[Foundation-l] Fwd: [Internal-l] WMF board election - inspiration for candidates
Hi, There are just 3 days left for community members to nominate themselves as candidates in the upcoming Board election. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2009/Candidates/en Stu West, who is the Board's Treasurer and has served on the board since April 2008, wrote this piece, below, about why serving on the Board is rewarding and he has kindly said I can share it more widely. I hope that it may serve as some inspiration for any potential Board candidates who are considering running but having trouble answering ...Why? Please think of who you know in our communities that may be a good candidate and encourage them to consider standing. Let us support candidates that are as truly diverse as the communities themselves. cheers, Brianna === Brianna's request got me thinking about why 15 months ago I was excited to join the board and why now I'm still enjoying it. Of course I'm intent on supporting the projects in general, and think the community is accomplishing amazing things with our free knowledge projects and having an incredibly positive impact on the entire globe. And just being around the energy, idealism and internationalism of our community is positive for me and balances a world that seems too full of recession and war and other negatives. On top of these general interests that many get by participating in our community, serving on the board is worth it for me personally for a few reasons: - I have a strong interest in organizational development and sustainability. Serving at the board level allows me to focus on policy development, organizational structure and other high-level issues to help ensure our projects are still thriving and pursuing the mission in 100 years. I'm also intellectually interested in the challenge of maintaining a community's culture even as it grows and succeeds (my day job at Silicon Valley startups is also about this). - I believe my particular skills (organizational development, finance, operations, negotiating) are really useful to the foundation right now and being able to put those to work -- and to see impact -- is very satisfying. - I'm one of those people who typically prefers the big picture view and enjoys understanding how all the different pieces tie together (again, this also applies to my day job). For example, I think my edit count is highest on meta. This is a natural fit with a board role. - I'm really passionate about a few things related to our community (including developing world education, usability, and operational efficiencies), and the Board gives me a position to understand these and at times advocate for them. = -- They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment: http://modernthings.org/ ___ 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
Peter Gervai schrieb: 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. Shouldn't we set up our own URL-aliasing service? This would also have the advantage that you could be sure that the wikimedia shortened urls only lead to wikimedia domains. eg.: http://wp.cx/3tT5u7Z redirects to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=302589573 http://wp.cx/c redirects to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License Harald signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ 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 17, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Harald Krichelharald.kric...@googlemail.com wrote: Peter Gervai schrieb: 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. Shouldn't we set up our own URL-aliasing service? This would also have the advantage that you could be sure that the wikimedia shortened urls only lead to wikimedia domains. eg.: http://wp.cx/3tT5u7Z redirects to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=302589573 http://wp.cx/c redirects to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License Harald ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l That's actually not a bad idea :) A dedicated wmf domain for short urls would be amazingly helpful for a lot of things. Just make it so the script only accepts WMF-owned domains and you've got yourself a great tool. -Chad ___ 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
Over at Wikinews, we've just started using a new url shortening service-enwn.net for our twitter feed. You'll need to talk to http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User:ShakataGaNai if interested. On 17/07/2009 14:06, Chad wrote: On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Harald Krichelharald.kric...@googlemail.com wrote: Peter Gervai schrieb: 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. Shouldn't we set up our own URL-aliasing service? This would also have the advantage that you could be sure that the wikimedia shortened urls only lead to wikimedia domains. eg.: http://wp.cx/3tT5u7Z redirects to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=302589573 http://wp.cx/c redirects to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License Harald ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l That's actually not a bad idea :) A dedicated wmf domain for short urls would be amazingly helpful for a lot of things. Just make it so the script only accepts WMF-owned domains and you've got yourself a great tool. -Chad ___ 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
2009/7/17 Harald Krichel harald.kric...@googlemail.com: Shouldn't we set up our own URL-aliasing service? This would also have the advantage that you could be sure that the wikimedia shortened urls only lead to wikimedia domains. I know of: http://enwp.org/ http://enwn.net/ - d. ___ 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
2009/7/17 Harald Krichel harald.kric...@googlemail.com: Shouldn't we set up our own URL-aliasing service? This would also have the advantage that you could be sure that the wikimedia shortened urls only lead to wikimedia domains. eg.: http://wp.cx/3tT5u7Z redirects to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=302589573 I discovered yesterday that: enwp.org/Article redirects to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article Sadly, it doesn't work with revision IDs, but it's a start! -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ 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 17, 2009 at 9:14 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/7/17 Harald Krichel harald.kric...@googlemail.com: Shouldn't we set up our own URL-aliasing service? This would also have the advantage that you could be sure that the wikimedia shortened urls only lead to wikimedia domains. I know of: http://enwp.org/ http://enwn.net/ - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Does anyone know the guy who owns enwp.org? That being said, enwp.org/?oldid=1234 does work :) -Chad ___ 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 17, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Andrew Grayandrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: 2009/7/17 Harald Krichel harald.kric...@googlemail.com: Shouldn't we set up our own URL-aliasing service? This would also have the advantage that you could be sure that the wikimedia shortened urls only lead to wikimedia domains. eg.: http://wp.cx/3tT5u7Z redirects to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=302589573 I discovered yesterday that: enwp.org/Article redirects to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article Sadly, it doesn't work with revision IDs, but it's a start! -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Yes it does, enwp.org/?oldid=60372135 should redirect you to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?oldid=60372135 which is a 2006 revision of [[Old-Timers' Day]] (thanks Special:Random). -Chad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] CentralNotice and extending the Board Nomination period
Robert, Thank you for your concern. I'll take this to the Board elections committee. Philippe Philippe Beaudette Facilitator, Strategic Plan Wikimedia Foundation pbeaude...@wikimedia.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate On Jul 17, 2009, at 5:06 AM, Robert Rohde wrote: CentralNotice scripts live on the image file server. As some of you may know, that server has been having serious performance problems recently. One of the steps taken early on to reduce load while people work on fixing the problem was to disable CentralNotice on all wikis (save Meta). As a result, the Candidates are currently being accepted for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees Election message that started on the 7th has not been visible anywhere except Meta since the 11th. I don't know whether the server will be fixed before the nomination period was supposed to end on the 20th. Assuming it is not fixed, the planned two weeks of candidate solicitations will have been reduced to less than five days. (This also explains why there have been no new candidate statements since early on the 12th.) In my opinion, that is simply not adequate. I know it would throw a giant monkey wrench in other plans, but I want to raise the possiblity that the technical problems with the site notice should justify pushing back the rest of the Board election timeline. The Board of Trustees is one of Wikimedia's most important institutions, and I don't think this is something we can justify rushing through. -Robert Rohde ___ 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 control enwn.net. We just set it up primarily for our Twitter feed. That being said, I've already had requests to make it available for external users - so that's in progress, and I can expand it to allow all WMF sites (not just wn). Otherwise it does support short redirects for CurID. Example: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/U.K._National_Portrait_Gallery_threatens_U.S._citizen_with_legal_action_over_Wikimedia_images?curid=129225 http://enwn.net/+129225 -Jon On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 08:14, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/7/17 Harald Krichel harald.kric...@googlemail.com: Shouldn't we set up our own URL-aliasing service? This would also have the advantage that you could be sure that the wikimedia shortened urls only lead to wikimedia domains. I know of: http://enwp.org/ http://enwn.net/ - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Jon [[User:ShakataGaNai]] http://snowulf.com/ - Blog http://snowulf.imagekind.com/ - Pictures This has been a test of the emergency sig system. ___ 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 Jul 17, 2009, at 8:25 AM, Chad wrote: Does anyone know the guy who owns enwp.org? That being said, enwp.org/?oldid=1234 does work :) -Chad (Asked whois.pir.org:43 about enwp.org) Domain ID: D148943548-LROR Domain Name: ENWP.ORG Created On: 23-Aug-2007 14: 33: 18 UTC Last Updated On: 21-Sep-2008 00: 28: 40 UTC Expiration Date: 23-Aug-2009 14: 33: 18 UTC Sponsoring Registrar: ASCIO Technologies Inc. - Denmark (R76-LROR) Status: OK Registrant ID: AT9622172-051 Registrant Name: Thomas Kjoerberg Registrant Street1: Groennevollen 14 Registrant Street2: Registrant Street3: Registrant City: Bergen Registrant State/Province: -- Registrant Postal Code: 5016 Registrant Country: NO Registrant Phone: 47.99298989 Registrant Phone Ext.: Registrant FAX: Registrant FAX Ext.: Registrant Email: tl-lo...@hotmail.com Admin ID: AT4607819-051 Admin Name: Hostmaster Funktionen Admin Organization: One.com A/S Admin Street1: Kalvebod Brygge 45 Admin Street2: Admin Street3: Admin City: Copenhagen V Admin State/Province: Admin Postal Code: 1560 Admin Country: DK Admin Phone: 45.46907100 Admin Phone Ext.: Admin FAX: 45.70205872 Admin FAX Ext.: Admin Email: hostmas...@b-one.nu Tech ID: AT9622194-051 Tech Name: Hostmaster Funktionen Tech Organization: One.com A/S Tech Street1: Kalvebod Brygge 45 Tech Street2: Tech Street3: Tech City: Copenhagen V Tech State/Province: Tech Postal Code: 1560 Tech Country: DK Tech Phone: 45.46907100 Tech Phone Ext.: Tech FAX: 45.70205872 Tech FAX Ext.: Tech Email: hostmas...@b-one.nu Name Server: NS1.B-ONE.NU Name Server: NS2.B-ONE.NU Name Server: NS3.B-ONE.NU Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Philippe Beaudette Facilitator, Strategic Plan Wikimedia Foundation pbeaude...@wikimedia.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ 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 17, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Philippe Beaudettepbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Jul 17, 2009, at 8:25 AM, Chad wrote: Does anyone know the guy who owns enwp.org? That being said, enwp.org/?oldid=1234 does work :) -Chad (Asked whois.pir.org:43 about enwp.org) Domain ID: D148943548-LROR Domain Name: ENWP.ORG Created On: 23-Aug-2007 14: 33: 18 UTC Last Updated On: 21-Sep-2008 00: 28: 40 UTC Expiration Date: 23-Aug-2009 14: 33: 18 UTC Sponsoring Registrar: ASCIO Technologies Inc. - Denmark (R76-LROR) Status: OK Registrant ID: AT9622172-051 Registrant Name: Thomas Kjoerberg Registrant Street1: Groennevollen 14 Registrant Street2: Registrant Street3: Registrant City: Bergen Registrant State/Province: -- Registrant Postal Code: 5016 Registrant Country: NO Registrant Phone: 47.99298989 Registrant Phone Ext.: Registrant FAX: Registrant FAX Ext.: Registrant Email: tl-lo...@hotmail.com Admin ID: AT4607819-051 Admin Name: Hostmaster Funktionen Admin Organization: One.com A/S Admin Street1: Kalvebod Brygge 45 Admin Street2: Admin Street3: Admin City: Copenhagen V Admin State/Province: Admin Postal Code: 1560 Admin Country: DK Admin Phone: 45.46907100 Admin Phone Ext.: Admin FAX: 45.70205872 Admin FAX Ext.: Admin Email: hostmas...@b-one.nu Tech ID: AT9622194-051 Tech Name: Hostmaster Funktionen Tech Organization: One.com A/S Tech Street1: Kalvebod Brygge 45 Tech Street2: Tech Street3: Tech City: Copenhagen V Tech State/Province: Tech Postal Code: 1560 Tech Country: DK Tech Phone: 45.46907100 Tech Phone Ext.: Tech FAX: 45.70205872 Tech FAX Ext.: Tech Email: hostmas...@b-one.nu Name Server: NS1.B-ONE.NU Name Server: NS2.B-ONE.NU Name Server: NS3.B-ONE.NU Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Philippe Beaudette Facilitator, Strategic Plan Wikimedia Foundation pbeaude...@wikimedia.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l I did the whois too, but I don't know him. I was asking if (in general) we know the guy who runs it :) -Chad ___ 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
This is a wikipedian from Norway. John Erling Blad Wikimedia Norway Chad wrote: On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Philippe Beaudettepbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Jul 17, 2009, at 8:25 AM, Chad wrote: Does anyone know the guy who owns enwp.org? That being said, enwp.org/?oldid=1234 does work :) -Chad (Asked whois.pir.org:43 about enwp.org) Domain ID: D148943548-LROR Domain Name: ENWP.ORG Created On: 23-Aug-2007 14: 33: 18 UTC Last Updated On: 21-Sep-2008 00: 28: 40 UTC Expiration Date: 23-Aug-2009 14: 33: 18 UTC Sponsoring Registrar: ASCIO Technologies Inc. - Denmark (R76-LROR) Status: OK Registrant ID: AT9622172-051 Registrant Name: Thomas Kjoerberg Registrant Street1: Groennevollen 14 Registrant Street2: Registrant Street3: Registrant City: Bergen Registrant State/Province: -- Registrant Postal Code: 5016 Registrant Country: NO Registrant Phone: 47.99298989 Registrant Phone Ext.: Registrant FAX: Registrant FAX Ext.: Registrant Email: tl-lo...@hotmail.com Admin ID: AT4607819-051 Admin Name: Hostmaster Funktionen Admin Organization: One.com A/S Admin Street1: Kalvebod Brygge 45 Admin Street2: Admin Street3: Admin City: Copenhagen V Admin State/Province: Admin Postal Code: 1560 Admin Country: DK Admin Phone: 45.46907100 Admin Phone Ext.: Admin FAX: 45.70205872 Admin FAX Ext.: Admin Email: hostmas...@b-one.nu Tech ID: AT9622194-051 Tech Name: Hostmaster Funktionen Tech Organization: One.com A/S Tech Street1: Kalvebod Brygge 45 Tech Street2: Tech Street3: Tech City: Copenhagen V Tech State/Province: Tech Postal Code: 1560 Tech Country: DK Tech Phone: 45.46907100 Tech Phone Ext.: Tech FAX: 45.70205872 Tech FAX Ext.: Tech Email: hostmas...@b-one.nu Name Server: NS1.B-ONE.NU Name Server: NS2.B-ONE.NU Name Server: NS3.B-ONE.NU Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Philippe Beaudette Facilitator, Strategic Plan Wikimedia Foundation pbeaude...@wikimedia.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l I did the whois too, but I don't know him. I was asking if (in general) we know the guy who runs it :) -Chad ___ 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] National Portrait Gallery
If we forget about politics and who-did-what, what is the common grounds between us and them? To me it seems like they want us to use their material, but that they are scared to let go of a possible income. This seems fairly similar to the Galleri NOR -case. Would it be possible for us to define an acceptable resolution that is also acceptable for them? They have a lot more material available and to me the whole thing seems to be less than optimum for both parties. They want to get the material known, but also have the option to sell high resolution versions. We want to illustrate articles, but have no need to sell our copies, neither do we need highres versions - we infact downsample the versions. John ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] National Portrait Gallery
2009/7/17 John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no: If we forget about politics and who-did-what, what is the common grounds between us and them? To me it seems like they want us to use their material, but that they are scared to let go of a possible income. This seems fairly similar to the Galleri NOR -case. Would it be possible for us to define an acceptable resolution that is also acceptable for them? They have a lot more material available and to me the whole thing seems to be less than optimum for both parties. They want to get the material known, but also have the option to sell high resolution versions. We want to illustrate articles, but have no need to sell our copies, neither do we need highres versions - we infact downsample the versions. This is in fact an apposite question - Erik has said WMF's in negotiation with the NPG: Quick note: The National Portrait Gallery contacted us to see if we can find a compromise regarding the images in question, and we’ve entered good faith discussions with them. Feel free to point this out in relevant places. That's a *really good thing*, because a lawsuit would be stupid for both of us. And working with people is always better than working against them. (The real problem, IMO, is funding - that governments tell galleries they have to make money from exploiting the works in their possession. This was barely workable last century, and is increasingly untenable in this one. This will require working with ministries of culture.) So: what would everyone here like to see in a compromise, that addresses the concerns of all sides? What makes the NPG happier and more secure, and will fly with WMF and with the Wikimedia community? - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] National Portrait Gallery
2009/7/17 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: So: what would everyone here like to see in a compromise, that addresses the concerns of all sides? What makes the NPG happier and more secure, and will fly with WMF and with the Wikimedia community? Nothing. Wikimedia are not the only group that knows about Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. Some kind of joint fundraiser to pay for complete digitalization in return for the NPG dropping their copyright claims perhaps. But that simply leaves us with the same problem with say the national maritime museum. The release low res images as PD approach won't work in this case. We know the hi res stuff is PD in the US so have no real incentive not to use them (and if we don't others will). -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] National Portrait Gallery
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 5:26 PM, John at Darkstarvac...@jeb.no wrote: If we forget about politics and who-did-what, what is the common grounds between us and them? To me it seems like they want us to use their material, but that they are scared to let go of a possible income. This seems fairly similar to the Galleri NOR -case. Would it be possible for us to define an acceptable resolution that is also acceptable for them? They have a lot more material available and to me the whole thing seems to be less than optimum for both parties. They want to get the material known, but also have the option to sell high resolution versions. We want to illustrate articles, but have no need to sell our copies, neither do we need highres versions - we infact downsample the versions. Downsampling inline on the articles, yes, but a lot of people do click all the way through to see larger images. If it wasn't useful to people to see the larger images then they wouldn't have been online in the first place. It's also worth noting that the large image we have are actually small... and not especially suitable for careful examination or making actual size prints. For those purposes the NPG most likely has images with about 100x the number of pixels, at least if they are using a large format scan-back like everyone else. I've been in museums which provided loupes on cantilevers for examining the works. As I recall the NPG in London will loan you a magnifying glass for a couple of dollars. I'm not saying this to argue that there can't be a reasonable arrangement— only contradicting the position that there is some lower resolution which is just as good. The resolution of diminishing returns would be something significantly larger than what we have today. So agreements have to be on the basis of mutual benefit, rather than on sufficiency as I really doubt there is some middle spot that the involved parties can agree is completely sufficient. On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 5:37 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: So: what would everyone here like to see in a compromise, that addresses the concerns of all sides? What makes the NPG happier and more secure, and will fly with WMF and with the Wikimedia community? An ideal resolution would: Provide the public with the greatest access to the works which can be agreed on. Access both quantity, quality, and broadness of character. (I.e. Broadness: Decorating my cubical in historic works of art is something both the NPG and the WMF should support and endorse, and arguably it in both of our charters although a bit slantwise) Maximize the probability of the information contained in the artwork surviving. (If the NPG has a severe fire, will the highest resolution digital copies be destroyed along with the paintings themselves? The digital medium has some wonderful properties for historical that are usually lost when extensive control is exerted) Would take advantage of the parties strengths. (Wikimedia's enormous amount of traffic, the Wikimedia communities ability to synthesize meaningful education works from raw material, and Wikipedia's ability to place the works in a larger intellectual context, and the NPG's large collection of historical artefacts, their established efforts to digitize and contextualize those works in a set of narrower but more detailed contexts). Would respect the parties mutual requirements: Would not impose DRM on the Wikimedia projects as has been suggested by the NPG (a violation of the content licensing). (*) Would not make the Wikimedia Foundation or its community of user appear to endorse or support the assertion of copyright on exacting reproductions of clearly public domain works. Wikimedia (as far as I can tell) and many of its users believes that it would be a significant harm to the public and a blow to the fundamental nature of copyright if that kind of loophole were allowed to exist. For the NPG, I'm not sure what their requirements are: The FOI request reflected only ~15k/yr in online licensing income, and at least some portion of that must come from the licensing of works which are entirely under copyright still. We could certainly find some ways to help make up that amount. But it would seem to me that their online program must already be operating at a loss. More information about their goals is clearly required. We could probably find people to sponsor or perform a substantial amount of digitization work and leave the NPG to their own images, if the access were permitted. I expect that the NPG is quite happy (and already easily funded) for doing their own doing their own digitization and enjoy the level of quality control that it provides. I'm doubtful that we could offer anything attractive to them on this matter. To meet (*) I suspect there may also need to be a degree of dealing with the cats out of the bag on the current images. Even if there was an agreement to use an alternative copy of some sort, we
Re: [Foundation-l] National Portrait Gallery
geni wrote: 2009/7/17 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: So: what would everyone here like to see in a compromise, that addresses the concerns of all sides? What makes the NPG happier and more secure, and will fly with WMF and with the Wikimedia community? Nothing. Wikimedia are not the only group that knows about Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. Some kind of joint fundraiser to pay for complete digitalization in return for the NPG dropping their copyright claims perhaps. That would be a great outcome, and I would put some money helping the digitalization of their work if the NPG dropps their copyright claims. But that simply leaves us with the same problem with say the national maritime museum. The release low res images as PD approach won't work in this case. We know the hi res stuff is PD in the US so have no real incentive not to use them (and if we don't others will). Regards, Yann -- http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] National Portrait Gallery
2009/7/17 Yann Forget y...@forget-me.net: geni wrote: 2009/7/17 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: So: what would everyone here like to see in a compromise, that addresses the concerns of all sides? What makes the NPG happier and more secure, and will fly with WMF and with the Wikimedia community? Nothing. Wikimedia are not the only group that knows about Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. Some kind of joint fundraiser to pay for complete digitalization in return for the NPG dropping their copyright claims perhaps. That would be a great outcome, and I would put some money helping the digitalization of their work if the NPG dropps their copyright claims. Not really. Remember there are a bunch of other collections. Many will be looking to use the NPG's business model. National maritime museum, Imperial war museum, British library, Various national archives. Can't afford to buy them all off. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Bridgeman v. Corel
I do not think that WMF should betray the Public Domain. The largest possible resolution is good enough for scholars and people who wish to explore the heritage items. Please note that Wikimedia Commons is not an illustration appendix for Wikipedia but an multimedia repository. The UK mainstream interpretation of UK copyright law is simply wrong as the NY judge of Bridgeman v. Corel has shown. I would think that any compromise damaging the Public Domain would be the wrongest step one can think. Klaus Graf ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] National Portrait Gallery
2009/7/17 geni geni...@gmail.com: 2009/7/17 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: So: what would everyone here like to see in a compromise, that addresses the concerns of all sides? What makes the NPG happier and more secure, and will fly with WMF and with the Wikimedia community? Nothing. Wikimedia are not the only group that knows about Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. What does Bridgeman vs. Corel have to do with it? We're talking about a UK legal threat. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] National Portrait Gallery
2009/7/17 geni geni...@gmail.com: Not really. Remember there are a bunch of other collections. Many will be looking to use the NPG's business model. National maritime museum, Imperial war museum, British library, Various national archives. Can't afford to buy them all off. It's worth noting that governments often expressly tell their galleries to be more businesslike and expressly require them to squeeze every penny from the (public domain) works they own. And to hell with the mission statement. So it'll be the usual mix of gentle one-at-a-time persuasion, luring people in, working under the radar, shifting paradigms, changing the culture, warping reality to a better shape, speaking softly and the occasional burst of action. Nothing we're not used to. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] National Portrait Gallery
2009/7/17 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: 2009/7/17 geni geni...@gmail.com: 2009/7/17 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: So: what would everyone here like to see in a compromise, that addresses the concerns of all sides? What makes the NPG happier and more secure, and will fly with WMF and with the Wikimedia community? Nothing. Wikimedia are not the only group that knows about Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. What does Bridgeman vs. Corel have to do with it? We're talking about a UK legal threat. Against a US resident and citizen using a website hosted in the US and owned by a US non profit. Bridgeman vs. Corel is the reason other US sites will do the same. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] National Portrait Gallery
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/7/17 geni geni...@gmail.com: 2009/7/17 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: So: what would everyone here like to see in a compromise, that addresses the concerns of all sides? What makes the NPG happier and more secure, and will fly with WMF and with the Wikimedia community? Nothing. Wikimedia are not the only group that knows about Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. What does Bridgeman vs. Corel have to do with it? We're talking about a UK legal threat. We're dealing with a corner case cross-border legal threat. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] National Portrait Gallery
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 6:29 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/7/17 Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com: (*) Would not make the Wikimedia Foundation or its community of user appear to endorse or support the assertion of copyright on exacting reproductions of clearly public domain works. Wikimedia (as far as I can tell) and many of its users believes that it would be a significant harm to the public and a blow to the fundamental nature of copyright if that kind of loophole were allowed to exist. I can imagine an NPG copyright tag that carefully states their claims without endorsing them: This image is public domain in the US, as a plain reproduction of a public domain work. The National Portrait Gallery asserts copyright over this scan in the UK and licenses said scan under [copyleft licence]. That would pass muster for Commons just fine, though many would be annoyed and consider it was a sellout not to push the public domain question. It would probably have to go as far as the full NPOV but X-Y-Z-respectable-notable-parties think this is would be a ruinous perversion of copyright, and not true even in the UK. (Consider: The Wikimedia communities are generally pretty diligent about actually following copyright, in my experience even more so than many commercial organizations much less online communities. Our communities will even behave more strictly than is required by law if we see some greater social purpose. Collectively we've taken the position we have because we have reason to believe the claims are both invalid and are socially harmful.) It's a pretty broad and complicated matter with ramifications far outside this particular instance. I surely don't want people coming back and telling me that slavish reproductions of PD art are copyrightable in the UK according to Wikipedia. Nor will the NPG want people claiming Wikipedia says their claims are bunk. Perhaps we can work out a scrupulously neutral statement which will satisfy both parties. I doubt this will happen unless both parties feel like they MUST come to an agreement. At it stands I think think that it's clear that agreement must actually be reached. As far as the sellout thing goes— consider that we already avoid accepting a lot of 'fair use' that we could legally get away with in the interest of expanding the base of of freely licensed works. You're point about copyleft is a good one though, generally a copyleft grant would completely satisfy our user community (as well as the foundation's formally stated mission). (There are more than a few things which are probably PD which we allow folks to assert copyleft licenses over; some of *my* SVGs probably fall into that bucket) But has this gotten so much attention that even that wouldn't be enough? I think probably so. Moreover, it's not clear enough that we could honestly negotiate it. I.e. the NPG could agree to it, but if the wider community doesn't like the arrangement and creates a lot of noise everyone involved would look like fools. Though, I'm prone to being too cynical at times. We've seemed to have had reasonably good luck elsewhere getting access to public domain art unencumbered by special requirements. We'd be short-sighted if we accept an unreasonably conciliatory compromise in this one case. I think we need to negotiate with the full expectation that whatever we permit here may be demanded in all future cases, even by non-museums, and even by those who would have previously asked for no special treatment. (Again, this is why the copyleft point is interesting— as we already accept copylefted works, I just have no clue how to reconcile it with the enormous amount of attention this has had so far plus the desire to not accept the validity of magically-not-PD trick) On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: What does Bridgeman vs. Corel have to do with it? We're talking about a UK legal threat. I think Geni is making a cat's out of the bag argument. Regardless of the degree of validity of the claim in the UK a completely reasonable response to UK civil action against someone in the US is Good luck collecting on that!. A lot of people already have these images already. Getting clearly illegal content off the internet is already almost impossible. But something that appears to be clearly legal, in the US of all places,? Good luck with that. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] National Portrait Gallery
Sorry, I don't follow you on this one. If the existing business model don't work and it should be changed, then work with them to change it and make the alternate options viable. John David Gerard wrote: 2009/7/17 geni geni...@gmail.com: Not really. Remember there are a bunch of other collections. Many will be looking to use the NPG's business model. National maritime museum, Imperial war museum, British library, Various national archives. Can't afford to buy them all off. It's worth noting that governments often expressly tell their galleries to be more businesslike and expressly require them to squeeze every penny from the (public domain) works they own. And to hell with the mission statement. So it'll be the usual mix of gentle one-at-a-time persuasion, luring people in, working under the radar, shifting paradigms, changing the culture, warping reality to a better shape, speaking softly and the occasional burst of action. Nothing we're not used to. - d. ___ 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] National Portrait Gallery
2009/7/18 John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no: Sorry, I don't follow you on this one. If the existing business model don't work and it should be changed, then work with them to change it and make the alternate options viable. John We do not have the capacity to raise sufficient funds to make it a worthwhile business model. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] National Portrait Gallery
David Gerard wrote: (The real problem, IMO, is funding - that governments tell galleries they have to make money from exploiting the works in their possession. Ah, but do governments really say this? I think it's museum people who want to play business because business is glamorous and state-owned administration is dull and grey. I don't think governments originally came up with this idea. Someone should do research and cite sources. Wikipedia's article on museums, or the history of museums, should have a section about this annoying trend. I guess museum journals of the recent decades should have articles that can be cited as sources. -- Lars Aronsson (l...@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] National Portrait Gallery
2009/7/18 John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no: Sorry, I don't follow you on this one. If the existing business model don't work and it should be changed, then work with them to change it and make the alternate options viable. That's what I mean - this issue goes way beyond NPG into how arts institutions are funded and sustained, which is why the NPG or people therein may believe they're really fighting for their lives and we threaten that. And if the NPG doesn't think that, other galleries may think that. And they may be right, if their funding's really bad. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] National Portrait Gallery
2009/7/18 Lars Aronsson l...@aronsson.se: Ah, but do governments really say this? I think it's museum people who want to play business because business is glamorous and state-owned administration is dull and grey. I don't think governments originally came up with this idea. I have been told this by Wikimedians who used to work in and with such institutions. Governments told them to be more businesslike, this attracted the people you describe. Someone should do research and cite sources. Wikipedia's article on museums, or the history of museums, should have a section about this annoying trend. I guess museum journals of the recent decades should have articles that can be cited as sources. I wonder if anyone's written about this without being sued ... - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 64, Issue 51
Message: 9 Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 00:02:26 +0100 From: geni geni...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] National Portrait Gallery To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: f80608430907171602h16a1bfe7n2e338bb49dbcf...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 2009/7/18 John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no: Sorry, I don't follow you on this one. If the existing business model don't work and it should be changed, then work with them to change it and make the alternate options viable. John We do not have the capacity to raise sufficient funds to make it a worthwhile business model. -- geni - Put me in touch with instructors at art schools and I'll incorporate restoration into their curriculum. You'll be surprised how scaleable this is, particularly if we work out exhibition opportunities. -Durova -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 64, Issue 51
2009/7/18 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com: Put me in touch with instructors at art schools and I'll incorporate restoration into their curriculum. You'll be surprised how scaleable this is, particularly if we work out exhibition opportunities. -Durova Restoration isn't the problem for the most part. The English part of the National Monuments Record contains about 10 million items (mostly photos I think). Wales and Scotland ad few million more. That includes a fairly complete public domain aerial survey of the UK from the 1940s. We do not have the capacity to support digitalization on that scale. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Rest in Peace, Walter Cronkite
All, For those of you who have not read the news yet, Walter Cronkite, icon of the CBS Evening News, has passed away. We are the continuation of the media industry that he helped define in many ways. My thoughts are with his family. -Chad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Rest in Peace, Walter Cronkite
on 7/17/09 8:39 PM, Chad at innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote: All, For those of you who have not read the news yet, Walter Cronkite, icon of the CBS Evening News, has passed away. We are the continuation of the media industry that he helped define in many ways. My thoughts are with his family. -Chad This is, indeed, very sad news. I can still see in my mind's eye his very moving announcement of the death of President Kennedy. His values were unshakeable. He leaves quite a legacy. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
