[Foundation-l] The Mediawiki 1.18 image rotation bug on Commons and on all Wikimedia projects
The Mediawiki 1.18 image rotation bug on Commons and on all Wikimedia projects 1 - Bug or feature ? It is a bug. 2 - The human bug 3 - The technical bug 4 - Unexhaustive list of related talks 1 - Bug or feature ? It is a bug. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arameansoldid=463282677 : both pictures File:Aramean funeral stele Louvre AO3026.jpg and File:Si Gabbor funeral stele Louvre AO3027.jpg are tilted. It is somehow intentional, because it seems that the devs have suddenly decided that the exif orientation tag should be taken into account, while in the past users used had to use other ways to define image orientation. But even if it is intentional, we should call it a bug, because it is annoying to a lot of readers and uploaders whose pictures have been OK sometimes for years, and without warning they must suddenly change the orientation of their uploaded pictures. What about the pictures whose uploaders are no longer active ? So I hope everybody agrees that it is a bug. 2 - The human bug I think the Wikimedia Foundation should present officially its excuses to the readers and active users annoyed by the bug. The excuses could be linked from the rotatebot template, so that the concerned users could read them. The devs should find out what went wrong in the decision process to implement the 1.18 version, and try to find preventive measures so that big problems of this size do not occur again when a version upgrade is done. Is it really OK not to consult the Commons community before changing a picture-related feature ? 3 - The technical bug : deadline A lot of people should be thanked for having spared no energy to find the first steps toward solutions to the bug. A lot has been done. In particular a lot has been done to provide users easy access to a bot, called rotatebot which rotates pictures when needed. A lot of users have spent time tagging pictures with a rotate template, which calls the bot for help. Really a lot of people. The bot is busy, and the bot should be thanked, if it had brains to understand what thank you means. Despite all of that, despite the fact that the bot's speed was lately increased, we are still lacking a systematic solution which would correct all wrongly rotated pictures and a deadline. Let us stop asking users to individually tag every wrong picture! Let us have some developers create a tool to find wrong pictures and rotate them back to their original orientation! We need a deadline. We need to be able to say, In X month's time, all pictures will be back to normal. 4 - Unexhaustive list of related talks http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/10#Autorotation_using_EXIF_tag_with_MW_1.18 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/10#Autorotation_using_EXIF_tag_with_MW_1.18_.28old.29 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/10#Rotatelink_on_filedescription-pages http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/10#problem_with_rotation http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/10#Rotation_error http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/11#New_autorotation_based_on_EXIF_data_problem http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/11#Wrong_rotation_of_image_when_used_in_Wikipedia http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/11#.22Request_rotation.22_link http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/12#Direction_issue_with_File:Cyril_and_Methodius_monument_Sofia.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bistro#Monast.C3.A8re_Andronikov_:_image_.C3.A0_redresser http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bistro#Monde_.C3.A0_l.27envers http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro/5_d%C3%A9cembre_2011#Pourquoi_certaines_images_ont_subi_des_rotations_sans_modification_apparente http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Image_rotation_-_I_am_desperate http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bots/Work_requests#Maintenance_category_for_files_with_EXIF_rotation_other_than_0_degrees http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Rotation http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rotatebot#Rotation_on_Wikipedia It is unexhaustive because I did not check Commons' help desk, nor every Wikipedia language version. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The Mediawiki 1.18 image rotation bug on Commons and on all Wikimedia projects
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:36 AM, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote: 1 - Bug or feature ? It is a bug. ... snip ... It is somehow intentional, because it seems that the devs have suddenly decided that the exif orientation tag should be taken into account, while in the past users used had to use other ways to define image orientation. It's been a requested feature for a while, Someone finally got around to writing it (I believe it needed the Improved metadata handling backend first) and implementing it, It wasn't a sudden oh lets write this and enable it in one day thing, a lot of work went into it and subsequent testing. But even if it is intentional, we should call it a bug, because it is annoying to a lot of readers and uploaders whose pictures have been OK sometimes for years, and without warning they must suddenly change the orientation of their uploaded pictures. What about the pictures whose uploaders are no longer active ? So I hope everybody agrees that it is a bug. The bug I see is software people used to edit these images didn't fix the files metadata itself, thus in the end creating this situation 2 - The human bug I think the Wikimedia Foundation should present officially its excuses to the readers and active users annoyed by the bug. The excuses could be linked from the rotatebot template, so that the concerned users could read them. Excuses? The reasons why it's broken have been posted in many places, Last I checked the said template wasn't protected so anyone could and pointers to about why its happening. The devs should find out what went wrong in the decision process to implement the 1.18 version, and try to find preventive measures so that big problems of this size do not occur again when a version upgrade is done. Is it really OK not to consult the Commons community before changing a picture-related feature ? Nothing much went wrong in the planning of this feature, The metadata backend was improved, the rotation feature was written, the feature was tested (and i'm aware of this because I did test it) and the feature did work as intended. And why should commons be notified when a MediaWiki core feature is written, why not ja.wikipedia or en.wikinews? just because commons is a end user of the software doesn't make it all that special, While yes the choice to deploy it to the cluster could have been handled differently it worked from all the testing that was performed (and the issues that were found from the testing were fixed before it was pushed out). Had more end users actually bothered to test the pre release(s) when they were staged on test. and test2.wikipedia, issues like this might had stood out more prominently so that its feature could have been considered after being tested on a wider scale. 3 - The technical bug : deadline ...snip... Let us stop asking users to individually tag every wrong picture! Let us have some developers create a tool to find wrong pictures and rotate them back to their original orientation! I believe that can be done quiet easily with a DB query, Then it's just a matter of fixing the metadata attached in the file compared to actually re-rotating them again. We need a deadline. We need to be able to say, In X month's time, all pictures will be back to normal. A time line like that can't be given since there aren't plans to turn the feature off from my understanding, So this will conciebly be fixed when RotateBot fixes up the meta data on the files, Someone else does it, or a extension/feature is written so humans have a interface on-wiki to manually rotate the files to how they should be. -Peachey, Signing off on what is now a new day. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The Mediawiki 1.18 image rotation bug on Commons and on all Wikimedia projects
The unrepentant attitude expressed above by K. Peachey increases the need for clear excuses from the Wikimedia Foundation, expressing clearly that something has gone wrong in the decision process, and that the people who think the relationship between users-community and developers the way K. Peachey is thinking, are mistaken. I don't want to address every single untruth included in K. Peachey's message. Let's say that when pictures are concerned, the input of the Commons community is useful, as is useful the input of the Georgian wikipedia when a Georgian-language-related feature is concerned. Let's say again that when users have been allowed for years - FOR YEARS - to upload pictures without concern for the exif orientation tag, revoking this allowance without prior warning is a breach of trust. And anyway, this is no reason to suddenly annoy readers, who are third parties in this developer-uploader misunderstanding and absence of dialogue. A Deadline is possible of course. All it needs is the political will from the Wikimedia Foundation management to impose a deadline to the devs. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The Mediawiki 1.18 image rotation bug on Commons and on all Wikimedia projects
On 12 December 2011 15:26, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com wrote: It's been a requested feature for a while, Someone finally got around to writing it (I believe it needed the Improved metadata handling backend first) and implementing it, It wasn't a sudden oh lets write this and enable it in one day thing, a lot of work went into it and subsequent testing. * How many existing uploads, used on the wikis, were previously wrongly rotated and were fixed by the feature? * How many existing uploads, used on the wikis, were previously correctly rotated and were messed up by the feature? i.e., was there strong reason to apply it to past images, not just new ones? - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Terms of use : Anglo-saxon copyright law and Anglo-saxon lawyers : a disgrace for Continental Europeans
Le 11 décembre 2011 19:02, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com a écrit : Hi. The Terms of use rewrite is starting to wind down. The current draft is here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use. From the point of view of Continental Europe, where creators enjoy advanced copyright laws which protect their attribution right, I think this implementation of the - creator belittling - US copyright law on Wikimedia projects is a disgrace. What the licensing section of this draft terms of use is saying is that the WMF simply disregards the attribution rights which are granted by law in their countries. It is humiliating. By the clever use of attribution licenses, there was a way to conciliate continental European laws and US or British laws. The WMF decides not to do so, and to stubbornly push the US-copyright law point of view. It is a pity. Perhaps the WMF should not have relied on a US lawyer alone. Perhaps a team associating a US lawyer with a continental Europe lawyer would have been better. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Terms of use : Anglo-saxon copyright law and Anglo-saxon lawyers : a disgrace for Continental Europeans
For some unexplained reasons, the whole contents of my message is not showing at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-December/070807.html . Here is another copy again: Le 12 décembre 2011 17:14, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com a écrit : Le 11 décembre 2011 19:02, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com a écrit : Hi. The Terms of use rewrite is starting to wind down. The current draft is here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use. From the point of view of Continental Europe, where creators enjoy advanced copyright laws which protect their attribution right, I think this implementation of the - creator belittling - US copyright law on Wikimedia projects is a disgrace. What the licensing section of this draft terms of use is saying is that the WMF simply disregards the attribution rights which are granted by law in their countries. It is humiliating. By the clever use of attribution licenses, there was a way to conciliate continental European laws and US or British laws. The WMF decides not to do so, and to stubbornly push the US-copyright law point of view. It is a pity. Perhaps the WMF should not have relied on a US lawyer alone. Perhaps a team associating a US lawyer with a continental Europe lawyer would have been better. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Terms of use : Anglo-saxon copyright law and Anglo-saxon lawyers : a disgrace for Continental Europeans
On 12 December 2011 16:18, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote: For some unexplained reasons, the whole contents of my message is not showing at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-December/070807.html . Here is another copy again: It came to the list, but the archiving bit of Mailman loses the entire message after any line that starts with the word From, i.e. the very beginning of your message. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The Mediawiki 1.18 image rotation bug on Commons and on all Wikimedia projects
I am unable to find precise answers to your questions. But the scope of the phenomenon can be somehow understood with the following data which hint that today, the demand for rotation service has increased about 56-fold compared to June 2011. But I am unable to say how long the present high demand will last. And we must think about the unused pictures or pictures used on small projects which may require rotation but which people may be not be going to find so soon. Let alone the cases when readers find that something is wrong but are too shy to say it. As of 24-30 June (7 days) Rotatebot was requested to rotate about 250 files in 7 days (1) As of now, Rotatebot is handling about 250 files in 3 hours (2) (which means (24/3)*7*250 = 56*250 in 7 days) (1) http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributionsoffset=2011070100limit=500contribs=usertarget=Rotatebot (2) http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributionslimit=500contribs=usertarget=Rotatebot Le 12 décembre 2011 16:55, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com a écrit : * How many existing uploads, used on the wikis, were previously wrongly rotated and were fixed by the feature? * How many existing uploads, used on the wikis, were previously correctly rotated and were messed up by the feature? i.e., was there strong reason to apply it to past images, not just new ones? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The Mediawiki 1.18 image rotation bug on Commons and on all Wikimedia projects
On 12 December 2011 15:26, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com wrote: Nothing much went wrong in the planning of this feature, Really?! How is not having realised that this new feature would break 1000's of images and preventing it not something going wrong in the planning? (And yes, I mean break - they displayed correctly before and they don't now, the fact that the EXIF data was corrupt isn't anywhere near as important as how they actually display on the sites that use them.) It was an innocent mistake and these things happen, but you need to accept that it was a mistake and consider what you can do in future to avoid such mistakes happening again. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Terms of use : Anglo-saxon copyright law and Anglo-saxon lawyers : a disgrace for Continental Europeans
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps the WMF should not have relied on a US lawyer alone. Perhaps a team associating a US lawyer with a continental Europe lawyer would have been better. Your notion that we just had some American lawyer with no international working experience draft the terms is incorrect. For the sake of ease, I'll quote from the mailing list announcement with details about our General Counsel: A little more about Geoff's background: Most recently, Geoff was Vice-President and Deputy General Counsel at eBay. There, he directed legal affairs in more than 15 countries throughout North America, Europe, Asia and Australia, encompassing litigation, copyright and trademarks, privacy, ethics, product and site content review, policy and regulatory compliance, new market advice, contracts, governance and site security. Previously he worked for eBay in Bern, Switzerland for four years as Vice-President Senior Director, and in Paris, France for two years as Senior Compliance and Litigation Counsel. I'll add that Geoff relocated here to the WMF from Paris, where he was living when we hired him. Steven ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Terms of use : Anglo-saxon copyright law and Anglo-saxon lawyers : a disgrace for Continental Europeans
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps the WMF should not have relied on a US lawyer alone. Perhaps a team associating a US lawyer with a continental Europe lawyer would have been better. Your notion that we just had some American lawyer with no international working experience draft the terms is incorrect. For the sake of ease, I'll quote from the mailing list announcement with details about our General Counsel: A little more about Geoff's background: Most recently, Geoff was Vice-President and Deputy General Counsel at eBay. There, he directed legal affairs in more than 15 countries throughout North America, Europe, Asia and Australia, encompassing litigation, copyright and trademarks, privacy, ethics, product and site content review, policy and regulatory compliance, new market advice, contracts, governance and site security. Previously he worked for eBay in Bern, Switzerland for four years as Vice-President Senior Director, and in Paris, France for two years as Senior Compliance and Litigation Counsel. I'll add that Geoff relocated here to the WMF from Paris, where he was living when we hired him. Steven Impressive! Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The Mediawiki 1.18 image rotation bug on Commons and on all Wikimedia projects
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 7:55 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: * How many existing uploads, used on the wikis, were previously wrongly rotated and were fixed by the feature? * How many existing uploads, used on the wikis, were previously correctly rotated and were messed up by the feature? As far as I understand the issue, and others can jump and correct me if I'm getting it wrong: Technically, nothing was messed up by the feature. Rather, the software previously did not take EXIF rotation into account, and some images had incorrect EXIF rotation information to begin with. Those images are now shown in an incorrect rotation to the user, because the incorrect EXIF rotation info is being evaluated. It's important to understand this, because it means that those images have been causing problems for re-users all along. If you open those images with modern image editing/viewing software, they will either be automatically rotated, or you'll be prompted by the software whether to apply the rotation noted in the EXIF tag. The situation has been significantly exacerbated by a recent need to purge old thumbnails to free up diskspace. So, while the cleanup that's happening now is very frustrating (and I definitely agree we could have anticipated and communicated this better), it's a cleanup that's long overdue. (Either by stripping EXIF info from files altogether, or by ensuring that the rotation of the image matches the one in the metadata.) Is there more that we can do at the present time to help? Thanks, Erik -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, 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
Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 93, Issue 27
@Teofilo. Thanks for your comments. The licensing and attribution requirements in the proposed Terms of usehttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use#7._Licensing_of_Contentare intended to be exactly the same as the current Terms of use http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_use. If you don't believe that is the case, it would be most helpful if you could include your comments on the discussion pagehttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use, so we can correct this. If it provides any comfort, I have lived 10 years in Europe while working extensively with European legal issues. Indeed, I was awarded the honor of Chevalier de l'ordre national du Merite by the French government because of my abilities to bridge the differences between U.S. and French law. And I also enjoyed studying European and international law at the University of Strasbourg. That said, I'm always open to suggestions to better improve my understanding of other cultures and laws, and, for that reason, your participation on the discussion page would be most welcome. On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 8:14 AM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.orgwrote: Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org You can reach the person managing the list at foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of foundation-l digest... Today's Topics: 1. Re: Terms of use rewrite winding down (Przykuta) 2. Re: Terms of use rewrite winding down (Federico Leva (Nemo)) 3. Re: Regarding Berkman/Sciences Po study (Kim Bruning) 4. Re: Regarding Berkman/Sciences Po study (Kim Bruning) 5. The Mediawiki 1.18 image rotation bug on Commons and on all Wikimedia projects (Teofilo) 6. Re: The Mediawiki 1.18 image rotation bug on Commons and on all Wikimedia projects (K. Peachey) 7. Re: The Mediawiki 1.18 image rotation bug on Commons and on all Wikimedia projects (Teofilo) 8. Re: The Mediawiki 1.18 image rotation bug on Commons and on all Wikimedia projects (David Gerard) 9. Re: Terms of use : Anglo-saxon copyright law and Anglo-saxon lawyers : a disgrace for Continental Europeans (Teofilo) -- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:45:53 +0100 From: Przykuta przyk...@o2.pl Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Terms of use rewrite winding down To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 53ade428.23dbef07.4ee52491.64...@o2.pl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi. The Terms of use rewrite is starting to wind down. The current draft is here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use. All users are encouraged to edit and improve the draft before January 1, 2012. In particular, the document could use a thorough copy-edit, so any skilled copy-editors who are able and willing to donate a few minutes to look over and clean up the draft would be greatly appreciated. Sometime in early 2012, a finalized version will be sent to the Wikimedia Board for approval. MZMcBride I've seen a little problem here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use Attribution: To re-distribute a text page in any form, provide credit to the authors either by including a) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages you are re-using, b) ... I want to re-distribute a text page from Wikipedia. So, I will add a hyperlink You want to re-distribute a text page from my copy..., you will add a hyperlink to my copy N wants to re-distribute a text page from n-1 copy But what about authors? przykuta -- Message: 2 Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 23:05:00 +0100 From: Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Terms of use rewrite winding down To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 4ee5290c.3010...@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed MZMcBride, 11/12/2011 19:02: Hi. The Terms of use rewrite is starting to wind down. The current draft is here:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use. All users are encouraged to edit and improve the draft before January 1, 2012. In particular, the document could use a thorough copy-edit, so any skilled copy-editors who are able and willing to donate a few minutes to look over and clean up the draft would be greatly appreciated. For copy-editors: see here some info about translation tags etc. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:GerardM/Translate Nemo --
Re: [Foundation-l] [Internal-l] Regarding Berkman/Sciences Po study
Speaking off the record and in my personal capacity - fuckin' A. Thank you for being the one sane voice :p On Sunday, 11 December 2011, Renata St renataw...@gmail.com wrote: The problem is that the research committee made only a token effort at finding or following relevant onwiki policy or consensus , nor did they try to explain or correct their actions onwiki in a timely manner as per WIARM. Or where they did, they didn't follow up. Any of those 3 elements (Policy, Consensus, WIARM/BRD) each could and still can help bring people up to speed and reduce misunderstandings. That's part of what they're for, after all! I'm sure that people will be more supportive once things are sorted out in that way. Hmm, the research committee still hasn't made any onwiki statement at a relevant location that I can find. If this were a court case, RCom would pretty much have lost by default and/or forfeit already. As I said, analyze and nitpick things to death. Does any of that above * really* matter? It distresses me to see the community turned into this insane policy-enforcing power-hungry gang. Everything must be approved by us (consensus)! Everything must follow each letter and comma of every goddarn policy out there! If there is a single comma missing we will shred you to pieces, treat you like a scum and public enemy number 1, whack you with all kinds of warnings, AN threads, blocks... Yeah, you go back to where you came from and stay there![1] Since when doing something nice and interesting on WP should be treated and compared to going to a court? Why and when did the community started to think that compliance with WP:IDHCWTSF[2] is more important than intentions, than doing the right thing, than embracing new, different ideas? Why does everything have to go through nine circles of bureaucracy? I weep for the memory of Wikipedia that was *free*. Yes, it is still free [as in $ and *©*], but it is no longer free of the instruction creep that stifles and regulates your every movement. I weep for the memory of a feeling that you *can* change, you *can* edit, you *can* do... without that gripping fear that you are violating some random policy and therefore will be whacked on your head with some large stick. Renata [1] Exaggerated, yes, but isn't this the typical newbie experience these days? [2] Wikipedia:I don't have a clue what this stands for ___ 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] [Internal-l] Regarding Berkman/Sciences Po study
Is swearing acceptable on this email list? If so, I will unsubscribe as I would prefer not to to be surprised by offensive language in my mail box. Fae On 12 December 2011 18:59, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote: Speaking off the record and in my personal capacity - fuckin' A. Thank you for being the one sane voice :p ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The Mediawiki 1.18 image rotation bug on Commons and on all Wikimedia projects
On 12 December 2011 18:18, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 7:55 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: * How many existing uploads, used on the wikis, were previously wrongly rotated and were fixed by the feature? * How many existing uploads, used on the wikis, were previously correctly rotated and were messed up by the feature? As far as I understand the issue, and others can jump and correct me if I'm getting it wrong: Technically, nothing was messed up by the feature. Rather, the software previously did not take EXIF rotation into account, and some images had incorrect EXIF rotation information to begin with. Those images are now shown in an incorrect rotation to the user, because the incorrect EXIF rotation info is being evaluated. That's a big technicality. Surely the most important thing is how the images display to users? There were right before and now they aren't. That may not be technically messed up, but it is messed up in reality. It's important to understand this, because it means that those images have been causing problems for re-users all along. If you open those images with modern image editing/viewing software, they will either be automatically rotated, or you'll be prompted by the software whether to apply the rotation noted in the EXIF tag. Indeed, it's good to get these images fixed, but surely it would have been better to fix them rather than just break the workaround that was stopping people noticing they were broken? The situation has been significantly exacerbated by a recent need to purge old thumbnails to free up diskspace. How big a contributing factor has that been? As I understand it, only thumbnails of unused images were purged. People (including me) have been stumbling over incorrect images in articles - have they just been unlucky and the thumbnail happened to expire at the wrong time? So, while the cleanup that's happening now is very frustrating (and I definitely agree we could have anticipated and communicated this better), it's a cleanup that's long overdue. (Either by stripping EXIF info from files altogether, or by ensuring that the rotation of the image matches the one in the metadata.) Is there more that we can do at the present time to help? I think, at the moment, the most useful thing would be to automate finding the broken images (basically, it's all images uploaded before the feature was introduced that have a non-zero EXIF rotation). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] The Mediawiki 1.18 image rotation bug
It's been a requested feature for a while, Someone finally got around to writing it Who has asked for such a silly feature? Every uploader sees the image he/she is uploading and has made the necessary rotation beforehand. But perhaps the same people that organized the Indian desaster or the image filter acclamation were in charge. Or someone posing as Women from the South have been asked to request the change (Yes I belive thats a possibility after this years experiance with the WMF) * How many existing uploads, used on the wikis, were previously wrongly rotated and were fixed by the feature? Guess: Zero - the uploader had already stored the image in the correct orientation. * How many existing uploads, used on the wikis, were previously correctly rotated and were messed up by the feature? Thousends - see the backlog of the bot. And there are more to come for months. i.e., was there strong reason to apply it to past images, not just new ones? Don't ask, you need no reason if you work directly with the WMF. -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 7 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 5153 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Terms of use : Anglo-saxon copyright law and Anglo-saxon lawyers : a disgrace for Continental Europeans
Would you care to explain anything you're talking about? I don't see anything in the Licensing section that mentions anything about U.S. copyright law. It says the content is licensed under the GFDL and CC-BY-SA, and the Attribution section just reflects the standard practices for those licenses. I don't see anything about how we're supposed to belittle and disgrace Europeans, but maybe I missed that part :) Ryan Kaldari On 12/12/11 8:14 AM, Teofilo wrote: Le 11 décembre 2011 19:02, MZMcBridez...@mzmcbride.com a écrit : Hi. The Terms of use rewrite is starting to wind down. The current draft is here:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use. From the point of view of Continental Europe, where creators enjoy advanced copyright laws which protect their attribution right, I think this implementation of the - creator belittling - US copyright law on Wikimedia projects is a disgrace. What the licensing section of this draft terms of use is saying is that the WMF simply disregards the attribution rights which are granted by law in their countries. It is humiliating. By the clever use of attribution licenses, there was a way to conciliate continental European laws and US or British laws. The WMF decides not to do so, and to stubbornly push the US-copyright law point of view. It is a pity. Perhaps the WMF should not have relied on a US lawyer alone. Perhaps a team associating a US lawyer with a continental Europe lawyer would have been better. ___ 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] Terms of use : Anglo-saxon copyright law and Anglo-saxon lawyers : a disgrace for Continental Europeans
I forgot humiliate. Sorry. Ryan Kaldari On 12/12/11 8:14 AM, Teofilo wrote: Le 11 décembre 2011 19:02, MZMcBridez...@mzmcbride.com a écrit : Hi. The Terms of use rewrite is starting to wind down. The current draft is here:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use. From the point of view of Continental Europe, where creators enjoy advanced copyright laws which protect their attribution right, I think this implementation of the - creator belittling - US copyright law on Wikimedia projects is a disgrace. What the licensing section of this draft terms of use is saying is that the WMF simply disregards the attribution rights which are granted by law in their countries. It is humiliating. By the clever use of attribution licenses, there was a way to conciliate continental European laws and US or British laws. The WMF decides not to do so, and to stubbornly push the US-copyright law point of view. It is a pity. Perhaps the WMF should not have relied on a US lawyer alone. Perhaps a team associating a US lawyer with a continental Europe lawyer would have been better. ___ 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] Terms of use : Anglo-saxon copyright law and Anglo-saxon lawyers : a disgrace for Continental Europeans
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote: Le 11 décembre 2011 19:02, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com a écrit : Hi. The Terms of use rewrite is starting to wind down. The current draft is here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use. From the point of view of Continental Europe, where creators enjoy advanced copyright laws which protect their attribution right, I think this implementation of the - creator belittling - US copyright law on Wikimedia projects is a disgrace. What the licensing section of this draft terms of use is saying is that the WMF simply disregards the attribution rights which are granted by law in their countries. It is humiliating. By the clever use of attribution licenses, there was a way to conciliate continental European laws and US or British laws. The WMF decides not to do so, and to stubbornly push the US-copyright law point of view. It is a pity. Perhaps the WMF should not have relied on a US lawyer alone. Perhaps a team associating a US lawyer with a continental Europe lawyer would have been better. We've been reaching out to people for months to express their viewpoints for consideration. I know Geoff has been very pleased with and impressed by the informed feedback he's received. There's still time. If you'd like to come by the talk page to explain how you think it can be improved, I'm sure Geoff would be interested in your concerns. You might first want to review the active Terms of Use ( http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_use), as it could be helpful to point out what (if anything) you believe has changed in terms of attribution licenses between *that* document, which was last updated and approved by the international Board of Trustees in 2009, and this. Maggie ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Terms of use : Anglo-saxon copyright law and Anglo-saxon lawyers : a disgrace for Continental Europeans
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: Would you care to explain anything you're talking about? I don't see anything in the Licensing section that mentions anything about U.S. copyright law. It says the content is licensed under the GFDL and CC-BY-SA, and the Attribution section just reflects the standard practices for those licenses. I don't see anything about how we're supposed to belittle and disgrace Europeans, but maybe I missed that part :) I think what he means is that under most European copyright regimes, an author has far-reaching personality rights, which include the right to have the work accredited to them whenever it is republished. The terms of use, in his feeling, hollow out this right by redefining the obligatory credit part of the GFL and CC-BY-SA in such a way that one can mention all authors by doing something that does not include mentioning any of them. -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Terms of use : Anglo-saxon copyright law and Anglo-saxon lawyers : a disgrace for Continental Europeans
On 12/12/2011 3:02 PM, Andre Engels wrote: I think what he means is that under most European copyright regimes, an author has far-reaching personality rights, which include the right to have the work accredited to them whenever it is republished. The terms of use, in his feeling, hollow out this right by redefining the obligatory credit part of the GFL and CC-BY-SA in such a way that one can mention all authors by doing something that does not include mentioning any of them. That may be the case, but any contributions to the projects is made under an unequivocal grants of permission to redistribute under those terms; the TOS only restate the inevitable, they're not putting forth any new concept there. -- Coren / Marc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The Mediawiki 1.18 image rotation bug on Commons and on all Wikimedia projects
On 12 December 2011 18:18, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: Technically, nothing was messed up by the feature. Rather, the software previously did not take EXIF rotation into account, and some images had incorrect EXIF rotation information to begin with. Those images are now shown in an incorrect rotation to the user, because the incorrect EXIF rotation info is being evaluated. That's ridiculous misuse of words. What was messed up was the presentation of images that were already displayed correctly. It is entirely unclear to me why you appear to be evading rather than answering a fairly simple and straightforward question: How many images used in the wikis had the pages they were on messed up by this? - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Terms of use : Anglo-saxon copyright law and Anglo-saxon lawyers : a disgrace for Continental Europeans
That's the whole point of free licenses—you're giving up some of your rights to your work. This doesn't have anything to do with European vs. American copyright law. I checked the wording in the existing terms of service and it's exactly the same. Ryan Kaldari On 12/12/11 12:02 PM, Andre Engels wrote: On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Ryan Kaldarirkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: Would you care to explain anything you're talking about? I don't see anything in the Licensing section that mentions anything about U.S. copyright law. It says the content is licensed under the GFDL and CC-BY-SA, and the Attribution section just reflects the standard practices for those licenses. I don't see anything about how we're supposed to belittle and disgrace Europeans, but maybe I missed that part :) I think what he means is that under most European copyright regimes, an author has far-reaching personality rights, which include the right to have the work accredited to them whenever it is republished. The terms of use, in his feeling, hollow out this right by redefining the obligatory credit part of the GFL and CC-BY-SA in such a way that one can mention all authors by doing something that does not include mentioning any of them. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Terms of use : Anglo-saxon copyright law and Anglo-saxon lawyers : a disgrace for Continental Europeans
On 12 December 2011 20:05, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 12/12/2011 3:02 PM, Andre Engels wrote: I think what he means is that under most European copyright regimes, an author has far-reaching personality rights, which include the right to have the work accredited to them whenever it is republished. The terms of use, in his feeling, hollow out this right by redefining the obligatory credit part of the GFL and CC-BY-SA in such a way that one can mention all authors by doing something that does not include mentioning any of them. That may be the case, but any contributions to the projects is made under an unequivocal grants of permission to redistribute under those terms; the TOS only restate the inevitable, they're not putting forth any new concept there. I believe in certain jurisdictions such terms are automatically null and void. The moral rights can't be waived. I expect that is the cause of the objection. I'm not really sure what alternative we have, though. We switched to the current license terms because we realised requiring re-users to credit every single person that made a non-trivial edit to the page was impractical and hardly any re-users were actually doing that. In the jurisdictions in question, re-users probably have no choice, but I guess that just means it is impractical to re-use Wikipedia legally in those jurisdictions. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The Mediawiki 1.18 image rotation bug
2011/12/12 Möller, Carsten c.moel...@wmco.de: It's been a requested feature for a while, Someone finally got around to writing it Who has asked for such a silly feature? Many people indeed. I wanted that since I had my first camera with rotation exif data. Every uploader sees the image he/she is uploading and has made the necessary rotation beforehand. Not necessarely. An example is the Flickr pictures from pro accounts. Many such users upload their pictures in bulk, but they only rotate them after upload. This leaves the small, medium and large previews correctly rotated, but the original (which is uploaded on commons) remains non-rotated. i.e., was there strong reason to apply it to past images, not just new ones? Don't ask, you need no reason if you work directly with the WMF. No, there wasn't. But hey, there is no software without bugs and no people that never made mistakes. Strainu ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Terms of use : Anglo-saxon copyright law and Anglo-saxon lawyers : a disgrace for Continental Europeans
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote: Le 11 décembre 2011 19:02, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com a écrit : Hi. The Terms of use rewrite is starting to wind down. The current draft is here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use. From the point of view of Continental Europe, where creators enjoy advanced copyright laws which protect their attribution right, I think this implementation of the - creator belittling - US copyright law on Wikimedia projects is a disgrace. What the licensing section of this draft terms of use is saying is that the WMF simply disregards the attribution rights which are granted by law in their countries. It is humiliating. By the clever use of attribution licenses, there was a way to conciliate continental European laws and US or British laws. The WMF decides not to do so, and to stubbornly push the US-copyright law point of view. It is a pity. Perhaps the WMF should not have relied on a US lawyer alone. Perhaps a team associating a US lawyer with a continental Europe lawyer would have been better. I just noticed that Geoff sent this a while back in response to the digest, forgetting to include the specific subject line. Don't want it overlooked, so I'm pasting it in here. Apologies to those who may wind up reading it twice. :) @Teofilo. Thanks for your comments. The licensing and attribution requirements in the proposed Terms of usehttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use#7._Licensing_of_Contentare intended to be exactly the same as the current Terms of use http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_use. If you don't believe that is the case, it would be most helpful if you could include your comments on the discussion pagehttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use, so we can correct this. If it provides any comfort, I have lived 10 years in Europe while working extensively with European legal issues. Indeed, I was awarded the honor of Chevalier de l'ordre national du Merite by the French government because of my abilities to bridge the differences between U.S. and French law. And I also enjoyed studying European and international law at the University of Strasbourg. That said, I'm always open to suggestions to better improve my understanding of other cultures and laws, and, for that reason, your participation on the discussion page would be most welcome. -- Maggie Dennis Community Liaison WikimediaFoundation.org ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The Mediawiki 1.18 image rotation bug
On 12 December 2011 19:22, Möller, Carsten c.moel...@wmco.de wrote: It's been a requested feature for a while, Someone finally got around to writing it Who has asked for such a silly feature? Every uploader sees the image he/she is uploading and has made the necessary rotation beforehand. I've certainly uploaded screwily-rotated files before; it's fairly common, especially with some Windows software, for an image to be shown to the user as rotated while retaining its set rotation in a way that's not visible until it's sent somewhere. I agree applying it to old images was a bit of an odd thing to do (if they were visibly wrong, someone usually went to the effort of re-uploading them), but that doesn't mean applying it to later ones was somehow a stupid thing to do. As to how common it might be in general... testing on Commons is tricky, but I've spent a few minutes sampling the Flickr live upload feed. Over about 20 pages of 20 images each, I found eight wrongly-rotated shots, or eight in 400 ~~ 2%. It's not Commons, of course, but it is indicative. -- - 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] Terms of use : Anglo-saxon copyright law and Anglo-saxon lawyers : a disgrace for Continental Europeans
I suppose we could add a disclaimer saying that the Terms of Use do not affect the editor's moral rights, although this would be a bit redundant since the CC-BY-SA license already states this. Ryan Kaldari On 12/12/11 12:42 PM, Maggie Dennis wrote: On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Teofiloteofilow...@gmail.com wrote: Le 11 décembre 2011 19:02, MZMcBridez...@mzmcbride.com a écrit : Hi. The Terms of use rewrite is starting to wind down. The current draft is here:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use. From the point of view of Continental Europe, where creators enjoy advanced copyright laws which protect their attribution right, I think this implementation of the - creator belittling - US copyright law on Wikimedia projects is a disgrace. What the licensing section of this draft terms of use is saying is that the WMF simply disregards the attribution rights which are granted by law in their countries. It is humiliating. By the clever use of attribution licenses, there was a way to conciliate continental European laws and US or British laws. The WMF decides not to do so, and to stubbornly push the US-copyright law point of view. It is a pity. Perhaps the WMF should not have relied on a US lawyer alone. Perhaps a team associating a US lawyer with a continental Europe lawyer would have been better. I just noticed that Geoff sent this a while back in response to the digest, forgetting to include the specific subject line. Don't want it overlooked, so I'm pasting it in here. Apologies to those who may wind up reading it twice. :) @Teofilo. Thanks for your comments. The licensing and attribution requirements in the proposed Terms of usehttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use#7._Licensing_of_Contentare intended to be exactly the same as the current Terms of usehttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_use. If you don't believe that is the case, it would be most helpful if you could include your comments on the discussion pagehttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use, so we can correct this. If it provides any comfort, I have lived 10 years in Europe while working extensively with European legal issues. Indeed, I was awarded the honor of Chevalier de l'ordre national du Merite by the French government because of my abilities to bridge the differences between U.S. and French law. And I also enjoyed studying European and international law at the University of Strasbourg. That said, I'm always open to suggestions to better improve my understanding of other cultures and laws, and, for that reason, your participation on the discussion page would be most welcome. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Internal-l] Regarding Berkman/Sciences Po study
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 06:59:24PM +, Oliver Keyes wrote: On Sunday, 11 December 2011, Renata St renataw...@gmail.com wrote: as per WIARM. As I said, analyze and nitpick things to death. Does any of that above * really* matter? Speaking off the record and in my personal capacity - fuckin' A. Thank you for being the one sane voice :p Hilariously enough, Renata and I are saying almost the same thing, I just [[WP:WOTTA]]ed it. The one thing we disagree on is that Renata is arguing Ignore all rules and I prepend: if it improves the encyclopedia Compare with the policy on the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IAR The tag soup takes up more space than the actual policy. :-P It really can't get much simpler than this. If you want to look at some of the corolleries of this single sentence rule, see [[Wikipedia:What Ignore all rules means]]. If you think that's insane, then I seriously don't know what's sane anymore. :-/ sincerely, Kim Ignore All Rules; or else! Bruning -- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] just wondering, are we going to take down en.wikipedia.org?
ANDDD HERE WE GO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Request_for_Comment:_SOPA_and_a_strike 2011/10/27 Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.com Hi! we recently did some practice on italian wikipedia, are we going to protest IP legislation in US by taking down English Wikipedia? https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/10/disastrous-ip-legislation-back-%E2%80%93-and-it%E2%80%99s-worse-ever Domas ___ 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] just wondering, are we going to take down en.wikipedia.org?
+ support! _ MateusNobre MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects (+55) 85 88393509 30440865 From: emi...@gmail.com Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 23:40:06 +0100 To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] just wondering, are we going to take down en.wikipedia.org? ANDDD HERE WE GO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Request_for_Comment:_SOPA_and_a_strike 2011/10/27 Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.com Hi! we recently did some practice on italian wikipedia, are we going to protest IP legislation in US by taking down English Wikipedia? https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/10/disastrous-ip-legislation-back-%E2%80%93-and-it%E2%80%99s-worse-ever Domas ___ 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] The Mediawiki 1.18 image rotation bug on Commons and on all Wikimedia projects
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com On 12 December 2011 18:18, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: Technically, nothing was messed up by the feature. Rather, the software previously did not take EXIF rotation into account, and some images had incorrect EXIF rotation information to begin with. Those images are now shown in an incorrect rotation to the user, because the incorrect EXIF rotation info is being evaluated. That's ridiculous misuse of words. What was messed up was the presentation of images that were already displayed correctly. It is entirely unclear to me why you appear to be evading rather than answering a fairly simple and straightforward question: How many images used in the wikis had the pages they were on messed up by this? Actually, I think Erik's use of words here is spot on. The previous images were messed up in such a way that they appeared right by fluke, but their metadata wasn't correct. Now, they can be easily identified and properly fixed by the community. This is a good and useful improvement - well done WMF + tech team for implementing it. :-) From: Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk I agree applying it to old images was a bit of an odd thing to do (if they were visibly wrong, someone usually went to the effort of re-uploading them), but that doesn't mean applying it to later ones was somehow a stupid thing to do. With this type of modification, it's natural that it would apply to all images rather than just images uploaded after it was switched on. It would be horribly unnatural and deliberately-buggy if it tried to take the date of upload into account when applying the modification... Thanks, Mike P.S. am replying to the digest - apologies if this ends up in the wrong thread... ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Internal-l] Regarding Berkman/Sciences Po study
Kim, One thing that confuses me. On the Foundation-l list, why do you insist on peppering your comments with English Wikipedia alphabet soup and references to local project policy? A pretty large proportion of the readers of this list have no interest in such pages, and no knowledge of what you mean when you say you [[WP:WOTTA]]'d something. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Internal-l] Regarding Berkman/Sciences Po study
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 07:01:58PM -0500, Nathan wrote: Kim, One thing that confuses me. On the Foundation-l list, why do you insist on peppering your comments with English Wikipedia alphabet soup and references to local project policy? A pretty large proportion of the readers of this list have no interest in such pages, and no knowledge of what you mean when you say you [[WP:WOTTA]]'d something. Because I realize I'm breaking one of my own rules O:-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WOTTA Thanks for reminding me. I promise to adhere to it better in future. sincerely, Kim Bruning ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The Mediawiki 1.18 image rotation bug on Commons and on all Wikimedia projects
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:12 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: What was messed up was the presentation of images that were already displayed correctly. Well, technically, they were displayed incorrectly. ;-) The image told the software Please rotate me, and the software didn't. But the image would tell any other software the same thing, causing pain for re-users. So it was definitely an issue that needed to get resolved, one way or another. I don't know off-hand how many images are affected (the estimate on Commons is about 50,000, but I don't know what that's based on). The thing is, we've always gotten drive-by uploads by users who didn't bother to fix any rotation issues with their images after upload, and so we can't just go back and strip EXIF info from all old files, because some old files were fixed by the change. It looks to me like the only sensible response is human review followed by rotation of images that need to be fixed -- which is precisely what's happening, with a bot performing rotations as needed. I've asked Rob Lanphier to look at this as well and determine if an additional response is needed; if you think there's more we can/should do to help, please let him know. The best place for further discussion of this issue is: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Rotation -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, 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] IRC office hours, Thursday Dec. 15th at 18:00 UTC
Hi all, Just a quick announcement that this Thursday, December 15th, we'll have an IRC office hours with Sue Gardner at 18:00 UTC. Time conversion links and more on in the usual place on Meta.[1] We haven't set a topic yet, though with the fundraiser, questions about the SOPA bill in the U.S., and more I'm sure there will be lots to discuss. Thanks in advance, -- Steven Walling Community Organizer at Wikimedia Foundation wikimediafoundation.org 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The Mediawiki 1.18 image rotation bug on Commons and on all Wikimedia projects
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: The best place for further discussion of this issue is: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Rotation And, lots more discussions here as well: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bots/Work_requests#Maintenance_category_for_files_with_EXIF_rotation_other_than_0_degrees If I interpret that discussion correctly, the number of globally used files that were affected is estimated to be about 20,000, with an additional 35,000 files that weren't globally used, based on analysis of the image metadata dumps. -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, 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
Re: [Foundation-l] The Mediawiki 1.18 image rotation bug on Commons and on all Wikimedia projects
A thought to those posting in this thread (especially some of the earlier posts): What effect would a less aggressive tone have had? Would you have been more likely to convince your audience? less likely to alienate people? This list often has too high a heat:light ratio. You can help fix this. -- David Richfield ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] The next Wikimedia architecture
One more vote from me for a collaborative Wikipedia hosting: In order to future proof Wikimedia, an even more distributed architecture is needed. This would allow another way to contribute to the Wikimedia effort: the donation of technical resources. This idea is by no means a new idea, see for example http://www.globule.org/publi/DWECWH_webist2007.html and http://www.globule.org/?page_id=72 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
