Archive:Should we permit or disallow commercial use of CZ-originated articles?

Policy argument summary started March 23, 2007

The issue explained neutrally

At issue is the question whether entities may use (some of) our articles, under our standard license, for commercial purposes. There is no question that we do and will always permit noncommercial use of our content.

More particularly, should we use CC-by-nc-sa, on the one hand, or CC-by-sa or GFDL, on the other, for articles that are not required to be licensed otherwise? For those articles that began life on Wikipedia, we are required to use the GFDL. For articles that make no use of Wikipedia content, we need not use the GFDL.

Affirmative: permit commercial use

Argument: Commercial use is part of the definition of free/open content.

Just like a free software program must be available for commercial use, free content must be also. See also: http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC The point being that if the content of CZ is not free/open that users may not want to contribute to it.

Reply: So what?

This argument, even if correct--and it seems unconvincing simply because it involves the stipulation of terms of art--establishes absolutely nothing. Presumably, there is something good about being free/open content. The question is whether, by forbidding commercial use, we would not share in what makes free/open content a good thing. This argument does not even address the issue.

Argument: Commercial use permits maximum distribution of content.

It is becoming increasingly clear that redistribution on others' websites is an exceptionally useful form of publicity for many different forms of media. Redistribution on commercial websites is particularly valuable because these sites often have a high user base and a reputation for quality. Wikipedia has notably benefited from its exposure on the NASDAQ-listed company Answers.com alongside material from many other reputable resources such as the Encyclopaedica Britannica, the American Heritage Dictionary, the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia and others. Citizendium should exploit the same opportunities and indeed failure to do so may cost it gravely if Wikipedia continues to be referenced and sourced by large well-known websites and Citizendium is not. A non-commercial license will likely dissuade large commercial websites from sourcing our material and cost us in terms of both publicity and endorsement of quality.

However, the major problems of noncommercial-only licensing are the hurdles it places in the path of hard copy distribution. Access to Citizendium as-is is conditional on having a computer and internet access — resources which not everyone enjoys. Distribution to offline users (the majority of the world's population) will involve making and transporting physical media, which costs money. The by-nc license does not grant the right to charge a fee even to recover costs, which not only restricts myriad entirely reasonable and desirable non-profit-making uses but means that offline users will have to rely on either charity or the direct intervention of Citizendium to receive its material (the latter may prove tricky for copyright and other reasons). While there are resources available for charitable distribution we should not force offline individuals to rely on this.

Nobody should have to rely on anyone's goodwill to get hold of our material. If it is simpler or quicker for someone to pay others to bring them the material than to go directly to the website and get it themselves, we should not prevent them — it should be their choice, not ours.

Reply: The Citizendium website is maximum distribution.

Elaborate the reply here.

Reply: Non-commercial sites could offer similar features to commercial sites.

Elaborate the reply here.

Argument: A noncommercial license is incompatible with Wikipedia.

Elaborate the argument here.

Reply: It's not just noncommercial licenses that are incompatible

The CC-by-sa license is also incompatible with the GFDL used by Wikipedia. Future versions of these licenses may become compatible but at present they remain mutually exclusive.

Rebuttal: The GFDL and CC-by-sa are much more compatible than you think

The GFDL and CC-by-sa provide for the same basic ends on all major points and so by no measure can be considered "mutually exclusive". The term is simple hyperbole and inaccurate. CC-by-sa images and GFDL text in Wikipedia are already commercially distributed "mutually alongside" one another because of the close similarity of the two licenses. People are currently banking on the fact they are legally compatible, enough to act as if the matter were foregone.

Reply: There's good reason to prefer to let Wikipedia use our articles

We are not in competition with WP, nor are we a branch of WP. What we are is a separate but similar project, with the same general goal of producing a free public encyclopedia by community writing and revision, but the specific goal of producing one with controlled expert review. There are good reasons to have both, and therefore they should both be done optimally after their different fashions. We want our project to be as good as possible, so we wish to use good attributed copyright-free material from other sources, subject to our editing and review. We also want to encourage their project to be as good as possible, and therefore want them to use whatever of our material may serve their good purposes, realizing that they will be subject to their processes of editing.

Rebuttal: There are excellent reasons to disallow Wikipedia from using Citizendium original articles

Citizendium is, in fact, in competition with Wikipedia, and failure to recognize this is failure to fully recognize and appreciate the nature and aims of the Citizendium project. Citizendium is much more than just a safe-harbor from the tempest of Wikipedia - much more than just a better working environment - in which to create better articles for re-importation into Wikipedia. Choosing a licensing option for Citizendium's original article's that is incompatible with Wikipedia's GFDL is crucially important if that competition is to have its rightful effect on both projects, and thereby improve the lives of millions of information consumers.

Following are three possible ways to view the relation between Citizendium and Wikipedia:

1. Cooperative. Anything on Citizendium can go into Wikipedia, and vice-versa. This is the route of the GFDL, or a compatible license such as CC-by-sa.
2. Competitive. This would require Citizendium to totally reject use of the GFDL or a compatible license such as CC-by-sa. No sharing would be possible, either from Wikipedia to Citizendium, or vice-versa.
3. Partially competitive and partially cooperative. This would be best facilitated by CC-by-nc for original Citizendium articles and GDFL for Wikipedia-sourced ones. For original Citizendium articles, we cannot use Wikipedia content, and in the same way they cannot use ours. Like with like. For Wikipedia-sourced articles we improve and approve, Wikipedia can take them back up from Citizendium. Again like with like.

We should reject options #1 and #2 as extreme positions in favor of the balanced option #3. Option #3 avoids lopsidedness in favor of Wikipedia while ensuring a fair relation. Wikipedia is free to take back whatever article's originated with them, but cannot take all Citizendium content, because Citizendium original article's would be excluded by licensing. This and only this truly ensures that Citizendium's article creation system can retain its competitive advantage over Wikipedia's current one. If Wikipedia can simply copy over Citizendium's entire corpus, they will be largely alleviated of the motivation they need to make policy changes. Insular entities rarely change except via external pressures. If Citizendium operates within option #1 in its relation with Wikipedia, that possibility of change will be much less likely. We will essentially be enablers of a dysfunctional system.

The best way to "encourage their [Wikipedia's] project to be as good as possible" is to ensure that competition between them is facilitated by the protective mechanism of CC-by-nc for Citizendium approved articles. CC-by-nc is a main way to ensure competition does its rightful psychological and subsequent practical work for both Citizendium and Wikipedia.

There are good reasons to have both Citizendium and Wikipedia, and they should both be done optimally after their different fashions. Yet the question must be asked, "What are those 'different fashions' really designed to create?" Wikipedia's stated aim of becoming "the sum of all human knowledge" is simply philosophically bankrupt given its current article creation system. It will never and can never happen as things stand now with Wikipedia. Yet, as with any entity faced with competition that wants to survive, change is the utterly required response.

Amidst the competition - and competition for many of the same funding sources will certainly become another issue - one of two things will likely result at Wikipedia:

1. Wikipedia will change by adopting something very similar to Citizendium's article creation system.
2. Wikipedia will change by specializing in doing what it already does very well, i.e., create zillions of articles on popular culture, fan craft, and the like, perhaps after being absorbed into Wikia, leaving Citizendium to specialize in more serious topics.

If either option #1 or #2 were to happen, the outcome would be excellent for information consumers. If option #1 were to happen, it would place Citizendium of having to again innovate and improve still further upon its already greatly improved model. Assuming option #2 happened, when information consumers want free burgers and fries, they will go to Wikipedia. When they want free steak dinner, they will go to Citizendium. Ultimately, and either way, it is information consumers that win! But if the entire corpus of Citizendium is released under the GDFL or CC-by-sa, that possibility will be extremely less likely - lost to history.

Thus, diminishing the element of competition between Citizendium and Wikipedia is not only bad for Citizendium and Wikipedia, it is terrible for information consumers - the very ones this whole project is ultimately all about. Through the Goggle-effect, the Web is overrun with Wikipedia materials that degrade the quality of easily available information. Citizendium should concern itself to help remedy that problem. Ensuring competition between Citizendium and Wikipedia through partially incompatible licensing stands to greatly improve life for millions of information consumers over the way things stand now.

Reply: Article incompatibility is better achieved through stylistic means than the blunt instrument of a license

Both Wikipedia and Citizendium cover many similar topics and therefore have an interest in being able to share the other's material. Creating incompatibility via licenses is a heavy-handed measure that will cause bad feeling and division in a community that needs nurturing in any form. Citizendium can better assert its individuality and uniqueness by adopting different editorial and stylistic conventions, that do not interfere with the encyclopaedic mission but which are distinct from those of Wikipedia. This does not prevent the beneficial copying back and forth of useful material but will stand in the way of large-scale duplication of articles.

Negative: disallow commercial use

Argument: Commercial use would permit people to profit on the backs of volunteers.

Elaborate the argument here.

Reply: There is nothing wrong with commercial use.

Wikipedia has shown that volunteers do not mind commercial use of their work. On the contrary, some users may choose not to contribute to CZ if the freedom to make commercial use of their work is not granted.

Argument: If contributors share copyright, the Citizendium Foundation could relicense articles commercially.

Elaborate the argument here.

Reply 1: Then the Citizendium Foundation, too, is profiting on the backs of volunteers.

Elaborate the reply here.

Argument: A non-commercial license permits overall greater encyclopedia quality through freer use of allowable images

Similiar to the argument Commercial use would permit people to profit on the backs of volunteers, users may be disinclined to take pictures/images, append them on CZ articles, and have that picture/image profit others.

A non-commerical license ensures users' pictures/images are used to transmit information solely, rather than profiting others. Relevant images improve article quality; for example, a user may not know how an African Forest Elephant looks like. An image taken by a user at the Zoo and appended to the CZ article, would help an article illustrate the description of said elephant.

To sum up in an quote: A picture says a thousand words.

Reply 1: Images are not germane to overall encyclopedia quality

Elaborate the reply here.