User:Jozefsu/sandbox
My involvement in the Pearson Scott Foresman project:
.png)
|
.png)
.png)
.png){kind=small}
.png)
.png)
.png)
.gif)
.gif)
.png)
.png)
reminder> Toad 2 (PSF).png
CHANGE TO THIS:
{{ScottForesman
|description=b/c changes to original picture, crop and cleanup ([[:File:PSF_B-80008.png]])
|date=2016-01-17
|source={{scans from source by [[Pearson Scott Foresman]], donated to the [[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}
|author=[[:en:Pearson Scott Foresman]] & [[User:Jozefsu|Jozefsu]]
|permission=
|other versions=[[:Image:PSF_B-80008.png]]
}}
=={{int:license-header}}==
{{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}
[[Category:Drawings of animals]]
[[Category:Drawings of mammals]]
Archived:Hello World!
Note about all this fuss:
Is Wikimedia vanguard on the frontline for free copyright? Probably yes, but...
- Struggling to understand the media policy of Wikimedia/Wikipedia I thought it over again and don't think Wikipedia Commons idea of absolutely free licenses is a good one. Wikipedia should promptly consider changing policies, to a bit moderate level.
I come from an ex-communist country where everything was free and public, and it didn't work, the system eventually collapsed, leaving much of the society in ruin. Not just because people are selfish in nature...
First of all, every person deserves if not payment, but at least recognition for their work (whether a photography, peace of art or writing). No sane person will give away their work for anybody to possibly abuse it. There has to be at least minimal limit, or protection. As a result of this super-free policy, Wikipedia as an Encyclopedic tool dramatically lacks illustrations or people submit, well let's be honest, trash...
Also the writers being anonymous, enables many unpositive and biased contributors hide behind a nick. This doesn't help Wikipedia to be better.
Update:
- In english Wikipedia I was randomly looking at articles for about 10 minutes. From about 100 articles, only 47 had picture(s). While it doesn't sound like a bad proportion - almost 2:1 - the cause could be either one of these:
(1) editors don't like to attach pictures to their Encyclopaedia articles, (2) editors either do not know for Wikimedia Commons, or don't know how to use it, (3) there is a huge lack of usable pictures. — 16:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Update Update:
- Although Wikimedia boasts of zillions of pictures, for certain topics (most of the topics I searched for so far) there is no pictures at all. I mean zero pictures!
As far as the quality of the accessible ones goes, my previous thesis is true: people submit low-res, compression-distorted pics, unless the images/photos are about common subjects. Half of the licenses for most important pictures are either faked, or people fight a big deal with the issue (I did spent considerable energies and time), to have a much needed picture in their article, without which it looks "bald". Sorry. — 15:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Well,
- Time passed since my earlier expressed view/thinking that Wikimedia Foundation may need to alleviate the policy concerning copyright. As I said I am not living in a 'particularly capitalist' country, so for me was harder to understand all the hassle that goes around licensing, copyright, and intellectual or artistic property protection. I understand that it would make necessary a lot of much needed energy to be wasted in and around the copyright issues here if the conditions would be lifted even by a little (e.g. people would be able to submit work that they want to give freely for educational purpose but not for someone to resell it in any form, which is now not possible - the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License) but I still think that the CC licence here is too harsh. As the more time I spend on writing the more I realize the desperate need for illustrations on those topics. Maybe Wikipedia wasn't intended to be a pictorial encyclopaedia from start, I don't know... — 2016-07-25 (UTC)
Well, again:
- CC is the poor man's copyright, and it doesn't have the potential to start a creative movement of free works. It's simply a good help, but as it's in the poor society's interest (the ones that cannot afford for copyright fees) they - the big masses - aren't also the ones that are in material position to create new revolutionary material. To create such works one need time that is money and talent, that is also money. If I am poor and talented, and have revolutionary idea beyond the stick-man, I am a fool not to try to market it, at least for me to have what to eat! Or, be another case, I have a good job, and may have no family and kids to spend for, and in my free time, for mere hobby I create quality material - what is the percentage of people in this position? And then, as a plus, if I am additionally "sympathetic" towards the free idea, I spend the rest of my time (beyond of what takes the creating) to make all my stuff public - open for others to misuse it, abuse it and sell it... Crazy idea. As one of my friends said, sympathy will not pay my bills.
As a result, only the big folks at big companies will continue to produce quality stuff, or very soon they will buy off what comes through the sieve. And the everyday practice proves that (see Youtube, Google). Firefox, Wikipedia and some other free internet stuff may be an examle against, though...
en:Copyright Term Extension Act - read the whole article, especially see the argument about film It's a Wonderful Life, where it says the movie was never given quality restoration before it became copyrighted, because no one wanted to spend money for something in public domain. But especially the interesting arguments of the opposition. To which side the balance of scales is pulling? — 2016-07-26 (UTC)
- I of course realized, after spending years here, that any good idea, or at least idea of good intention have to start somewhere. So in the democratic "free world" (if such exist or ever existed) the CC concept must exist, and certainly have it's place. Greed and corruption at the other side (the proponents of copyright) naturally prompts others of less traditional capitalist view, and more free mind to act. "Everything (must) have a price" the proponents say, although many things in this world are in fact free, for all of us to have (like air, and sometimes water). So the point is, for the balance in Universe there have to be alternatives of the both.