Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: How do you fully consult the community consensus?
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 9:19 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: Sorry, where I said AbuseFilter I meant to say FlaggedRevisions. I'm not sure on how AbuseFilter came to be agreed on. On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:15 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Jennifer Riggs jri...@wikimedia.org wrote: I'm curious. In your perspective who is doing the central management that makes it difficult for ideas to percolate up? WMF, Jimmy, Board, select administrators/highly involved community members? In your opinion, is there an infrastructure barrier or a personalities one? jriggs It's an infrastructure, policy and outreach issue. I assume that every single person has the very best for the projects in mind and is doing it for the right reasons. That said, I see the definition of community being interpreted very narrowly. I liked what I saw with AbuseFilter but that was a singular case. Filtering edits is almost on the same level as showing advertisements. In these rare cases any change you try to make will quickly make its way through the community because many people will be outraged. There are a lot of other situations that don't propagate as well, not because they aren't very important, but because people just don't know about them. I really like the ParserFunctions example. Enabled with hardly any discussion and now used 500,000 times on the English Wikipedia. It had a major effect on Wikipedia that made it much harder to use. And now we are stuck in a programming mindset and we all assume that we all agreed to come here. It just isn't the case. You won't be able to find where that agreement happened. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l On which wiki do you mean, for FlaggedRevs? For the English Wikipedia, my understanding is that consensus was reached in favor of a limited trial for FlaggedRevs three months ago, but it hasn't been enabled yet because the tech team is still tidying things up and checking that everything works http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2009-May/043187.html. This was not a matter of the Foundation consulting the community—the community petitioned the Foundation, from what I can tell. I realize that 324 people voting might not qualify as the community for you, but this is the way changes get made on the English Wikipedia: people debate for a while (an extremely long while, as the case may be), proposals get tossed around, and eventually consensus forms among the portion of editors that is active in policy discussions. This system is not ideal, but it's the system that's in place. If you want to call the validity of the English Wikipedia's decision-making processes into question, then do so, but I don't think you should frame the discussion as being about the Foundation or software changes. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] No default codec for video and audio in HTML5
It's not free as it is patent encumbered, see [[H.264#Patent_licensing]]. --Falcorian On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Mike.lifeguard mikelifegu...@fastmail.fmwrote: Purely out of ignorance, why do we like ogg, but not H264? Or is it not that we don't /like/ it, but rather we simply don't support it as a format for whatever reason? Thanks, -Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] No default codec for video and audio in HTML5
Silly me, I never thought anyone would even consider having a standard that wasn't completely open. -Mike On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 00:16 -0700, Falcorian wrote: It's not free as it is patent encumbered, see [[H.264#Patent_licensing]]. --Falcorian On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Mike.lifeguard mikelifegu...@fastmail.fmwrote: Purely out of ignorance, why do we like ogg, but not H264? Or is it not that we don't /like/ it, but rather we simply don't support it as a format for whatever reason? Thanks, -Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution on small interactive devices and systems
Hoi, Did you consider what this does in other scripts ... the notion that it is a small number of characters is based on the notion that the script will be the Latin script.. Other scripts tend to show as the Unicode numbers.. Thanks, GerardM 2009/7/3 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 5:32 PM, John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no wrote: Minimum attribution of «Terms of Use» from Wikimdia Foundations site would be http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/; That is 96 chars, with spaces, of 140 bytes available in a SMS. For some languages the attribution will take more than one message. Ooops... John You just need to provide a url to the article. Type wikipedia.org/articleinto your address bar and wait 5 seconds. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] No default codec for video and audio in HTML5
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 13:26, Amir E. Aharoniamir.ahar...@gmail.com wrote: But it's even better not to push OGG through a committee, but to make it the de-facto standard by just using it as much as possible and recommending Wikipedia readers to install a browser that supports it. And like it or not we may happen to be stonger than micro$oft on this field since we may very possibly have more influence on the webizens around than them. If we push people to use free codecs (vorbis instead of mp3, theora or dirac instead of h.264 and mpeg4 and divx) the world may actually follow suit. Not a decision which should be taken lightly. (And naturally I'm for free codecs, let's kill wmv, or vmw or whatever that pest called.) My 2 'cents. grin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution on small interactive devices and systems
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 01:32, John at Darkstarvac...@jeb.no wrote: Minimum attribution of «Terms of Use» from Wikimdia Foundations site would be http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/; That is 96 chars, with spaces, of 140 bytes available in a SMS. For some languages the attribution will take more than one message. Ooops... Tinyurl and like? It's, well, tiny. grin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: How do you fully consult the community consensus?
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Benjamin Lees emufarm...@gmail.comwrote: On which wiki do you mean, for FlaggedRevs? For the English Wikipedia, my understanding is that consensus was reached in favor of a limited trial for FlaggedRevs three months ago, but it hasn't been enabled yet because the tech team is still tidying things up and checking that everything works http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2009-May/043187.html. This was not a matter of the Foundation consulting the community—the community petitioned the Foundation, from what I can tell. i didn't know it happened that way. I thought that, quite some time ago, the Foundation paid a developer 20k to develop the extension, and then got community approval for at trial? Oh nevermind, I must be thinking of the ratings extension? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] No default codec for video and audio in HTML5
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Hay (Husky)hus...@gmail.com wrote: Unfortunately OGG Theora didn't make it as the default codec for the HTML5 video element in the spec. Until one of the two major formats (Theora and H264) is clearly the major format the HTML5 spec will not specify a default codec for the video element. Theora supporters should be pleased with this. Theora is clearly better supported in browsers currently implementing the video element, but H.264 is way more common in the broader video environment, particularly in terms of hardware support and support outside the browser (in mobile devices, for example). It's much closer to being the de facto standard of the web than Theora is. -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution on small interactive devices and systems
A url for a medium without a clickable link is, well, not an optimum solution. Obfuscated url isn't really any better, but it might be shorter. John Peter Gervai wrote: On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 01:32, John at Darkstarvac...@jeb.no wrote: Minimum attribution of «Terms of Use» from Wikimdia Foundations site would be http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/; That is 96 chars, with spaces, of 140 bytes available in a SMS. For some languages the attribution will take more than one message. Ooops... Tinyurl and like? It's, well, tiny. grin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution on small interactive devices and systems
I know it is even worse for some other languages, but I don't think it is very interesting to calculate exact numbers for a couple of hundred languages. The most typical worse case for a SMS is 70 two byte chars. John Gerard Meijssen wrote: Hoi, Did you consider what this does in other scripts ... the notion that it is a small number of characters is based on the notion that the script will be the Latin script.. Other scripts tend to show as the Unicode numbers.. Thanks, GerardM 2009/7/3 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 5:32 PM, John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no wrote: Minimum attribution of «Terms of Use» from Wikimdia Foundations site would be http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/; That is 96 chars, with spaces, of 140 bytes available in a SMS. For some languages the attribution will take more than one message. Ooops... John You just need to provide a url to the article. Type wikipedia.org/articleinto your address bar and wait 5 seconds. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution on small interactive devices and systems
There is a solution, and it is rather puzzling. The license talks about identification by an URI, and this can be defined several ways. We can simply define an URI like Wikipedia:My article or perhaps cc:nn where the last is some kind of digital resource identifier for works licensed by Creative Commons. The first are simpler to understand, while the latter are somewhat shorter and more reusable. John ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing update rolled out in all languages/projects
I have four questions/requests: 1) Can you produce a list of all new mediawiki messages related to the change? Also, a list of old messages and their old content is also needed, to help us maintain a certain level of wording consistancy. 2) I have been translating word-by-word from English and found it hard to explain some points. Especially was the idea that Wikipedian's contributions are published as CC-BY-SA *and *as GFDL, while contributions from outside people can be CC-BY-SA only. Why am I (a wikipedian) required to publish my work in both licenses but my non-wikipedian friend isn't? If we are a CC-BY-SA site as presented at the pottom of every en.wiki page, why bother with GFDL licensing? It's too confusing. 3) More importantly, I get the impression that each community can add/change their licensing. Can he.wiki decide that all contributions from this day and onwards will be published as CC-BY-SA only? 4) What is the licensing of pre-June 15th 2009 revisions (which are accessible through the history page)? Are they GFDL *and *CC-BY-SA now? Thanks, Yoni 2009/6/30 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org After an initial reference implementation in the English Wikipedia and some bottom-up implementations in a number of projects, the licensing update to the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License as the primary text license, with GFDL as a secondary license with limitations, has now been implemented in all previously GFDL-licensed Wikimedia Foundation projects. Wiki communities can now customize these texts further in accordance with the implementation guidelines issued by the Wikimedia Foundation at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Implementation Importantly, this allows Wikimedia wiki communities to create their own copy of the terms of use, with specific limitations on or guidelines for attribution of externally imported CC-BY-SA content, more detailed explanations for re-users, etc. The implementation guidelines do allow significant flexibility, but we're hoping to ensure baseline consistency across projects and languages, so please do not deviate significantly from the guidelines. (If you feel the guidelines are flawed, feel free to comment on the talk page on meta.) If the messages have not been translated into your language yet, it is appreciated to do this work through translatewiki.net so that it doesn't have to be redundantly done for each Wikimedia project in that language. As translatewiki.net translators know, localization changes from there are rolled out regularly alongside normal code updates. Thanks to our good friends there for helping with the process so far, and thanks to all the translators. The relevant user interface texts are MediaWiki system messages and can be viewed and edited through the MediaWiki: namespace. They are: [[MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyright]] for the site footer [[MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning]] for the editing page, above the save/preview buttons [[MediaWiki:Wikimedia-editpage-tos-summary]] for the editing page, below the save/preview buttons. For the more technical users, these changes were introduced to MediaWiki in the following code revision: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Code/MediaWiki/52361. They live in the WikimediaMessages extension, which is only used by Wikimedia Foundation wikis. These messages override standard system messages, [[MediaWiki:Copyright]] and [[MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning]]. [[MediaWiki:Edittools]] has sometimes been used to move this type of licensing information below the buttons/summary; the newly introduced [[MediaWiki:Wikimedia-editpage-tos-summary]] is meant to reflect this need while allowing us to consistently update/review these messages. Finally, a note on trademark recognition. Some projects have a little trademark notice in the footers, others don't. This notice isn't required (but helpful); we're working on standardized trademark usage guidelines, and we'll probably add a link to the site footer to these once they're finalized. I'll be checking the wikis, and particularly [[m:Talk:Licensing update]] and [[m:Talk:Licensing update/Implementation]] for comments, but please let me know if there are any immediate issues. Thanks, Erik -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing update rolled out in all languages/projects
Hoi, The messages can be found on translatewiki here.. http://translatewiki.net/w/i.php?title=Special%3ATranslatetask=viewgroup=ext-wikimediamessageslanguage=nllimit=100. Change the nl to your language code and you will find all the messages that are specific to the Wikimedia Foundation including the messages about copyright and licensing. As to question on how things work, things have been explained so many times in so many places that I do not care to answer it. Look for it on Meta, look for it in the archives of the mailing lists and I am sure you find as good an answer as you are likely to get from me. PS I have to look for it as well in order to answer you.; Thanks, GerardM 2009/7/3 Yoni Weiden yonideb...@gmail.com I have four questions/requests: 1) Can you produce a list of all new mediawiki messages related to the change? Also, a list of old messages and their old content is also needed, to help us maintain a certain level of wording consistancy. 2) I have been translating word-by-word from English and found it hard to explain some points. Especially was the idea that Wikipedian's contributions are published as CC-BY-SA *and *as GFDL, while contributions from outside people can be CC-BY-SA only. Why am I (a wikipedian) required to publish my work in both licenses but my non-wikipedian friend isn't? If we are a CC-BY-SA site as presented at the pottom of every en.wiki page, why bother with GFDL licensing? It's too confusing. 3) More importantly, I get the impression that each community can add/change their licensing. Can he.wiki decide that all contributions from this day and onwards will be published as CC-BY-SA only? 4) What is the licensing of pre-June 15th 2009 revisions (which are accessible through the history page)? Are they GFDL *and *CC-BY-SA now? Thanks, Yoni 2009/6/30 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org After an initial reference implementation in the English Wikipedia and some bottom-up implementations in a number of projects, the licensing update to the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License as the primary text license, with GFDL as a secondary license with limitations, has now been implemented in all previously GFDL-licensed Wikimedia Foundation projects. Wiki communities can now customize these texts further in accordance with the implementation guidelines issued by the Wikimedia Foundation at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Implementation Importantly, this allows Wikimedia wiki communities to create their own copy of the terms of use, with specific limitations on or guidelines for attribution of externally imported CC-BY-SA content, more detailed explanations for re-users, etc. The implementation guidelines do allow significant flexibility, but we're hoping to ensure baseline consistency across projects and languages, so please do not deviate significantly from the guidelines. (If you feel the guidelines are flawed, feel free to comment on the talk page on meta.) If the messages have not been translated into your language yet, it is appreciated to do this work through translatewiki.net so that it doesn't have to be redundantly done for each Wikimedia project in that language. As translatewiki.net translators know, localization changes from there are rolled out regularly alongside normal code updates. Thanks to our good friends there for helping with the process so far, and thanks to all the translators. The relevant user interface texts are MediaWiki system messages and can be viewed and edited through the MediaWiki: namespace. They are: [[MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyright]] for the site footer [[MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning]] for the editing page, above the save/preview buttons [[MediaWiki:Wikimedia-editpage-tos-summary]] for the editing page, below the save/preview buttons. For the more technical users, these changes were introduced to MediaWiki in the following code revision: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Code/MediaWiki/52361. They live in the WikimediaMessages extension, which is only used by Wikimedia Foundation wikis. These messages override standard system messages, [[MediaWiki:Copyright]] and [[MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning]]. [[MediaWiki:Edittools]] has sometimes been used to move this type of licensing information below the buttons/summary; the newly introduced [[MediaWiki:Wikimedia-editpage-tos-summary]] is meant to reflect this need while allowing us to consistently update/review these messages. Finally, a note on trademark recognition. Some projects have a little trademark notice in the footers, others don't. This notice isn't required (but helpful); we're working on standardized trademark usage guidelines, and we'll probably add a link to the site footer to these once they're finalized. I'll be checking the wikis, and particularly [[m:Talk:Licensing update]] and [[m:Talk:Licensing
