uses the content. Putting all our fair use images onto a separate project will make copyright violations far more likely, and could easily end with Wikipedia having no accessible fair use content at all. Bradv🍁 01:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
13. Strong Opppose - inclouding deletion of all "Fair use" images. The hosting of such images ar against our mission and an affront to the idea of free knowledge. Every single "fair use" image is an image in the way for a real free image. This brings answers like "but you already have found a way" by people who are sitting on the images. There is no middle way between freedom and unfreedom. Just a bit free is unfree. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
14. Oppose, per above, especially Bradv. Use of nonfree content must have serious restrictions and close oversight by the community using the content. --Yair rand (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
15. Oppose. As others have noted, fair use style exemptions must be negotiated in the context of a specific community's use of a file, and its specific policies. This would likely turn into a wiki dominated by a few large wikis like en.wp, who would at the same time be frustrated by having to go to some separate website to have those discussions.--Eloquence (talk) 06:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Other comments

Green Giant, thank you for the proposal you made, and I give you support to this. About this statement from the project page: "...and then stop all local uploads". Seems that it prompted six people into opposing this project. May you please amend or remove "stop all local uploads"? Seems that, as opposers pointed out, central authority would conflict with local authority. If amended, the local authority would be retained. I still favor this proposal as long as the central project would not take away local wikis' handling of non-free content. Is that fine? --George Ho (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC); edited. 20:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I misread the whole proposal. Seems that blocking all local wikis from uploading non-free content locally is part of the whole proposal. --George Ho (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocking local uploads is currently part of the main proposal, but that aspect can (and must) be dropped. Dealing with which wikis can use which images would probably get a bit ugly, but the idea of consolidating all of the duplicate files, and making them available for wider use, is an interesting idea. Alsee (talk) 09:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thinking about this proposal more, it makes things extremely complicated and confusing to have separate Commons and NonFreeCommons sites. Especially for new users who already find uploading and copyright to be confusing. I think it would be vastly simpler to just expand Common's mission, adding firm mechanisms to separate and restrict NonFree images. That gives you one site, with one well developed community, organizing them all. When a file is evaluated as Free/NonFree, a status change can be handled simply by tagging it differently. There would be no need to transfer it to another site/community for re-processing. Alsee (talk) 09:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Alsee, Commons is severely understaffed and heavily backlogged; so is OTRS. How would allowing fair use images in Commons help the situation? That would increase more workload for Commons admins than if such content is allowed. Like other projects, as I've been told already, Commons is a voluntary service. Being recruited an admin is a nice offer... but I hear such workload would burn an admin out. I don't know whether more recruitments can help the situation. --George Ho (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC); edited. 03:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

In order for a non-free images wiki to grow a community, I expect it would substantially be cannibalizing people from Commons. I think trying to split images-work across two wikis would be less efficient. The total workload is roughly the same for one wiki vs two wikis, except that moving some general labor would be duplicative and moving images between sites would be more labor intensive . Alsee (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The existing arrangement seems to me rather optimal re division of labor, as dealing with non-free images is handled by users on the specific wiki that wants the non-free images, the very place where users outside the Commons community care enough to deal with those images, relieving Commons admins of the burden. --Pi zero (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

There is the alternative (but almost similar) proposal, NonFreeWiki (2). --George Ho (talk) 08:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The above comments seem to conflate two separate concepts; being repositories on the one hand "fair use" material (good luck persuading Disney that gallery pages of their images are held for "fair use"!), and on the other for "NC" licenced material. These are not the same. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments

Wikimedia Forum#New project proposals

Hello all. I have put forward proposals for two new wikis at Userwiki and NonFreeWiki. I think they are somewhat similar to earlier ideas but I would welcome any comments and questions. Green Giant (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I would particularly like NonFreeWiki, and I would expect much opposition from other users as well. It goes against Wikimedia's mission and its vision of free knowledge for all. Wikimedia Commons is specifically and deliberately set up the way it is, as a free repository of media files; in this context, it has a specific scope as a wiki to develop free media content for its particular audience, like how Wikipedia has a specific scope as a wiki to develop free peer-reviewed informational article content for its particular audience. Wikimedia Commons also has the ability to be reused outside the Wikimedia Foundation, including for commercial purposes, through InstantCommons; NonFreeWiki can afford no such provisions. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you mean and ideally we would use only Commons files but the proposal is not about free knowledge. Despite the vision of free knowledge, we still have a very large amount of non-free content on some projects. My proposal is to put it all in one location and stop local uploads at any other wiki. It is better to deal with such content in one place than in 36 locations, where some of the content is effectively duplicated. I am not proposing that we make this content available outside WMF but to rationalise its use within our projects. Green Giant (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

In principle I like the NonFreeWiki idea (although not the name, maybe "Fair Use Wiki", although FU Wiki isn't great!) if it leads to better control over fair use material. I can see a few potential issues but I'm not expert enough on non-free media to know if I am right or not. @Stefan2: and other experts in this area might have a strong view. QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't like the name either but it was the best I could come up with. For the issue of non-free media, I believe all that is needed is for the new wiki to have an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) to host the non-free media and for the other wikis to slightly modify their existing EDP's to enable the use of non-free media from the new wiki. By stopping local uploads it would force people to think more clearly about what they are uploading. Specifically there would be a feature which would prevent such files from being available for use by other wikis until the file had a fair use rationale for each page it would appear on. Read the Resolution on Licensing policy and you'll notice it says that EDP's must be minimal. The idea was to reduce non-free content to an absolute minimum but this is more difficult to enforce on 36 wikis than it would be on a single wiki. In the List of Wikipedias there is a column which shows how many images are held by each wiki. Count the ones with images and you will find there are far more than 36, with at least 80 that host over 1,000 images each. I would be very surprised if the majority of those images weren't fair use. It is almost 7 years since the licensing resolution was passed and yet there are still wikis out there with significant numbers of images but no EDP. I think we have had plenty of time for this issue to be resolved at a local level. This is why we should have a NonFreeWiki. Green Giant (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I see the points for the wiki more clearly now. I do have at least one concern though: each wiki either has their own EDP, with their own legal language, or simply translate English Wikipedia's EDP and adapt it to their local language project. What do you propose be done with, say, wikis which have EDPs that are more restrictive than that of the English Wikipedia? Differing levels of restrictiveness within EDP language can determine whether wikis would choose to access NonFreeWiki or not, and still must resort to the old practice of local uploads. For example, if the EDP of NonFreeWiki is too lenient, and some wiki EDPs do not permit some media files from NonFreeWiki, they cannot link to it like Wikimedia Commons and would have to resort to local uploading. If the EDP of NonFreeWiki is too restrictive... well I'm not sure what would happen in this scenario, but they probably won't benefit from it as much. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@TeleComNasSprVen: thanks for raising this issue. My thoughts are that the proposed wiki would be only as lenient as the most lenient existing EDP allows, which appears to be English Wikipedia, judging by the number of images. Using the example I gave in the proposal, let's say I upload an image of the common face of a 1 Euro coin. The design of such coins is that one face is unique to each country and the other side is a common design used by all countries of the Eurozone. In the proposal I highlighted four Wikipedias that use images of Euro coins, namely French, German, Italian and Russian, although there are some others, but for the sake of the example let's imagine it is just these four. The software would allow me to upload the image and I would have to provide details such as copyright status and where I found the image. However, I would not be able to use that image in any articles until I filled out a fair use rationale for each article (for example the relevant Euro articles) and for each wiki in line with their particular requirements. Somewhere on the file page there would be a button I would click to add one rationale at a time. There would be a dropdown menu to let me select which wiki I wanted to use the file on, so if a wiki did not have an EDP it would be impossible for me to select that wiki. Equally, the software would be programmed to flag any wiki that has a more restrictive policy. On Commons, there is a list on each file page which indicates global usage of that file, and the same would happen on the proposed wiki, except that usage on more restricted wikis would be prominently highlighted to alert anybody who looked at the file. In addition it would build on an existing model, which is that when files are uncategorized or they need categories checking, there is a message that appears on the file page. So on the proposed wiki, file usage on a restricted wiki would place that file in a special category until someone checks that the usage is acceptable.

In my crazy mind, I see it in terms of a new car that someone has bought to use on a daily basis. I know it sounds like the ramblings of a lunatic but it is the best analogy I can give. I'm sure it is pretty much the same in most countries but in the UK every car needs insurance, road tax and a fitness test (called an MOT). For my uploaded file the equivalent would be the copyright status and where I found the image etc. Even then, there are rules about how you use a car, for example the most common restriction is the traffic light system mainly found at junctions of two or more roads. In case it is different elsewhere, we usually have three lights, red for stop, amber/yellow for ready, and green for go. My uploaded file would initially have red lights for all wikis, and even if I tried linking to the image from de:Euro, all I would see is the text that appears when you link a non-existent file. As soon as I fill out a rationale for German Wikipedia, it would give the file a green light and I could then link it from the article. I would then have to fill out another rationale for each of the other wikis before the file could be used there. Now, let's say that I decided to try and link the file from ca:Euro on the Catalan Wikipedia (which appears to have a more restrictive policy), I would be able to complete the form but it would be tailored to the specific needs of ca-wiki. It would allow me to then link from the article but the file would have an amber light to let other users know that this usage needs checking and confirming. Obviously for wikis that only allow Commons files, there would be no option in the rationale form to select such a wiki and if I tried being a hothead and linking anyway, all it would show is a non-existent file. To illustrate the example, the very bottom part of the file page would look something like this, bearing in mind that the section heading would use the normal === on either side:

File usage on other wikis

• The following other wikis use this file:

• Usage on ca.wikipedia.org

Euro

• Usage on de.wikipedia.org

Euro

If the file has no fair use rationales filled in, then there would be a red light like this () at the top somewhere with a message saying something like: "This file does not have any fair use rationales. It cannot be used on any other wiki until a rationale is provided."

On a higher level, I think it would need some software changes but I might be wrong because I'm not a technical sort of person. I hope that clarifies things but as with any idea, it never comes out perfectly formed in one go.

Just as an addendum, I avoided giving too many numbers in the proposal but I think it is worth noting that there appear to be about 2.2 million files on the various Wikipedias, of which English Wikipedia alone hosts more than 800,000. I don't think it is wrong to suggest that a large proportion of those will be duplicates or effective duplicates. Obviously it is difficult to gauge exactly how many unnecessary files there are but am I wrong to think that we probably have at least a million files that don't really need to be hosted? As a comparison, Commons appears to have more than 20 million files at the moment, which would indicate that about 10% of all the files are non-free content. It is fantastic that 90% are free but it would be more fantastic to be able to say that 95% are free files, if we could just weed out all the duplicates and near duplicates. Green Giant (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I have found a clearer example to demonstrate the scale of the problem. I'm sure we all have fond memories of the 1997 movie "Titanic", so I present these copies of the promotional poster, with some variations but ultimately based on the same image:

1. am:ስዕል:Titanic_poster.jpg - the wiki has no EDP
2. az:Şəkil:Titanic_poster.jpg - no EDP
3. be:Файл:Titanic_3D_Poster.jpg - EDP is similar to enwiki
4. bn:চিত্র:Titanic_poster.jpg - developing EDP is similar to enwiki, but non-free images of living people strongly discouraged
5. bs:Datoteka:Titanic.jpg - no EDP
6. ca:Fitxer:Titanic_poster.jpg - strongly discouraged for images of living people
7. ckb:پەڕگە:Titanic_poster.jpg - only admins can upload
8. cy:Delwedd:Titanic_poster.jpg - no EDP
9. el:Αρχείο:Titanic_1997_poster.jpg - not allowed to have non-free images of living people
10. en:File:Titanic_poster.jpg - strongly discouraged for non-free images of living people
11. eo:Dosiero:Titanic1997.jpg
12. fa:پرونده:Titanic_poster.jpg
13. fi:Tiedosto:Titanic_poster.jpg - non-free images of living people are forbidden
14. ga:Íomhá:Titanic_poster.jpg - no EDP
15. hi:चित्र:टाइटैनिक_(१९९७_चलचित्र).jpg - no EDP
16. hr:Datoteka:Titanic_poster.jpg
17. hy:Պատկեր:Titanic_poster.jpg - EDP is similar to enwiki
18. id:Berkas:Titanic_film.jpg
19. is:Mynd:Titanicplakattvo.jpg - strict limits allow such files only when no free file is available
20. ka:ფაილი:Titanic_ver2.jpg - no EDP
21. lt:Vaizdas:Titanic_poster.jpg
22. lv:Attēls:Titanic_poster.jpg
23. mk:Податотека:Titanic_poster.jpg
24. ml:പ്രമാണം:Titanic_poster.jpg - EDP is similar to enwiki
25. ms:Fail:Titanic_poster.jpg - EDP is similar to enwiki but with some differences
26. pt:Ficheiro:Titanic_poster.jpg
27. ro:Fișier:Titanic_poster.jpg - EDP is similar to enwiki
28. si:ගොනුව:Titanic_poster.jpg - EDP is similar to enwiki
29. sl:Slika:TitanicDVD.jpg - EDP is similar to enwiki
30. sr:Датотека:Titanic_poster.jpg
31. sw:Picha:Titanic_poster.jpg - no EDP
32. ta:படிமம்:டைட்டானிக்_திரைப்பட_உறை.jpg - EDP still being worked on
33. tr:Dosya:Titanik_film.jpg - non-free images strongly discouraged for living people
34. uk:Файл:Titanic_poster.jpg - EDP is similar to enwiki
35. vi:Tập_tin:Titanic_poster.jpg
36. zh:File:TITANIC.jpg - EDP is similar to enwiki but strongly discourages non-free images of living people

I had to go through 74 articles about the movie to find these images. Clearly a large number of them are problematic, either with no EDP on their wiki or poorly presented attribution or they are hosted on wikis that strongly discourage non-free images of living people. If we have a single wiki for non-free images, we could detect and deal with this kind of problem more easily than at the moment. Instead of 36 images with varying levels of attribution and policy compliance, we could host just one image with full attribution and compliance and then allow it to be linked from a limited number of articles. Green Giant (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@TeleComNasSprVen: and @QuiteUnusual:, I have tried to create some example pages for a non-free wiki at User:Green Giant/NonFreeWiki. I invite you both and anyone else who is interested to look at them and tell me what you think, even if it is to tell me that I should just pack it all in. Please do excuse the amateurish attempt to replicate pages but there is not much to go on. I look forward to your comments. :) Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• According to wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, an EDP must be "in accordance with [...] the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed (if any)". As different Wikipedia projects are accessed from different countries, this means that different Wikipedia projects need to adopt vastly different EDPs, and some files would only be useable on some projects but not on other projects. See for example Wikilegal/Turkish Wikipedia and Non-Free Content for a discussion of what this means for Turkish Wikipedia. One of the problems you mentioned is that some projects still lack an EDP. A "NonFreeWiki" would not solve this; those projects would still have to come up with an EDP which is in accordance with the law of the countries in which those projects predominantly are accessed. Adopting w:WP:NFCC (or a translation of it) would not necessarily be possible as the United States might not be the only country from which the project predominantly is accessed.

If a project only can use a subset of the files in an image repository but not all of them, this risks making file patrolling more difficult. On English Wikipedia, files can easily be deleted if the file is found not to satisfy the EDP (w:WP:NFCC). On the other hand, if a file is hosted on a "NonFreeWiki", the file may have to be kept on the "NonFreeWiki" project because it satisfies the EDP of the Syldavian Wikivoyage or the Brutopian Wikiversity. On English Wikipedia, the vast majority of EDP violations that I find and report concern files where all uses violate the EDP, and much fewer of them concern files used in two or more articles where the file has to be removed from some but not all of the articles using the file. Also, if a decision is taken to remove a file from some but not articles, I sometimes see that file being re-added immediately afterwards. I would therefore guess, although I'm not sure, that it is easier to manage file usage if a file simply can be deleted for violation of the EDP, and that a NonFreeWiki, which would make the same file useable on many more pages, would make such image patrolling more difficult.

I also note a problem with local images which this project would solve. I sometimes find that a different language edition of Wikipedia has translated an article from English Wikipedia and that the translation refers to files under the same names as on English Wikipedia. This gives ugly red links for those files which have been uploaded locally to English Wikipedia. If they instead had been uploaded to a central repository, the translation would still have contained the correct images.

User:TeleComNasSprVen mentioned mw:InstantCommons and claimed that you wouldn't be able to use that feature for a non-free wiki. I'm not sure that this is correct. I believe (although I might be wrong) that you can use any WMF projects as an "image repository" in the same way as mw:InstantCommons by simply adding a couple of lines to your own wikiproject's mw:LocalSettings.php. However, since non-free files on at least English Wikipedia frequently tend to be deleted (for example because of violation of w:WP:NFCC#7), using a "NonFreeWiki" as an image repository sounds unstable.

Also note that different projects define "free" differently:

• On English Wikipedia, anything published before 1923 is determined to be "free" (because of United States law). Such content is not necessarily free elsewhere, and such content is not necessarily acceptable on Commons (see w:Template:PD-US-1923-abroad). Using English Wikipedia content in the United Kingdom, Canada or Australia is often illegal because of this.
• On German Wikipedia, photographs of buildings and statues are usually determined to be "free" if permission has been granted from the photographer (because of German, Austrian and Swiss law). On the other hand, such content is not necessarily free elsewhere (see for example w:Korean War Veterans Memorial#United States postage stamp court case). It is therefore often llegal to use German Wikipedia content in Belgium, Luxembourg and South Tyrol, because of conflicting laws.
• On Italian Wikipedia, photographs taken more than 20 years ago usually seem to be determined to be free (because of a short term for photographs in Italian law), but such photographs are not always considered to be "free" in other countries (see e.g. the warning about 1976 in it:Template:PD-Italia), and using Italian Wikipedia content is therefore sometimes illegal in Switzerland.

What would this proposal do about files which are considered to be "free" on one project but not on another project? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Apologies for the late reply and thank you for your detailed response. I will attempt to address the concerns you have raised. Firstly let me clarify that I’m not proposing that the enwiki EDP should be adopted automatically or that it would necessarily be the best solution. It’s just that it appears to have been used as a model by some of the other wikis, and although I can’t say for certain, the Google translations of the other EDPs suggest that it is the most comprehensive and probably the most lenient EDP yet. The proposed repository would adopt an EDP that would match the most lenient criteria overall, so it could accommodate all the local wikis that choose to allow non-free content.
• I think seven years is sufficient time for most of the local wikis to have made some progress. The fact that only 36 appear to have adopted an EDP clearly illustrates that we still have a long way to go. The proposed wiki would act as a wake-up call for wikis to either adopt an EDP or switch entirely to Commons files. If a local wiki needs help to formulate an appropriate EDP, they would have a central location for guidelines.
• The proposed wiki would use a two-pronged methodology to regulate the use of such files. Firstly, after NonFreeWiki was activated, there would be a reasonable period of notice, during which locally-held files could be transferred to the new wiki. Once the notice period was over, those local wikis that haven’t done so already would switch off local uploads. The local wikis would not automatically opt-in to NonFreeWiki but would be able to choose to allow files from NonFreeWiki to be used in their articles.
• Secondly NonFreeWiki would use a "traffic light system" (patent pending :) ), by which newly uploaded files would initially be barred from being used on any wiki at all. The file page would have a prominent red light marker as well as the file being automatically placed in a special "barred" category. The only way to use the file would be to fill out a fair-use pro-forma for each article, much the same way as is required locally. The difference would be that the form would include a dropdown list of local wikis, and this list would only have those wikis that have adopted EDP’s. Once the user has selected a wiki, the options presented would depend on the restrictions of the local wiki. For instance the English option would present the ten existing criteria but the Catalan option would have the nine criteria that they require and the Russian option would have the seven they require. If the fair use form was fully filled out, it would give a yellow light for that wiki, as well as switching the file to another "rationale-provided" category. The file could then be used in the appropriate article but would need to be checked by someone other than the uploader or the rationale provider, probably at the local wiki. The checking person would go to the file page and click on the yellow light, which would bring up a dialog box with a button to confirm usage. The file usage would then turn either blue (for more restrictive wikis) or green for more lenient wikis, as well as switching the file to one of two "checked" categories.
• Where a file is found to be contravening local requirements, the remedy would be no more complex than is needed at the moment, e.g. with a Commons file that does not follow requirements. The user could request deletion, or report a possibly unfree file or ask for a review at a forum like Non-Free content review.
• The problem about different definitions of "free" is one that does not appear to have been solved with the existing system of local wikis either. Short of having individual wikis for each jurisdiction, I don’t see how we could ever resolve such a problem on a purely local basis. The aim with a NonFreeWiki would be to minimise the number of unfree files so that we don’t end up with multiple copies of the same images and potentially reduce the legal liability. If you look at the example I have given in the proposal, the same copyright image (or slight variations) has been used on articles in 36 Wikipedias, with at least 16 of those images on wikis that don’t have EDP’s or ones that strongly discourage non-free images of living persons. I understand the concern about managing files locally but I think this is a serious wider problem that could be more easily managed by a central repository. With these files in a central location, the number of files would be drastically reduced because many will be duplicates or near-duplicates. Equally, we would have greater oversight with more active users able to keep an eye on fewer files.
• Currently there are 154 Wikipedias that each host more than 100 files each, with a grand total of more than 2.2 million files.. As a comparison the English Wikipedia has 800,000 of those files, with about 130,000 active users. In contrast, the other 153 Wikipedias have 1.4 million files and just 130,000 active users. At the extreme end is Bosnian Wikipedia with 22,000 files and just 169 active users. I believe that by eliminating duplicates and near-duplicates we would be left with significantly fewer files than we currently have. Although not all users are involved with files, overall we would have a larger group of users to help out. In the long term I believe such a repository would result in better regulation of unfree files. The proposed wiki would aim to accommodate them all by having a multilingual interface (similar to the ones we use on Meta and Commons) and by restricting usage through the different fair use pro-formas. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk)

• Apologies for late reply Stefan2, but I did not receive the ping. To clarify, what I meant was that InstantCommons could not be reused in a legal sense, as you noted other re-user wikis might serve content to different target language-audiences that have an EDP conforming to the local laws of their own home country. From a technical standpoint, InstantCommons could easily be adapted to host NonFreeWiki, but since that wiki hosts copyrighted content, it would serve little purpose as NonFreeWiki is not a "content-building" wiki. --TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:NonFreeWiki#Where do comments go

I don't see a place for others to comment on your proposal. I'm going to just put it here. If you add a comments section, please copy the following to it:

There would be a problem of continuing to host a red-dotted image. I think there would need to be an automatic deletion built in, the same way unused images are tagged for deletion on the English Wikipedia. So I propose an alteration to the red dot explanation saying the image will be deleted in 7 days if no fair use rationale is given. Trlkly (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Previously, discussion has taken place at Wikimedia Forum#New project proposals. One issue is that projects using files from a "NonFreeWiki" first would have to adopt an EDP before content from the project can be included so that it is ensured that the use of the images is "in accordance with [...] the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed", as stated in wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Trlkly: Thank you for your suggestion, you raise a valid point. I will incorporate it into the proposal. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually there need not be a problem with red-dotted images.

• If they are not linked to then the only page they are on is the page about the image, and this is fair-use.
• If we still had trouble we could display only a thumbnail, or a degraded image, or even a description, until either a fair-use requirement arose, or the copyright expired (or the image was released).

Rich Farmbrough 02:39 6 April 2014 (GMT).

Talk:NonFreeWiki#Fair use vs. non-free

This proposal appears to mix the US legal term fair use with the very broad term non-free. If this is intended to be a international project aimed sites beyond en.wikipedia.org, it seems best to avoid the term fair use as this is a term of US copyright law which has no equivalent concept in European civil law. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@AFBorchert: Thank you very much for your suggestion, it is much appreciated. I will change the wording of the proposal to reflect this valid point. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

GZWDer's comments

1. This wiki is for EVERY images which is used in at least one wiki as fair use, and doesn't meet Common's inclusion criteria
2. Any wiki rejected fair use images can opt-out, so any images except those described below can't be used in that wiki
3. It'll probably be a place to host images with commons:Template:Copyright by Wikimedia, commons:Template:Copyright by Wikimedia Deutschland and commons:Template:Copyright by Wikimedia Polska, which can be used in any wikis (without the limit above). See Allrightsreserved; It will make Commons entirely free;
4. Meta data can be provided in the main namespace

--GZWDer (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

1. @Green Giant: Add one comment: the wiki should comply with EDPs in every wikis. That is, it allows any images which would be used in any wikis. However, images which has no source/license, or not used in any wikis (except images copyrighted by WMF, WMDE, etc) should be deleted.--GZWDer (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Some thoughts

I have been suggesting something like this for some time - and not to avoid duplicates, so well done for making this a proper proposal!

I have had a few conversations with various Wikimedians about it, so I acknowledge lots of input.

These thoughts are based on images, but might be applicable to other files.

• Call it "uncommons.wikimedia.org"
• It would be allowed to store any file that is not illegal to own
• Files would be documented in such a way that their use on a particular project would be ascertainable - E.G. freedom of panorama, death + 100 years, Fair use only, etc.
• Files would be usable by Wikimedia projects, subject to copyright
• Files could be embargoed either by their copyright owner, or by reference to copyright expiry (maybe thumbnails viewable as an option)
• Files from Commons which fail Commons tests for freeness, would be moved to Uncommons (This would avoid the situation where a file is moved from a local wiki and rightly or wrongly deleted as unfree - where is may have had a fair use on its original wiki)
• Logos which sit on Commons and are non-free (but not copyrightable in the US) could be moved to Uncommons.

Rich Farmbrough 02:34 6 April 2014 (GMT).

Note: Very many of the files on en:wp are actually free, and due to be moved to Commons. Rich Farmbrough 02:42 6 April 2014 (GMT).

Some uploaders want to have local copies of their images on the English Wikipedia, so they tag images to keep a local copy. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

@Rich Farmbrough: so we should move all free and not URAA images to Commons, and only keep images which can't be stored in Commons in NonFreeWiki.--GZWDer (talk) 04:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I only mention this, because the figures you suggested for percentage are probably wrong, it doesn't affect the merits of the case. Rich Farmbrough 23:21 6 April 2014 (GMT).

• I don't see why a new wiki would be needed to do what could be done with a small shift in Commons policy and mission. Commons could host non-free use files under the EDP of any project. I.e., Commons would adopt an EDP that allows Commons hosting with EDP usage on any wiki. It could create a generic EDP. These files would be tagged machine-readably to satisfy WMF policy for non-free content. Files would be uploaded on Commons with a claim of intended non-free use on [specific wiki pagename]. Commons would then give them X days to set up the page. This is not more complex than what would be needed for the proposal here. It could be handled by bot. I.e, if the page usage does not appear, or does not remain, the Commons file would either be automatically deleted, or tagged for such.
• On en.Wikiversity, some of us are becoming averse to moving files to Commons because we have seen it happen that a file is moved to Commons, then some glitch in the licensing is uncovered, after years, and the file is deleted -- we didn't even know there was a discussion -- and then we lose an image on which we could have claimed fair, or other legitimate non-free use, but didn't because we didn't think it was necessary, and the Commons delinker bot deletes the link, that's the first we know. Before deleting Commons files, a bot should notify local wikis where a file is used to give them opportunity to claim EDP usage. Commons could then continue to host the file, tagged appropriately to prevent confusion.
• Commons would remain a repository of files for free use, and it would host some other files as clearly distinguished.
• There could be value to centralizing non-free use, if the right to independent judgment of the individual wikis is preserved. So the devil is in the details. If Commons is not willing to partition off a non-free upload system, then I would support a collaborative effort somewhat as proposed here, to support the small wikis. Small wikis often turn off upload because of the hassle that can develop with stringent licensing policies. (Copyright issues become arcane and very complex, where even copyright lawyers will disagree.) However, the result is a general, though subtle, lowering of article quality.
• The WMF resolution licensing policy appears to place "free content" above the value of content. I personally find that questionable, because, quite to the contrary of immediate appearance, it only benefits commercial re-users, by making the job of satisfying the more stringent situation with for-profit users, as with, say, Creative Commons NC licenses, easier for them. Non-Commercial re-users -- i.e, the vast majority of us, providers of free content and process without advertising -- don't have to worry about that. So this benefits, say, Wikia at the expense of the user base, which is expected to work to find unrestricted licenses, or suffer file deletion and massive administrative headaches, even if usage would be totally legal. Nice trick. Not that I have anything against Wikia, I like Wikia. --Abd (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• You can try pitching this idea to the Commons community, but this concept was outright rejected from Wikimedia Commons and the admin pointed to their FAQ for your answers. Wikimedia Commons users are in general very principled when it comes to the idea of free content media; for example, at Commons:Requests for comment/MP4 Video, the WMF Multimedia team were given a limited-time license and pitched this proposal: they would allow uploads of MP4 (non-free file format) videos to Wikimedia Commons, which would then be converted instantly to Ogg (free file format) videos for hosting on Commons servers, and then reusers would be able to choose whether to download the original file in MP4 format (which would have re-conversion on download stream) or in Ogg format. This proposal was rejected as clear consensus in opposition; it was not even a close no consensus tie. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• @Abd: I'm not sure what you mean by "partitioning off a non-free upload system", but wouldn't that effectively result in a separate wiki (in spirit, if not in name). Realistically, I don't think Commoners would agree to host unfree files. I can't see the benefit in swamping Commons with 2 million unfree files, when it is already struggling - in the last seven days, Commons has deleted about 14,000 files for various reasons. If it hosted unfree files, it would blur the line between free and unfree and we would have folks arguing that we should keep a photo of X-celebrity or Y-event or even a Z-nobody. The current dichotomy between free and unfree files is essential for slowing down the tidal wave of files that are uploaded every day. Curbing the huge number of unfree files, including but not limited to the seemingly endless duplicates, can be better achieved on a separate wiki without the grey areas that would exist on a mixed Commons. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 10:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
• @Rich Farmbrough: Thank you for the suggestions. Uncommons is about as good a name as any, certainly better than the one I came up with. Initially I think it would be more efficient to move all the files from the Wikipedias, even if they've been tagged for movement to Commons. It would be simpler to exchange files between Commons and NonFreeWiki than it would be to exchange between Commons and dozens of Wikipedias. I agree there are probably quite a few files on Commons which don't fit with the guidelines but would be usable in Wikipedia nonetheless. Also, can I ask which percentages you are referring to in your last comment? Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 10:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"about 10% of all the files are non-free content" Rich Farmbrough 21:50 16 April 2014 (GMT).

Oh that. I based it on 20.7 million Commons files and 2.2. Wikipedia files, but it was just a guess. I don't know how many of the Commons files are unfree and how many of the Wikipedia files are free. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• @GZWDer: Thank you for summarising this proposal in twenty or so words. I couldn't have put it better myself. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 10:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• FYI, because of bugzilla 55491 pings are by default not allowed in the main namespace; this is so content wikis such as Wikipedia can disallow users accidentally pinging each other when writing articles, but Meta isn't exactly a content wiki. That's why I missed some of your comments last time and it took so long for me to respond (I also didn't have this page watchlisted initially). TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
• Scratch that, bugzilla 55491 has been fixed since Version 1.23wmf16 onwards. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with TeleComNasSprVen that there is no need for a new wiki. It would be more handy to have only one wiki (adapted "Commons") for both: free and not-free content.--Skorovs (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• I hope you are referring to Abd. Nevertheless, the Commons community would naturally be averse to such a proposal. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Ugh. My comment here was taken to Commons and presented out-of-context, not by me. It was removed (not exactly "rejected") by an administrator with the summary, "(pleas read the FAQ.)" As if the author (me) and the proposer there (GZWDer) were not aware that Commons does not now host non-free files, as if there is nothing that could be discussed. What I found in the FAQ was an answer to this question: "Why don't all images from Wikimedia projects get uploaded here by default?"
• The answer: "Most importantly, some Wikipedias have a less strict licensing policy than Commons, so some pictures that would not be acceptable to Commons may be OK there. Commons does not (and cannot) allow fair use content, as some Wikipedias do: see commons:Commons:Fair use."
• Commons was created, as far as I understand, to host -- and only host -- free content, content without most usage restrictions, not relying on any fair use claim or "free for noncommercial usage." The question would be presumably presented to the Commons community, whether or not it would take on a separate task, one not in conflict with that original task, that of managing non-free use content. Why Commons and not a separate wiki? Because Commons has the user expertise to understand licensing requirements and has the upload procedures and categorization procedures for images in place. Some content would not be appropriate even for fair use. If Commons does not want that task, and if the community does want to centralize non-free file hosting, then a new wiki would be needed. Commons would be simpler.
• Seeing that proposal simply deleted was a face-palm moment. That's a page for "proposals," i.e., for something new and different. If something new and different cannot even be discussed, the wiki has become rigid and inflexible. Nothing new, I suppose.
• I don't necessarily support this proposal, except for wikis that actually want it. But there is nothing illegal about the proposal or, as to hosting this content on Commons, contrary to the intention of the WMF licensing policy. I assume that policy would continue to apply; the shared hosting site would still have procedures in place to satisfy WMF policy as to limiting non-free use. All that would happen is that what is decentralized now, and often not maintained at all, would be centralized for efficiency. In particular, the crucial machine-readable non-free use tagging of non-free files is often not done, for a long time, because the small wikis simply don't have the labor available. Commons, or an equivalent NFW, would handle that routinely, all such files would be immediately tagged, probably by bot. Presumably NFW would have a relatively liberal EDP, but still within WMF policy. --Abd (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
• The WMF resolution has this:

• In addition, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons, each project community may develop and adopt an EDP. Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users.

That was descriptive, as to Commons. However, this is the reality that has appeared: the other wikis are often poor at enforcing license policy regarding non-free content. That includes widespread failure to identify files. Even Commons is poor at it, files may sit there for years, being used in articles and educational resources, then someone spots a defect and the file is toast and articles and resources are damaged. Even if they could have claimed fair use or other non-free use. By centralizing the process, that essential goal would be furthered with increased reliability. I do not believe that the WMF would continue a prohibition of the hosting of non-free content on Commons, because, as matters stand, the policy is being frustrated. There is plenty of non-free content being hosted, cross-wiki with no machine-readable tagging. There is even a fair amount of such content on Commons. How much would take a study, sampling Commons files.

What might change, if NFW was started up, for files in use, is that they might be ported to NFW. However, this wastes time and server filespace. If they were hosted on Commons, and the license defect were found, the file would not be immediately deleted if it is in use. Rather, a process would be started to check for a non-free use rationale. Is an equivalent free file available? Commons doesn't ask that question at this point. It could, if it developed a policy. --Abd (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

There's an instruction at the top of Commons:Village pump/Proposals: "If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing please do not comment here. It is a waste of your time. One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: Only free content is allowed. This is just a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias." Clearly they have heard this proposal considered and rejected so many times they're tired of discussing it any longer. Not because they might be inflexible or rigid, to an extent. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

GZWDer's comments 2

Only one wiki is needed for 3 kinds of files unacceptable in Commons:

1. Files with copyright in orginal countries (Real "non-free"): The method to do with this kind of images is above, Green Giant's idea. Wikis which fair use is unacceptable in (like eswiki) can use none of these images. If a file isn't used in any wikis, it would be deleted.
2. Files without copyright in orginal countries, but not in the public domain in the United States: For example, a file in the public domain in Spain can be used in eswiki as free files (if consensus accept them) in any pages included project/user pages, and can only be used as non-free files in enwiki (treat them as above). This kind of file wouldn't be deleted if a project accepts it.
3. Files with copyright by WMF/WMDE/...: These files can be used in any wiki in any pages, unless the project declines to do so. These files will be deleted from Commons if it is moved to NonFreeWiki. This kind of file wouldn't be deleted even though being unused.

This 3 kinds of file would be clearly distinguished.--GZWDer (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

New comments

• I think that the whole point of wikipedia is that it is free and easy to use, and it is available for all who require it's services. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lying Politician (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2014

• Thank you for the comment but I think you have misunderstood this proposal. We are not proposing to change Wikipedia's mission, just to change the way we handle the unfree files that exist on many Wikipedias. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Limits the availability of information, so I'm against it - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jakesyl (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2014‎

• How does this proposal limit information? Did you read the text of the proposal or did you jump to a conclusion based on the name? Also, if you want to sign something, don't use other people's signatures. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a price that we should pay

Hi, the idea of using a global Wiki to reduce the number of duplicated file is technically good, but I have some thoughts about it:

1. It's against our core principles. I believe our Wiki projects should be all dedicated to free content.
2. I believe it will encourage users to upload more non-free medias (especially movie screenshots, posters etc), which is contrary to the original purpose.
3. It will give a hard time for new users who want to upload a file. They might ended up uploading free content to the NonFreeWiki.

I think duplicated content is like a "price" that we should pay for using non-free contents - we have no choice but to accept it. Regarding local Wiki policy, I agree it's a problem. we might have to encourage the local Wiki community to adapt EDP. --Ricky Setiawan (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC) --Ricky Setiawan (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments Ricky. I wholeheartedly support using only free files i.e. if we relied only on Commons. Unfortunately we have these unfree files, which I think many users are simply unaware of the difference, and it is better to handle them in one place than in three dozen places. Also we would considerably reduce the amount of unfree files because we wouldn't need duplicates like the 36 copies in the example above. As for new users, I believe we would need to make it clearer that there is a difference between free content for Commons and unfree content for NonFreeWiki. One of the benefits of a single wiki will be that transferring files will become a little easier because there would be only 2 repositories rather than 100+ at the moment. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)