Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 01:00, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com wrote: I'm more raising the issue that what could be child pornography remains available to wmf volunteers with 'oversight' op.s on commons - I don't think HHOKyou wanna get the only fun from poor oversights, naughty naughty/HHOK ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 3:19 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: As for the link, showing these in greatly enlarged versions, without the context of the articles in which they are used, is setting up a strong bias. We've never engaged in that use of the material, nor would we. If people want to take our material out of our encyclopedic content and turn it into sexually-focused presentations, that is their look-out. Indeed. The video basically comes across as a threat to try to drum up a moral panic against Wikimedia. I don't see it that way at all. The narration was calm and unsensational and a gentle pan across an image can hardly said to be grossly misrepresentative either. As for taking the images out of context of articles; well as they may be viewed on Commons with no context I don't see that as a valid point. Don't misunderstand me, I think our articles on sexual organs should have a photo and Commons is our repository for such. But I was somewhat taken aback by a few of the pics in that video... are we ever going to have an article called gay facial? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
Дана Monday 18 January 2010 16:33:00 Bod Notbod написа: somewhat taken aback by a few of the pics in that video... are we ever going to have an article called gay facial? Are you saying that you will be surprised if you find out that we have one? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
On Jan 18, 2010, at 10:25 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote: Are you saying that you will be surprised if you find out that we have one? I'm mostly surprised that we DON'T. Philippe Beaudette Facilitator, Strategy Project Wikimedia Foundation phili...@wikimedia.org mobile: 918 200-WIKI (9454) Imagine a world in which every 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] Where do our readers come from? QA
There are 3 phenomena acting simultaneously against the number of visits to small projects: The bilingual effect, the size effect, and the Google effect. For Catalan case we estimate a penalization factor of 8.3 (that means that visits are 8.3 times less that what they should be). It comes from: 1.2 bilingual factor (visits lost because people also understand other languages, even if they have the opportunity to read the article in their mother tongue, they also read it in others). 2.5 size factor (visits to other projects because readers don’t find what they were looking for in their mother tongue). And 2,77 Google factor. (Visits lost because Google directs people to other tongues projects). The only positive factor is the bilingual one. We are working hard to correct the others. For other projects those factors can be very different but the concept can be there. Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 02:40:06 -0700 From: Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from? QA To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 849f98ed1001160140h20c69f6fxa5a7a22d4b81e...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sociolinguistic situations around the world are very complex I think. In especially former European colonies, of which Kenya is but one example, the language of the former colonial power often has a unique position in society. It is not surprising to me that the English Wikipedia is so popular compared to any other in Kenya, but it is quite a bit more surprising that Korean, Romanian, Bulgarian, Lithuanian, Iranian, etc. users prefer the English Wikipedia. Mark On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 2:25 AM, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.com wrote: Dear Erik, Maybe there is a dirty Polish word looked up by many Polish pupils, and when they Google it they come to eu.WP because a Basque word accidentally is alike? :-) I am looking now for the interest in the native / the English Wikipedia in specific countries. It might be important how localized the software in general is. If you live in, say, Kenya, and your computer has Windows in English, the Internet Explorer and everything is oriented to English, and you google your home town in an English language Google, it is probable that you will get the Wikipedia article in English and not in Swahili. Kind regards Ziko ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from? QA
Joan Goma hett schreven: There are 3 phenomena acting simultaneously against the number of visits to small projects: The bilingual effect, the size effect, and the Google effect. For Catalan case we estimate a penalization factor of 8.3 (that means that visits are 8.3 times less that what they should be). It comes from: 1.2 bilingual factor (visits lost because people also understand other languages, even if they have the opportunity to read the article in their mother tongue, they also read it in others). 2.5 size factor (visits to other projects because readers don’t find what they were looking for in their mother tongue). And 2,77 Google factor. (Visits lost because Google directs people to other tongues projects). The only positive factor is the bilingual one. We are working hard to correct the others. For other projects those factors can be very different but the concept can be there. Interesting. What's the math behind that numbers? Or the source? Marcus Buck ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] SUL conflict resolution
Dear all, We've had SUL ([1]) for almost two years now. At the moment projects all have different policies for usurpation. On some projects conflicts can easily be solved, while on others they can't. Are there any plans for having a Foundation wide policy on that? Will unattached accounts ever be forcefully renamed in order to have full SUL conflict resolution? --Erwin [1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Unified_login signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote: somewhat taken aback by a few of the pics in that video... are we ever going to have an article called gay facial? Are you saying that you will be surprised if you find out that we have one? Heh, after I pressed 'send' I thought, I'll have a link in my inbox in under 5 minutes. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from? QA
On 01/18/2010 09:29 AM, Joan Goma wrote: There are 3 phenomena acting simultaneously against the number of visits to small projects: The bilingual effect, the size effect, and the Google effect. For Catalan case we estimate a penalization factor of 8.3 (that means that visits are 8.3 times less that what they should be). In the long term, it seems like we could compensate for all of these effects in software. I'm imagining a user experience where we make it easy for multilingual users to switch back and forth. That would include passive detection of multilingual users, hinting when good content is available in other languages, and making it easy for multilingual users to help translate content. It might also be worth looking at URL schemes that are not 100% language-specific, to focus the Google effect more usefully. That would require a lot of technical work, and would raise a number of non-technical issues, but I don't see any insurmountable barriers to a more fluid experience for multilingual users. William ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 2:23 AM, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote: On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:39 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: iirc, there is already a mediawiki capability for images to be completely removed from the servers. I can't see this capability in the sysop tools, so maybe I only imagined it. Is that capability still available? Which users have access to it? If it is part of the software, I think oversighters should have access to it. That was rewritten ages ago to allow the files to be kept and undeleted and need be (so in theory they are now only removed from accessible part of the software, not the file system), they would need to be kept and not destroyed if they were brought you in court/criminal proceedings because they would become evidence. It's possible for system administrators to delete files entirely from the servers for legal reasons, but because it is quite labour-intensive, I for one have only ever performed such a deletion when it is real child pornography (hint: a 16-year-old masturbating is not real child pornography, and is in fact legal, though explicit, in New South Wales, Australia). We don't really want to be handling any more than a request or two each week/month under this system, and it's done mostly in the interest of taste – the images that I've had to delete have made me extremely uncomfortable, and deleting them is mostly about protecting innocent snooping administrators from seeing them. If there are legal issues involved, they should be discussed directly with our General Counsel, and not speculated about by volunteers who may lack the requisite legal expertise to make a decision on the Foundation's behalf. The community should be discussing editorial and administrative reasons for dealing with these images, not legal ones. -- Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org http://werdn.us/ Sent from London, Eng, United Kingdom ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
It's possible for system administrators to delete files entirely from the servers for legal reasons, but because it is quite labour-intensive, I for one have only ever performed such a deletion when it is real child pornography (hint: a 16-year-old masturbating is not real child pornography, and is in fact legal, though explicit, in New South Wales, Australia). We don't really want to be handling any more than a request or two each week/month under this system, and it's done mostly in the interest of taste – the images that I've had to delete have made me extremely uncomfortable, and deleting them is mostly about protecting innocent snooping administrators from seeing them. If there are legal issues involved, they should be discussed directly with our General Counsel, and not speculated about by volunteers who may lack the requisite legal expertise to make a decision on the Foundation's behalf. The community should be discussing editorial and administrative reasons for dealing with these images, not legal ones. With respect, legal issues are debated on many projects practically every day. This particular issue is no different. In some jurisdictions, just accessing such files can expose one to legal risk. While Mike is a good lawyer, he doesn't represent individual editors - and the Foundation's interests and liabilities (as a host, not a content provider) may not fully intersect with the needs of individual editors. And in any case, permanently deleting such images (so that they can't be recovered without extraordinary effort) has its own editorial and administrative benefits. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
Nathan writes: With respect, legal issues are debated on many projects practically every day. This particular issue is no different. In some jurisdictions, just accessing such files can expose one to legal risk. While Mike is a good lawyer, he doesn't represent individual editors - and the Foundation's interests and liabilities (as a host, not a content provider) may not fully intersect with the needs of individual editors. Keep in mind, though, that PM is constantly asking for Foundation intervention with regard to the images that he is so consistently reviewing and concerned about. Why PM wants Foundation intervention rather than community consensus is unclear to me -- it should be clear, however, that the Foundation is disinclined to engage in editorial intervention in the absence of a clear legal imperative. With regard to the Foundation's legal obligations, I expect my colleagues at the DOJ and elsewhere will contact me if they have a problem with Foundation policies or operations. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
2010/1/19 Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com: Keep in mind, though, that PM is constantly asking for Foundation intervention with regard to the images that he is so consistently reviewing and concerned about. Why PM wants Foundation intervention rather than community consensus is unclear to me -- It's because the communities (en:wp and commons) keep telling him to go away. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
( ah c'mon d - who loves ya' baby ;-) It's good to see you (Mike) here too - I'm glad you're clearly aware of the concerns I've consistently raised, and I appreciate that I may not have been completely clear about what I would hope the foundation, as oppose to the communities, might be able to do - lemme give it a shot :-) There's obviously an ongoing issue of some sort for Andrew, as a 'dev' to write above 'the images that I've had to delete have made me extremely uncomfortable' - could you (or Andrew) confirm that the appropriate authorities were contacted in the case of child pornography being uploaded - and would we agree that this is something the foundation can help facilitate as oppose to responsibility lying with the communities? while we're at it, is it fair to infer from Andrew's post above that media depicting 'a 16-year-old masturbating is not real child pornography, and is in fact legal..' is the foundation's official position? - In the context of andrew requesting discussion with counsel as oppose to each other, it might be good to clear that up? The bottom line is that I think the foundation can provide leadership to the communities, as well as specific software adjustments, perhaps including things like 'click here to say you're 18', or some sort of 'descriptive image tagging' - what I hope I'm showing by highlighting the volume and nature of much media on wmf projects is the fact that for a variety of reasons guidance and leadership from the foundation would be a good thing :-) (please note that I'm not asking for hundreds of images or articles to be deleted, nor am I claiming the wmf is nasty, evil and depraved, nor that looking at folking putting bits and bobs into each other (and themselves!) is necessary a bad thing - just that discussion of regulation is a good idea!) Perhaps worthy of note also is the nature of project usage, as another commons user put it semi-rhetorically; 'are we becoming a systematic pornography source?' ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pumpdiff=prevoldid=33968683) These stat.s; http://wikistics.falsikon.de/2009/wikimedia/commons/ seem to say 'yes' - there's a clear use of commons as porn source in my view, and I don't think commons as 'the best porn you can get at school, or in the library' is a good look for wmf :-) - mileage may vary of course, but thems my thoughts. Finally, your last bit, Mike, seemed to indicate that you feel the DOJ (department of justice, I think) would be wanting to talk to you if anything bad was going on does that really prohibit us from chatting about stuff here? Has the foundation discussed such things with the DOJ specifically? (would you, as foundation counsel, prefer such concerns to be raised with them? - hopefully the door's not completely closed on this issue - that would be a shame) best, Peter, PM. On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:59 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/1/19 Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com: Keep in mind, though, that PM is constantly asking for Foundation intervention with regard to the images that he is so consistently reviewing and concerned about. Why PM wants Foundation intervention rather than community consensus is unclear to me -- It's because the communities (en:wp and commons) keep telling him to go away. - 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] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 5:41 PM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.comwrote: Finally, your last bit, Mike, seemed to indicate that you feel the DOJ (department of justice, I think) would be wanting to talk to you if anything bad was going on does that really prohibit us from chatting about stuff here? Has the foundation discussed such things with the DOJ specifically? (would you, as foundation counsel, prefer such concerns to be raised with them? - hopefully the door's not completely closed on this issue - that would be a shame) Please understand that I have many contacts with the law-enforcement community, and have had them for many years. Please also understand that I don't disclose every legally related communication to foundation-l. What I said, generally, remains true: that if DOJ has a problem with Wikimedia content or policies, I'll likely be the first to hear about it. We have not yet been contacted by DOJ or any state law-enforcement agency regarding the content that PM is so very deeply concerned with and focused on. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
heh! indeed - I don't think anyone would expect you to disclose everything on this list! That would be rather silly ;-) I'm also certain of both your expertise and connections in regard to law enforcement, DOJs and whatnot - I certainly haven't meant to imply that your expertise in this regard is anything other than an assett for the wmf! I just had a good chat with someone pointing out that my posts probably conflate a few different areas, so perhaps while I may have your ear, Mike, I could ask you if you'd see any problem with expanding the role of OTRS to include managing assertions of model age and release related to explicit media - perhaps we could agree that might be a good thing? :-) cheers, Peter, PM. On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 5:41 PM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.comwrote: Finally, your last bit, Mike, seemed to indicate that you feel the DOJ (department of justice, I think) would be wanting to talk to you if anything bad was going on does that really prohibit us from chatting about stuff here? Has the foundation discussed such things with the DOJ specifically? (would you, as foundation counsel, prefer such concerns to be raised with them? - hopefully the door's not completely closed on this issue - that would be a shame) Please understand that I have many contacts with the law-enforcement community, and have had them for many years. Please also understand that I don't disclose every legally related communication to foundation-l. What I said, generally, remains true: that if DOJ has a problem with Wikimedia content or policies, I'll likely be the first to hear about it. We have not yet been contacted by DOJ or any state law-enforcement agency regarding the content that PM is so very deeply concerned with and focused on. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 8:31 PM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.comwrote: I just had a good chat with someone pointing out that my posts probably conflate a few different areas, so perhaps while I may have your ear, Mike, I could ask you if you'd see any problem with expanding the role of OTRS to include managing assertions of model age and release related to explicit media - perhaps we could agree that might be a good thing? :-) I do not believe it is a good idea to expand duties of OTRS beyond those required by law. I do not believe OTRS is currently required by law to manage assertions of model age and release. I do not believe OTRS could scale to assume such duties. I do believe that attempting to get the Foundation to impose top-down intervention in this case when you can't persuade the community itself of your concerns about explicit media is a bad thing. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
2010/1/17 private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com: Here's another concerning aspect of management of explicit media on WMF; It's been asserted that images of a 16 year old girl masturbating have been uploaded to commons; Whats that got to do with management? Any service that allows user uploads of images is going to get hit by such uploads from time to time. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] EN Wikizine - Anno Domini MMX Week III Number CXXI
** ____ _ __ _ / / /\ \ (_) | _(_)___(_)_ __ ___ \ \/ \/ / | |/ / |_ / | '_ \ / _ \ \ /\ /| | | |/ /| | | | | __/ \/ \/ |_|_|\_\_/___|_|_| |_|\___| .org Anno Domini MMX Week III Number CXXI ** An independent internal news bulletin for the members of the Wikimedia community // === Technical news === [Flagged revisions] - status information about flagged revisions and how the English Wikipedia is going to use it. http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2010/01/flagged-revisions-your-questions-answered/ [10gbit/sec] - on the 11th of January Wikimedia's world-wide five-minute-average transmission rate crossed 10gbit/sec. This peak rate was achieved while serving roughly 91,725 requests per second. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical/46655 [Wikipedia and Google] - A custom Google skin for Wikipedia is created. It provides advanced Google/Wikipedia search options. http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/10/26/google-experiments-with-new-ways-to-search-wikipedia/ === Foundation === [Stewards] - Candidate submissions are open for the function of Steward. A steward is a user who has the administrative user rights to grant and revoke all existing user levels on all Wikimedia Foundation projects. It can be compared with a super-bureaucrat. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2010/Guidelines#Candidates -- until 28th January [WMF fundraiser] - it has come and is gone again. The Wikimedia Foundation was able to raise just over $8 million USD. In Euro it 5,5 million. In any case it was the most successful fundraiser to date. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/2009_Fundraiser_Closing_Release [WMF move] - The Wikimedia Foundation started in Saint-Petersburg, Florida. And moved in early 2008 to San Francisco, California. A couple of months ago the WMF moved again to a larger office in the neighborhood of the old office. http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/10/27/wikimedia-finds-a-new-home/ === Community === [Commons] - Post of Erik about how the contend imported on Commons from partnerships have been used on the projects. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/43645 [Wiki jobs] - If you work on a WMF project and do your best, maybe, just maybe, you will be offered a job. That was the case with [[user:Mike Halterman]] from EN Wikinews. His work on Wikinews attracted the attention of a new magazine starting up in Tampa, Florida, USA, This user did had a journalistic background but this online work at Wikinews was the ticket. Nine months after being hired as a writer, Mike Halterman is now lead editor of OMG! Magazine. http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User:Mike_Halterman http://omgmag.com === Awards === [PL Wiki] - Polish Wikipedia has been awarded a Jan ?ukasiewicz special award for social innovation in the application of IT by the Polish IT Society (Polskie Towarzystwo Informatyczne). The award has been received by Pawe? Jochym, a co-founder of pl.wiki, and Prof. Janusz Ency Doro?y?ski, an active Polish Wikimedian and a member of the Society. === Media === [A editor story] - A nice article about one of the many people working on the wiki http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/22/AR2009102204715.html === Other news === [Wikitravel] - has changed there license to Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0. This is the same license as the Wikimedia Foundation is using for most projects. http://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:License_upgrade [Upcoming holiday] - 25th of January Magnus Manske Day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Magnus_Manske_Day === Editorial notice === So, this was the first Wikizine of 2010 (and it was not even a good one). It has been a couple of months since the previous Wikizine. There was a short revival of Wikizine in the period of August, September and October. And now this edition in January. I can not make any promises for a next edition. Maybe until Wikizine 121, Greetings, User:Walter // Editor(s): Walter, Casey Corrector(s): Thanks to: Erik, Jay, Cary, George Herbert, Frank, Magnus Manske, Jyothis, Amgine, Sage, Jay, Tim, Marlita, Kat, David, Wpedzich, Naoko, Kul, Evan Contact: reply or http://report.wikizine.org Website: http://www.wikizine.org // Wikizine.org makes no guarantee of accuracy, validity and especially but not limited to, correct grammar and spelling. Satisfaction is not guaranteed. Wikizine.org is published by [[meta:user:Walter]]. Wikizine is published as long as there is noteworthy news (and time) Content is available under the GNU Free Documentation License http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html and also the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
Mike Godwin wrote: Nathan writes: With respect, legal issues are debated on many projects practically every day. This particular issue is no different. In some jurisdictions, just accessing such files can expose one to legal risk. While Mike is a good lawyer, he doesn't represent individual editors - and the Foundation's interests and liabilities (as a host, not a content provider) may not fully intersect with the needs of individual editors. Keep in mind, though, that PM is constantly asking for Foundation intervention with regard to the images that he is so consistently reviewing and concerned about. Why PM wants Foundation intervention rather than community consensus is unclear to me -- it should be clear, however, that the Foundation is disinclined to engage in editorial intervention in the absence of a clear legal imperative. With regard to the Foundation's legal obligations, I expect my colleagues at the DOJ and elsewhere will contact me if they have a problem with Foundation policies or operations. +1 Crystal clear. Nice to have it on the record from the person who holds your present office. Yours; as a faithful internet veteran, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.orgwrote: (hint: a 16-year-old masturbating is not real child pornography, and is in fact legal, though explicit, in New South Wales, Australia). Last I checked the WMF falls under US law, so you might want to read http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_2256000-.html and reconsider that comment. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from? QA
Details on how to measure it are relatively complex. We can make a guess because of data collected from sources available for Catalan. My mail was just to explain the phenomena. Figures results from: a) Surveys. Last one answered by 400 Catalan Wikipedia readers. We use results from answer to question about other language versions frequently used. [1] b) Most viewed pages in Spanish, French and English not yet existing in Catalan.[2] c) % of visitors to web pages exclusively in Catalan using web browser configured in other languages [3]. D) Own experiments with common searches in Google configuring the browser in Catalan, French, Spanish, and English, and some final cooking. Result is very approximate but gives us an idea about what is happening. The bilingual factor is not negative. It apparently reduces hits to Catalan pages but really it increases hits to non Catalan pages. The factor due to inexistent or not well developed articles has to be improved by growing the project. The more frustrating one is the Google Factor, You can Google “Integral” even with a Catalan configured navigator and you will get the English version first, then the Spanish one (witch is a translation from an old Catalan version) both in first page but not find the Catalan one witch is the larger of all before page 10. This article is a very special case due to specific factors. A technical solution would be great. And perhaps it is not of high difficulty. We could guess languages from IP address and highlight interwiki links to those languages. [1] http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viquip%C3%A8dia:Segon_sondeig_dels_usuaris/4._Utilitzeu_amb_freq%C3%BC%C3%A8ncia_alguna_altra_edici%C3%B3_de_la_Viquip%C3%A8dia%3F [2] http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuari:Meldor/Top_visites_2009#Mes_visitats_a_can_.28castell.C3.A0.29_que_no_tenen_link_al_catal.C3.A0 [3] http://www.eines.cat/?p=804 From: Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org Joan Goma hett schreven: There are 3 phenomena acting simultaneously against the number of visits to small projects: The bilingual effect, the size effect, and the Google effect. For Catalan case we estimate a penalization factor of 8.3 (that means that visits are 8.3 times less that what they should be). It comes from: 1.2 bilingual factor (visits lost because people also understand other languages, even if they have the opportunity to read the article in their mother tongue, they also read it in others). 2.5 size factor (visits to other projects because readers don?t find what they were looking for in their mother tongue). And 2,77 Google factor. (Visits lost because Google directs people to other tongues projects). The only positive factor is the bilingual one. We are working hard to correct the others. For other projects those factors can be very different but the concept can be there. Interesting. What's the math behind that numbers? Or the source? Marcus Buck Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:58:20 -0800 From: William Pietri will...@scissor.com On 01/18/2010 09:29 AM, Joan Goma wrote: There are 3 phenomena acting simultaneously against the number of visits to small projects: The bilingual effect, the size effect, and the Google effect. For Catalan case we estimate a penalization factor of 8.3 (that means that visits are 8.3 times less that what they should be). In the long term, it seems like we could compensate for all of these effects in software. I'm imagining a user experience where we make it easy for multilingual users to switch back and forth. That would include passive detection of multilingual users, hinting when good content is available in other languages, and making it easy for multilingual users to help translate content. It might also be worth looking at URL schemes that are not 100% language-specific, to focus the Google effect more usefully. That would require a lot of technical work, and would raise a number of non-technical issues, but I don't see any insurmountable barriers to a more fluid experience for multilingual users. William ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
