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, 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 permits maximum distribution of content.

Elaborate the argument here.

Reply: The Citizendium website is maximum distribution.

Elaborate the reply here.

Argument: A noncommercial license is incompatible with Wikipedia.

Reply: There's no 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.

Reply: There IS good reason to prefer to NOT let Wikipedia use our articles (with rebuttal to above)

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 GDFL is crucially important if that competition is to have its rightful effect on both projects.

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

1. Cooperative. Anything on CZ can go into WP, and vice-versa. This is the route of the GDFL or a compatible license such as CC-by-sa.
2. Competitive. This would require Citizendium to totally reject use of the GDFL 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 ensures that Citizendium article creation system can retain its competitive advantage over Wikipedia's. 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 given its system. 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. Assuming option #2 happened, when they 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.

Thus, diminishing the element of competition between Citizendium and Wikipedia is not only bad for Citizendium and Wikipedia, it is terrible for information consumers. Through the Goggle-effect, the Web is overrun with Wikipedia materials. 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.

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.

Elaborate the reply here.

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.