Please take the next step https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_Copyright_Viola...
Nearly 2000 words on how I can police their website for them? No, thanks. If they took this problem seriously they would build a system to catch copy-paste before it went live on their site.
I think they already have such systems via bots, but they don't block or undo things automatically because I assume it's hard to know programmatically the licence of things that are posted on the Internet.
Nearly 2000 words on how I can police their website for them? No, thanks. If they took this problem seriously they would build a system to catch copy-paste before it went live on their site.
I think they already have such systems via bots, but they don't block or undo things automatically because I assume it's hard to know programmatically the licence of things that are posted on the Internet.
It it is hard, that they should not run wikipedia.
Please take the next step https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_Copyright_Viola...
Wikipedia should verify the copyright before allowing changes. It should not be the publishers responsibility to enforce the copyright. Wikipedia should be responsible because they decided they wanted to allow anyone to edit. They should hire moderators, and if they cannot moderate, they should not run a platform of theft.
> It should not be the publishers responsibility to enforce the copyright.
Why not?
Copyright is an unnatural right created in the name of encouraging creative output; if the person who owns the rights to control copying a work don’t enforce it, why should the rest of us do it for them?
I think they already have such systems via bots, but they don't block or undo things automatically because I assume it's hard to know programmatically the licence of things that are posted on the Internet.
It it is hard, that they should not run wikipedia.
That is crazy. Even systems like ContentID are full of flaws.
Unfortunately, there isn’t a vibrant free web. Wikipedia is about the only major non-ad supported website that normal people visit. Most user content is probably on Facebook or Medium. Most breaking news is first available on twitter. Even independent websites, most likely have Google analytics and Google ads. From a European point of view, the current copyright situation is just a wealth transfer from European compa…
Where you think most content is, or where most content actually is, should have nothing to do with laws targeting all content. To say that there isn't a vibrant free web and counter with what is the majority makes me think you meant to say that a vibrant free web isn't the majority instead of completely, 100% non-existent. Lots of us have sites and stuff out here, and once again the EU is only looking at one big goose to make laws, albeit well intentioned, that will affect the rest of us here in the gander. Always more laws, always more rules, always unintended consequences and lax enforcement; the wise just ignore these governments crying wolf again.
Unfortunately, there isn’t a vibrant free web. Wikipedia is about the only major non-ad supported website that normal people visit. Most user content is probably on Facebook or Medium. Most breaking news is first available on twitter. Even independent websites, most likely have Google analytics and Google ads. From a European point of view, the current copyright situation is just a wealth transfer from European compa…
My thought exactly. If there is a `vibrant free web`, I can't see it.
Look at this very site. People link here a lot, quote here a lot, and sometimes say controversial things here.
If every submission had to be pre-moderated, and royalty paid for every substantial quotation, this site would be very different, and definitely less vibrant and free.
Please take the next step https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_Copyright_Viola...
Wikipedia should verify the copyright before allowing changes. It should not be the publishers responsibility to enforce the copyright. Wikipedia should be responsible because they decided they wanted to allow anyone to edit. They should hire moderators, and if they cannot moderate, they should not run a platform of theft.
How can I verify that your post is not a violation of copyright? Did you crib it from somewhere?
Maybe we should shift the burden of proof on you? Can you prove that you are not violating copyright with your post? If you can't do it, how on earth can Wikipedia do it?
In the Soviet Union, this was called "Prove that you are not a camel."
Unfortunately, there isn’t a vibrant free web. Wikipedia is about the only major non-ad supported website that normal people visit. Most user content is probably on Facebook or Medium. Most breaking news is first available on twitter. Even independent websites, most likely have Google analytics and Google ads. From a European point of view, the current copyright situation is just a wealth transfer from European compa…
> Wikipedia is about the only major non-ad supported website that normal people visit. Which costs $69 million per year to operate, has 300+ employees and requires six million donations. Your example also isn't free. > Most user content is probably on Facebook or Medium Medium is less than 1% the size of Wordpress, both in terms of traffic and amount of content. The majority of all content on Wordpress sites is ad fr…
I'm not sure what you're implying, but I would say that $69 million per year is incredibly small compared to the amazing benefit that Wikipedia provides the world. Also, this money comes out of the pockets of people like myself who are happy to sponsor it for everyone else. I personally love this patronage model and would be happy to sponsor an ad-free open-access newspaper in a similar way, if I found one that I had confidence in.
Please take the next step https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_Copyright_Viola...
Wikipedia should verify the copyright before allowing changes. It should not be the publishers responsibility to enforce the copyright. Wikipedia should be responsible because they decided they wanted to allow anyone to edit. They should hire moderators, and if they cannot moderate, they should not run a platform of theft.
surely then, all forums should "verify the copyright" of posts before they are accepted. all email providers should screen all the mails users send.
Unfortunately, there isn’t a vibrant free web. Wikipedia is about the only major non-ad supported website that normal people visit. Most user content is probably on Facebook or Medium. Most breaking news is first available on twitter. Even independent websites, most likely have Google analytics and Google ads. From a European point of view, the current copyright situation is just a wealth transfer from European compa…
> Wikipedia is about the only major non-ad supported website that normal people visit. Which costs $69 million per year to operate, has 300+ employees and requires six million donations. Your example also isn't free. > Most user content is probably on Facebook or Medium Medium is less than 1% the size of Wordpress, both in terms of traffic and amount of content. The majority of all content on Wordpress sites is ad fr…
There should be a better mechanism for funding sites like Wikipedia that provide what is effectively a global, common, public good. Perhaps a budget from the UN or something should be set aside for funding projects like Wikimedia, Archive.org, etc.
It’s a bit ridiculous that something so important to so many people relies on donations from individuals.