Author Archives: Jimmy Wales

Oct 21 2004

Free Knowledge requires Free Software and Free File Formats

People sometimes ask me why I’m so adamant that Wikipedia must always use free software, even when in some cases it might be the case that proprietary software might be more convenient or better suited for some particular need that we have.

After all, the argument goes, our primary mission is to produce free knowledge, not to promote free software, and whlie we might prefer free software on practical grounds (since it is generally best of breed for webserving applications), we should not be sticklers about it.

I believe this argument is seriously mistaken, and not on merely practical grounds, but on grounds of principle. Free knowledge requires free software. It is a conceptual error to think about our mission as being somehow separate from that.

What is free knowledge? What is a free encyclopedia? The essence is something that anyone who understands free software can immediately grasp. A free encylopedia, or any other free knowledge, can be freely read, without getting permission from anyone. Free knowledge can be freely shared with others. Free knowledge can be adapted to your own needs. And your adapted versions can be freely shared with others.

We produce a massive website filled with an astounding variety of knowledge. If we were to produce this website using proprietary software, we would place potentially insurmountable obstacles in front of those who would like to take our knowledge and do the same thing that we are doing. If you need to get permission from a proprietary software vendor in order to create your own copy of our works, then you are not really free.

For the case of proprietary file formats, the situation is even worse. It could be argued, though not persuasively I think, that as long as Wikimedia content can be loaded into some existing free software easily enough, then our internal use of proprietary software is not so bad. For proprietary formats, even this seductive fallacy does not apply. If we offer information in a proprietary or patent-encumbered format, then we are not just violating our own commitment to freedom, we are forcing others who want to use our allegedly free knowledge to themselves use proprietary software.

Finally, we should never forget as a community that we are the vanguard of a knowledge revolution that will transform the world. We are the leading edge innovators and leaders of what is becoming a global movement to free knowledge from proprietary constraints. 100 years from now, the idea of a proprietary textbook or encyclopedia will sound as quaint and remote as we now think of the use of leeches in medical science.

Through our work, every single person on the planet will have easy low cost access to free knowledge to empower them to do whatever it is that they want to do. And my point here is that this is not some idle fantasy, but something that we are already accomplishing. We have become one of the largest websites in the world using a model of love and co-operation that is still almost completely unknown to the wider world. But we are becoming known, and we will be known, for both our principles and achievements — because it is the principles that make the achievements possible.

Toward that end, it should be a strong point of pride to us that the Wikimedia Foundation always uses free software on all computers that we own, and that we always put forward our best effort to ensure that our free knowledge really _is_ free, in that people are not forced to use proprietary software in order to read, modify, and redistribute it as they see fit.

Oct 18 2004

Wikimedia Conference, Round Two

Elian ([[de:User:elian|de]] and [[en:User:elian|en]]), who is organizing the big huge fantastic amazing not-to-be-missed Wikimedia conference for 2005, has posted the announcement of the 3 finalist cities: [[Dublin]], [[Frankfurt]], and [[Rotterdam]]. Here is the official announcement.

The 7 semi-finalists were narrowed to 3 finalists, see [[m:Wikimedia_meetup_2005/City_Candidate_List]] for more details.

The hardest part for the committee was the hope to not disappoint the advocates of the cities that weren’t chosen. It was a tough choice, and it will only get tougher with the next round.

For now, we’re seeking more hard facts about the venue, travel costs, distances, accomodation costs, etc. Please post to the meta page(s) with advice and information.

Oct 13 2004

I met a Somali Bantu refugee child

On my flight back to the U.S. from Warsaw, it turned out that on the same plane were a group of [[Somali Bantu Refugees]] on their way to the US as part of the USRP ([[United States Refugee Program]]). Sitting across the aisle from me were a mother and daughter, the little girl appearing to me to be around the same age as my own daughter, Kira, who is 3 1/2.

The Bantu people were being guided by a couple of aid workers, because less than one week prior most of them had never even seen a electric light switch, a flush toilet, or a tap for water. Everything about being on a jet crossing the ocean was like being on Mars to them, said the aid worker.

They wore mostly the same clothing, obviously given to them by USRP, i.e. gray sweatshirts reading ‘USRP’.

I had in my backpack a small gift for Kira, a small stuffed donkey. I thought it would be nice to get it out to entertain this little girl, and to give to her as a gift.

So I did, except that the little girl was frightened of it. It wasn’t that she was afraid of me, per se, but of the actual toy itself. She was fascinated and would very very cautiously reach out and touch it. When it feel off the arm of the airplane seat into her seat, she jumped away from it and made a frightened noise.

Her mother held the toy and showed it to her.

The aid worker told me that the little girl had never seen a toy like this before.

And now they are coming to America to live. This is remarkable. Imagine coming to the United States with no knowledge of English, this is hard enough. But no knowledge of indoor plumbing, electricity, stuffed animals.

I had already been watching the story of the Somali bantu refugee program, but now I feel a more personal connection, having met and briefly played with this little girl. I took a photo, but I will not publish it, because I was unable to get any kind of informed consent from the people I took the photo of (they did not speak English).

By Jimmy Wales • Posted in General
1
Oct 11 2004

Women in Wikipedia

[[Joi Ito]] has some interesting comments about women in the wikipedia community.

I hope that wikipedia is a more welcoming community for women than most on the net. But I’m not quite sure how to analyze this. I have to admit that at Wikipedia meetups the ratio of men to women is about 8:1 overall. But that ratio does not hold in ever aspect of the community, and it is absolutely right to say that there are strong women who are in major leadership roles.

There are some cliches we could use to think about this: do women gain power because they are good at mediating conflict between warring men? So they come to be thought of as people who have authority to settle disputes? This sounds plausible to me, but I readily admit that it’s a cliche.

Oct 11 2004

Online Policy Group v. Diebold decision

On the plane from Newark to Amsterdam, I finally had a chance to readthe recent [[Online Policy Group]] v. [[Diebold]] decision. This decision is very good news for the freedom of speech on the Internet.

First, some background.

The much-reviled [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]] actually has some very good provisions in it to protect internet service providers such as the Wikimedia Foundation. When users post content that is alleged to infringe copyright, there exists a procedure which must be used by copyright holders in order to enforce their legal rights.

Essentially, copyright holders have to make a proper DMCA-compliant request to the ISP, at which time the ISP has the option to either take down the content, or contact the user to get a DMCA-compliant statement to the contrary. If the ISP does this, then the ISP can not be held liable for copyright infringement.

The law also contains a previously little-known and little-used provision (section 512(f) designed to prevent copyright holders from abusing the procedure. As this decision explains it, the provision provides that “any person who sends a cease and desist letter with knowledge that claims of infringement are false may be liable for damages.”

What is interesting and important to us about this case is that Diebold was found to be in violation of 512(f) when they sent a DMCA takedown notice with respect to some material that the court found to be fair use. This case makes it more likely that copyright holders will not attempt to make invalid DMCA complaints about legitimate fair use on the web.

Fair use (and the narrower fair dealing) is an important freedom from abuse by copyright holders. It is good to see a decision which supports it.

By Jimmy Wales • Posted in legal
0