I have ask you before to cancel my name from your mailing list. Jim Click ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 3:38 AM Subject: Commons-l Digest, Vol 49, Issue 24
> Send Commons-l mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Commons-l digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Some reflections about the governance of Commons (Alex Brollo) > 2. Re: Some reflections about the governance of Commons (Eusebius) > 3. Re: Some reflections about the governance of Commons > (Gerard Meijssen) > 4. Re: Some reflections about the governance of Commons > (Daniel Kinzler) > 5. Re: Some reflections about the governance of Commons > (Daniel Kinzler) > 6. Re: Some reflections about the governance of Commons > (Gerard Meijssen) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:31:37 +0200 > From: Alex Brollo <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Some reflections about the governance of > Commons > To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > 2009/6/16 Geoffrey Plourde <[email protected]> > >> If commons is not a service project, what is it? *Unlike other projects >> which have a measurable output, Commons' sole function appears to be as a >> repository of free images.* It is therefore very much a service project >> as >> it serves other projects through storage of images. >> > > I don't agree with this statement. > 1. any wiki project has in part a role of service for other wiki project. > I.e.: we use la.source as a "repository" of original latin sources for our > Italian translations of latin classics. > 2. any shared file (images, movies and so on) is an independent output, > that > can be used both into wiki projects and by any other web user. In > particular, movies often carry a "complete message" by themselves. But if > you think about, pictures too carry such a complete message, and sometimes > a > very important one, needing lots of NPOV. > > Alex > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20090616/3312ddbc/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:35:04 +0200 > From: Eusebius <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Some reflections about the governance of > Commons > To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Samuel Klein a ?crit : >> Actually, I would be content with a less-free repository for media not >> suitable for commons but still of use to at least one page on one >> Wikimedia project -- I would like to be able to monitor (and pressure >> to become totally free) all 'local upload' materials on a single wiki. >> The technical advantages of having a single way to call a file from >> multiple namespaces would still apply, but there could be strong >> pressure to replace any non-free media with free media ... while >> releasing some of this kneejerk pressure on Commons. > You mean having a kind of central repository for "fair use" media, for > instance? I'm not sure it is a good idea, because local "fair use" (and > generally non-free) policies are based on local laws and regulations. A > non-free use which is acceptable in some country might not be acceptable > in some other. > Maybe I haven't totally understood what you meant, though. > > Eusebius > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:54:16 +0200 > From: Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Some reflections about the governance of > Commons > To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hoi, > When you leave it up to Commons to decide its role, you forget the need it > provides. As it is not an option to ditch Commons when it does not want to > fulfill its role, it is not an option to leave it only to Commons. > Thanks, > GerardM > > 2009/6/16 Geoffrey Plourde <[email protected]> > >> If commons is not a service project, what is it? Unlike other projects >> which have a measurable output, Commons' sole function appears to be as a >> repository of free images. It is therefore very much a service project as >> it >> serves other projects through storage of images. >> >> I think the discussion here is especially important as this is the >> Wikimedia Commons discussion list. That being said, I feel that there >> should >> be an RfC/Poll on Commons about how it should change. >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Huib Laurens <[email protected]> >> *To:* Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Monday, June 15, 2009 10:34:38 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [Commons-l] Some reflections about the governance of >> Commons >> >> Hello, >> >> I don't think we need to see Commons as a Service project, All Wikimedia >> projects need the other projects. >> Wikimedia is build on all the projects and saying that a project is only >> a service project can make the people feel bad that are working on that >> project. >> I think the view that Rama uses can be seen in a lot of ways, and >> regarding the point of view that you uses you can make all projects into >> a service project. >> >> We have now a discussion in a "private" place about how people have to >> change Commons, isn't it a better idea to make this a discussion on >> Commons or on Meta (if you want a neutral place). Commons has a great >> communety with people that are spending all there time on Commons, and >> whe have photographers that can easely make money with there pictures >> but chooses to release it under a free license.. I rather see a onwiki >> discussion so we can hear there say's also.. >> >> Just my view here but I cant send the email without a notice about this.. >> >> I'm seeing a discussions or even multible discussions about how Commons >> needs to change to be a better service project. But when Commons needs >> to change, will we change all other projects also? There are still >> images getting deleted because we couldn't get the source information or >> other important information because the file was already deleted local, >> there is a bug to give Commons adminstrators view permission for deleted >> files globally, there has been a vote on Meta and still it isn't >> activated (more than a year waiting time). Things like that will make >> Commons also a better service project.. Or isn't that important enough? >> >> Huib >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Commons-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Commons-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20090616/7a72167c/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:01:49 +0200 > From: Daniel Kinzler <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Some reflections about the governance of > Commons > To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Eusebius schrieb: >> Samuel Klein a ?crit : >>> Actually, I would be content with a less-free repository for media not >>> suitable for commons but still of use to at least one page on one >>> Wikimedia project -- I would like to be able to monitor (and pressure >>> to become totally free) all 'local upload' materials on a single wiki. >>> The technical advantages of having a single way to call a file from >>> multiple namespaces would still apply, but there could be strong >>> pressure to replace any non-free media with free media ... while >>> releasing some of this kneejerk pressure on Commons. >> You mean having a kind of central repository for "fair use" media, for >> instance? I'm not sure it is a good idea, because local "fair use" (and >> generally non-free) policies are based on local laws and regulations. A >> non-free use which is acceptable in some country might not be acceptable >> in some other. >> Maybe I haven't totally understood what you meant, though. > > This is simply not possible. A repository of fair use material is a > contradiction in terms. Fair use, and similar concepts in other > jurisdictions, > depends on the context the image is used in - usually, and editorial > context. In > a repository, such a context is missing, so it would not be legal to have > the > images there. A fair use image is always bound to its context of use, > otherwise, > it's not fair use, it's simply distribution. > > -- daniel > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:06:50 +0200 > From: Daniel Kinzler <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Some reflections about the governance of > Commons > To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Gerard Meijssen schrieb: >> Hoi, >> When you leave it up to Commons to decide its role, you forget the need >> it provides. As it is not an option to ditch Commons when it does not >> want to fulfill its role, it is not an option to leave it only to >> Commons. >> Thanks, >> GerardM > > Did anyone ever say commons doesn't want to be a service to other wikis? > No! The > point is: it's not just an image store. It's a project in it's own right, > with > it's own community, and it has a purpose besides and beyond hosting images > for > wikipedia etc. al. The commons community wants projects who use the images > to > acknowledge their work, and to abide by the local rules. They don't like > to be > pushed around - "shut up and take the pictures, that's what you are here > for". > This kind of attitude leads to conflict. > > -- daniel > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:38:00 +0200 > From: Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Some reflections about the governance of > Commons > To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hoi, > There is material that can be used for particular purposes and not others. > For instance logos. Many logos of friendly organisations have been removed > from Commons because they are not "Free content" They are not free because > they represent trade marks. > > The fact that we have not been able or willing to find a solution for this > reasonable exemption of Commons policy makes an alternative possible. > > Another category are screen dumps. Nobody will protest for using > undoctered > screen dumps. The restrictions are in using the art work of a user > interface > for other user interfaces.. > Thanks, > GerardM > > 2009/6/16 Daniel Kinzler <[email protected]> > >> Eusebius schrieb: >> > Samuel Klein a ?crit : >> >> Actually, I would be content with a less-free repository for media not >> >> suitable for commons but still of use to at least one page on one >> >> Wikimedia project -- I would like to be able to monitor (and pressure >> >> to become totally free) all 'local upload' materials on a single wiki. >> >> The technical advantages of having a single way to call a file from >> >> multiple namespaces would still apply, but there could be strong >> >> pressure to replace any non-free media with free media ... while >> >> releasing some of this kneejerk pressure on Commons. >> > You mean having a kind of central repository for "fair use" media, for >> > instance? I'm not sure it is a good idea, because local "fair use" (and >> > generally non-free) policies are based on local laws and regulations. A >> > non-free use which is acceptable in some country might not be >> > acceptable >> > in some other. >> > Maybe I haven't totally understood what you meant, though. >> >> This is simply not possible. A repository of fair use material is a >> contradiction in terms. Fair use, and similar concepts in other >> jurisdictions, >> depends on the context the image is used in - usually, and editorial >> context. In >> a repository, such a context is missing, so it would not be legal to have >> the >> images there. A fair use image is always bound to its context of use, >> otherwise, >> it's not fair use, it's simply distribution. >> >> -- daniel >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Commons-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l >> > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20090616/ee0272a6/attachment.htm > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Commons-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l > > > End of Commons-l Digest, Vol 49, Issue 24 > ***************************************** _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
