Re: [WikiEN-l] How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit, _The Atlantic_
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: About six months ago now, I stumbled on an article that wasn't in great shape, added some text over a series of edits, and increased the number of links in the 'external links' section from 5 to 22. Now, admittedly I wasn't editing as an IP (I always edit logged in) and I added the external links in such a way as to make clear why they were useful, but still, I didn't arouse some huge storm of editors demanding that I reduce the number of external links (they are all still there). The number of external links will reduce as the article is expanded, but if you format external links and arrange them logically, they can function as a holding place for sources to be used later to write/expand the article. Maybe that means that the question of external links is more one of quality, and your analysis is oversimplistic? I submit that well-formatted and well-chosen external links tend to stick, while drive-by additions (or removals) don't. Which is not entirely surprising. Carcharoth That conclusion would be far more convincing if you weren't who you are. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit, _The Atlantic_
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 17 May 2012 17:32, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote: That conclusion would be far more convincing if you weren't who you are. That's [[ad hominem]] against Carcharoth, and you really need either to withdraw it, or back it up. The former option is much preferable. Charles That reaction certainly comes as a surprise. Why would you construe an attack or a fallacy? In any meaningful experiment the researcher attempts to reduce the variables to a single factor. Surely you'll agree that an established registered editor's contributions might encounter a different degree of scrutiny from an unregistered IP's edits. Carcharoth himself concedes the possibility. What need could there be to apologize for agreeing? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit, _The Atlantic_
Thank you for the clarification. Charles He raises an interesting possibility. What would really be a better test of the idea would be to edit unlogged from a wi-fi hotspot and add around 2 dozen external links each to several articles as he describes along with a general improvement and expansion. If no difficulties arise after 10 or more articles then providing a good context for links might really be an ideal solution. Recent changes patrol tends to be fast moving and because of that it incorporates a trust factor: the basic things to check for is whether a link is relevant, informative, and useful. Most patrollers frown on deliberate efforts to exploit external links and send traffic to particular websites; also in the view of some patrollers the external links section doesn't exist to replicate the top results of major search engines. That last point might be debatable, yet most of us appreciate it when someone who knows a subject provides a referral to a useful but non-optimized site. Carcharoth has basically explained usefulness for the new page patroller. That makes the patroller's task easier. The question is whether that explanation alone makes a difference: Carcharoth is a model wikicitizen so a patroller could conclude that his choices are trustworthy for any number of other reasons. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Why I don't contribute to Wikipedia anymore
It's a common story in the human species. First, we want to achieve a goal. Second, we discover that we are all different[2] and that we need some rules to organize our work. Third, we make the rules really complicated to fit every corner case. Fourth, we completely forget the goal of those rules and we apply them blindly for the sake of it. Fifth, we punish or kill those who don't follow the rules as strictly as we do. To be perfectly honest, I've not really seen that happen; although people will often get their work reverted for not following rules. I cannot think of a single example of people getting banned for not following rules (other than copyvios and behavioral rules). Perhaps not banned, but driven away from frustration. To select just one from a myriad of examples, take the alt text cult at en.wiki's featured article process. The basic idea of alt text is sensible: vision impaired people deserve a text substitute for images they cannot see. Surely Wikipedia's best articles would provide that. So alt text became mandatory at featured article candidates. All images needed alt text, standards developed for alt text, alt text needed to be rewritten several times to meet the exacting standards. Meanwhile, reviewers remained remarkably lax about the images themselves and resisted commonplace suggestions such as the idea that maps ought to be legible. The last time I checked several en:wiki featured articles I found multiple instances of misattributed public domain claims that ought to have been moved off Commons and reuploaded locally at en:wiki with nonfree use rationales. Correct license and legibility are minimum expectations. The overall standard for media content is so low that the article about Richard Nixon's Checkers speech reached featured status without any media component to see or hear that speech, which is public domain and readily available from several sources. Yet text developed a cult status out of proportion to its actual importance. The problem is one of site culture where pointing out these imbalances risks a vindictive response from well connected people. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins
Let's not mince words: Wikipedia administratorship can be a serious liability. The 'reward' for volunteering for this educational nonprofit can include getting one's real name Googlebombed, getting late night phone calls to one's home, and worse. The Wikimedia Foundation has never sent a cease and desist demand to the people who have made a years-long hobby of driving its administrators away. It is hardly surprising that, in this weak economy, wise editors have been declining offers of nomination. -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Is a book cover in a Signpost book review an acceptable exemption from the non-free content policy?
Brilliant idea. :) -Durova On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Neil Harris n...@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote: Could this all simply be resolved by the publishers releasing a _thumbnail-sized version_ of the book cover under a Wikipedia-compatible license? -- Neil ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] PR consultants: perhaps Wikipedia is not the ideal promotional medium
Excellent piece. Especially the close about how it's a difficult position for PR professionals to report to the client that the article was deleted. -Durova On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:35 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: http://rushprnews.com/2010/03/31/pr-consultants-should-think-twice-before-using-wikipedia-to-promote-clients PR consultants should think twice before using Wikipedia to promote clients March 31, 2010 Leicestershire, UK (RPRN) 03/31/10 — PR consultants are being advised to think twice before incorporating Wikipedia entries into campaign strategies after the site started cracking down on articles submitted by any public relations agency it considered to be using its resource to promote clients. (muwahaha. Spotted by Mathias Schindler. The article sets out en:wp's rationales and likely actions very well indeed.) - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Another notability casualty
This is of course true too. People don't think video game composers deserve to have articles; so they argue for non-notability. Whether this should be the case is another story. I consider this to be an abuse of the rules. That's an example of a fairly common human prejudice against new creative genres. Novels were held in light esteem while Henry Fielding and Jane Austen were writing them--light entertainment for adolescent girls. It wasn't really until Thackeray that the genre became respectable reading for serious adults. When motion pictures were new they were mostly regarded as light entertainment for working class audiences. Partly as a result, nearly 90% of the films from the silent era weren't curated and have been lost forever. Of course 90% of every genre is crap and the Pac-Man theme will probably torment me for the next three hours. But Austen was nearly forgotten for fifty years after her death--I wonder what critics of the next generation will say about the theme music from Morrowind. -Durova -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Another notability casualty
Actually our notability guidelines foster bad music articles. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28music%29#Albums.2C_singles_and_songs As a result we get thousands of articles which are basically nothing more than laundry lists of chart placements and recordings, usually unreferenced but occasionally with minimal referencing. A few from 1955 (randomly chosen year). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boom_Boom_Boomerang_%28song%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croce_di_Oro http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domani http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamboat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Fool_for_You http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_to_Get_%28song%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Important_Can_It_Be%3F http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Guess_I%27m_Crazy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Just_Found_Out_About_Love http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Love_You,_Samantha Systematic cleanup is nearly impossible because my time tends to get eaten up with the real basics when I do sweeps. These articles are magnets for copyright violations, for instance. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=In_the_Wee_Small_Hours_of_the_Morningdiff=345538182oldid=341758494 -Durova On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Ken Arromdee wrote: I never understood, why does notability require a reliable source anyway? Doesn't - urban myth put about by people with a kindergarten version of logical positivism. But no reliable sources means nothing can actually be said in an article that has any content. X is famous for being famous - we get round to deleting articles like that. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Images that are PD in their country of origin
Yes, lack of good administrators is a big problem, but the policies that they administer would remain the same without regard to the number of administrators. A simpler formulation of the rules could ease the administrators' burdens. Alternatively, the solution is more administrators. When people tolerate copyright violation at featured processes in the name of free culture or not being too doctrinaire, then that sets off a domino effect that worsens the problem everywhere else. If you'd like to help solve that problem by becoming a Commons administrator, please do. I don't see complaints to the press as a big cause for worry. One word: Siegenthaler. I was really referring to deciding the edge cases where the existence of a valid copyright is debatable. People are prone to a lot of convenient errors in that regard. This frequently happens with the European PD-70 rule. An editor locates a photograph of a German ship that was built in 1895, republished without photo credit. The absence of photo credit doesn't mean that the photographer was anonymous and a ship built in 1895 could have been photographed at any time it was operational. So if it was decommissioned in 1919 we can't assume that the photographer died within twenty years afterward...or we shouldn't. But we keep getting editors who use the PD-old template anyway as an exercise in wishful thinking. Too often, the existence of a valid copyright is debatable becomes a euphemism for I've got a lousy source and haven't done enough research. -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Images that are PD in their country of origin
In summary, it's up to Wikipedia to adopt its own policies. Personally, I would avoid too doctrinaire an approach; I would more tend to assume that if one takes a fair-minded approach to including material with uncertain copyright status the worst that can happen is that some ghostly obscure heir will emerge from the woodwork to make his claims. More likely, he will thank us for reviving the memory of his dead ancestor. Ec With due respect toward Ray's very thoughtful analysis, I can't agree with that conclusion. Wikimedia Commons currently has 276 administrators and over 6 million images. Compare that against en:wiki's 1,714 administrators and 3 million articles and you'll get an idea how thinly things are spread. Commons has a serious deletion request backlog. Experienced contributors--particularly at the featured content level--have an obligation to set the example and put the best foot forward. Yes, it can be frustrating to research copyright. It would be considerably more frustrating if a copyright owner who didn't thank us for the appropriation complained to the press. About two years ago the featured picture program had an editor who was nominating copyright violations and running a vote stacking sockfarm. He had actually gotten a copyvio promoted to featured picture before we realized it; fortunately we caught onto the problem before it ran on the main page. Afterward a single administrator undid his siteban without discussion. Last fall he was banned again when he actually threatened another editor. During the noticeboard thread it turned out that he had gone over to the DYK program and had resumed submitting copyvios there--which apparently site culture was not doctrinaire enough about addressing. If a fellow who had already been sitebanned for copyvio can return and continue copyvios for a year at a venue which runs on the main page, then perhaps a more doctrinaire approach is exactly what we need. -Lise -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Free data (UK government)
Have you asked WMF UK? -Lise On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/rorycellanjones/2010/01/public_data_free_at_last.html Looks interesting. Are there tie-ups with Wikipedia or Wikimedia applications? Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Climate change on Wikipedia
Climate change is a myth. There have always been palm trees on the Antarctic peninsula... On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 8:11 PM, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote: Clearly this is just a plot by scientists to take money from oil companies (well, only some of them, because Shell and BP support action) and give it to investment bankers in order to build bird-killing windmills. This plot was hatched back in the 1960s, when MIT climatologist Ed Lorenz discovered that butterflies cause hurricanes and birds cause tornadoes. So they've launched a plan to deploy solar thermal plants and windmills to kill off flying creatures. On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 2:43 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/12/19 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net: We all know William Connolley is an advocate for taking climate change seriously. However there remains a lack of reliable information which negates his position. If there was such information, those of us who follow this issue would have settled his beeswax fast enough. Yeah, pity he's one of those evil conspiratorial climate scientists and actually knows much more than you or others about the issue. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Random featured article...
I have a standing offer to assist the conversion of featured pictures to featured media so that it highlights sounds as well as images. There appears to be a moderate but surmountable obstacle with the monthly roster template; Howcheng knows the details. In order to facilitate the change with minimal inconvenience to anyone else, I would withdraw my own featured pictures from the main page queue. Now that museum partnerships have developed to where institutions are providing material upon request that offer would need to be modified. But basically no other featured picture contributor would need to wait much longer for a turn on the main page. If the community supports this shift it would help the featured sounds program. Also, there is an ongoing problem with removal of featured pictures from articles. The only way to tell that an image is featured is by clicking in at the file hosting page. Many editors never check, which means that on a somewhat random basis featured pictures get taken out or replaced with lower quality material. (This is the media corrolary to featured articles deteriorating from brilliant prose into mediocre prose). If the community approved a featured star display for caption boxes the problem would decrease significantly, and casual readers would have the advantage of a cue to the site's best illustrations. Non-featured pictures are rarely worth a view at full resolution, but featured pictures reward a close examination. -Durova On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 6:42 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: snip On en, I can't think of any path I'm ever likely to take that would lead me to one of the portals. Which really is a pity. I would support more use of the more unknown featured content on the main page, such as featured portals, and featured topics. But the current design is hard to get changed to include that sort of thing. You either have to change the grid of four main areas, or introduce rotation. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] BBC blog on WSJ study
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 7:07 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Carcharoth wrote: On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: Anyone else feel that Mr. Murdoch's little list beginning 1. Trash Google rather than actually noindex News Corp's pages has Wikipedia as alternate new source somewhere on it? That's a bit too cryptic for me. I know a little about Murdoch and his stable of media publications, but not sure what the tie-up is with Google and Wikipedia. Mr. Murdoch wants to shift to a paid access model for online the online versions of his news holdings. He's negotiating a deal with Microsoft's search engine toward that purpose. It's hard to understand the conjecture that Wikipedia ties in with those plans. If anything, Wikipedia's habit of referencing historic news articles would help Mr. Murdoch's bottom line because it sends traffic to old articles, which can generate advertising revenue from old news that would otherwise be valueless. If he's right about paid access being the most profitable model, then his self interest would be best served by fencing new content within a paid access only for a brief time: a week at most. By that time it becomes old news and there's more money to be made through advertising. Successive release to different venues is standard practice within the entertainment industry: a film starts with theatrical release, and once that exhausts itself it goes to cable, DVD and network television in descending order of profitability. If this is his plan and it becomes the news industry standard then it could make breaking news less burdensome upon Wikipedia's administrators: fewer people will read the news immediately and edit Wikipedia. Of course Wikipedia might also be the wrench in his plans because he can't prevent his readers from updating Wikipedia, significant news readership would shift to Wikipedia, and we have no reason to stop being a free venue. Perhaps that was Charles's intended inference? -Durova -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] BBC blog on WSJ study
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 9:19 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/11/27 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com: It's hard to understand the conjecture that Wikipedia ties in with those plans. If anything, Wikipedia's habit of referencing historic news articles would help Mr. Murdoch's bottom line because it sends traffic to old articles, which can generate advertising revenue from old news that would otherwise be valueless. Dunno about Murdoch, but the NYT was making similar noises about Google and in fact claimed that Wikipedia was ripping them off by referencing their articles: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/technology/internet/22wiki.html So, in essence, many Wikipedia articles are another way that the work of news publications is quickly condensed and reused without compensation. This is more than a little rich considering Wikipedia is the number-one universal backgrounder for working journalists. A number of us shouted WHAT ON EARTH rather loudly: http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/technology/internet/22wiki.html - but we've yet to hear a peep from Noam Cohen explaining just precisely what the hell he was playing at. I urge the next person he calls to question him closely on this one. Last year I discussed this with a Washington Post reporter. His industry's fundamentals have changed in ways that threaten its future. The New York Times has taken out multiple mortgages on its building; The Christian Science Monitor ceased daily print issues earlier this year. Wikipedians have been in the habit of treating reliable sources as a deep well that we can tap. The well is worried about running dry. Wikipedia really is that big and influential. When the typical business manager is losing money, that manager's response will be efforts to protect existing income streams. Businesses tend to be much smarter about exploring new revenue opportunities when they are doing well and think they can earn more money. When they're losing money they often act irrationally. Bold and innovative ideas are less likely to get implemented or even discussed because individuals take a political risk by proposing them. The reward for setting up any non-normative person for layoff is that one's own neck is less likely to feel the axe in the short run. So that Washington Post reporter hadn't considered the advertising revenue his newspaper was getting from Wikipedia's links to historic articles. It hadn't been discussed among his colleagues and nothing was being done to optimize it. He sounded intrigued and wanted to share it with his editors. A few months later he was working for the Huffington Post. -Durova -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] BBC blog on WSJ study
The click-through rate tends to be low, but Wikipedia is so popular that this still generates substantial traffic to the online sources that get cited frequently. The question is how much. If you can tolerate the analogy, think of reference links as equivalent to a durable type of linkspam. Reference links that meet our reliable sources guideline seldom get removed from articles except during edit disputes. Our policies and practices actively encourage this type of linking, and newspapers of record are among the greatest beneficiaries. Estimate how many thousands of Wikipedia references link to archival WSJ articles. It would be interesting to communicate with reliable source regarding how much traffic they receive from Wikipedia. Ultimately it's better for us if our volunteers spend more time improving articles instead of replacing dead source links. And although I won't lose any sleep if Rupert Murdoch's income dips slightly next year, I'd like to see The New York Times meet its mortgage payments. -Durova On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: If anything, Wikipedia's habit of referencing historic news articles would help Mr. Murdoch's bottom line because it sends traffic to old articles... I wonder how true this is. Perhaps I'll be laughed out of court... but my tendency when I read Wikipedia is that I see a sentence in an article, note that it is referenced, click the number to see what the reference is but *hardly* *ever* click the reference link either to confirm that the reference is accurate nor to find out more. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] BBC blog on WSJ study
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: The news industry is in as much a quandary as the music and film industries. It's a model that depends heavily on news as entertainment. That's a dilemma I discussed in some depth in a post that appears to have gotten buried, in terms of a conversation with a Washington Post reporter. Infotainment is an example of a safe short term managerial choice for that industry: it brings readership and keeps the advertisers coming. Earlier this month my friends were laughing whe NYT actually ran a headline to assure readers that the world wouldn't end in 2012. Part of that laughter enjoyed the absurdity while part of it was nervous for the future of that newspaper. -Durova -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] BBC blog on WSJ study
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:46 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/11/27 Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com: On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: If anything, Wikipedia's habit of referencing historic news articles would help Mr. Murdoch's bottom line because it sends traffic to old articles... I wonder how true this is. Perhaps I'll be laughed out of court... but my tendency when I read Wikipedia is that I see a sentence in an article, note that it is referenced, click the number to see what the reference is but *hardly* *ever* click the reference link either to confirm that the reference is accurate nor to find out more. We know that there is enough traffic for the SEO/spammer mob to think it is worth trying to get there links into the reference section of wikipedia. Wikipedia's traffic is also highly targets and actually buys stuff and clicks ads from time to time which makes getting some of it worthwhile. The difference is that spammers still usually work with the external links section rather than the reference section. It's odd how slow people are to adapt. Consider all those marginally notable entertainer biographies. Most of them receive little traffic. People think in terms of getting an article onto Wikipedia rather than in terms of raising their visibility. Two months ago during a featured picture candidacy I added the candidate image to the main article for head shot. Until then the article had no illustration. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Head_shotaction=historysubmitdiff=316579742oldid=313070606 None of the world's entertainers had thought to put their own portrait on that page, which they could have done with a CC-by-sa license and a legitimate source link to their personal website. Between the two spellings head shot and headshot the article receives 10,000 page views each month. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Head_shotdiff=328120481oldid=316579742 Either human nature is very shortsighted or Wikipedia is very counterintuitive. It can't take genius to figure this out...? -Durova -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] BBC blog on WSJ study
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 7:46 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: We know that there is enough traffic for the SEO/spammer mob to think it is worth trying to get there links into the reference section of wikipedia. Wikipedia's traffic is also highly targets and actually buys stuff and clicks ads from time to time which makes getting some of it worthwhile. Is there any data to show that people make click-thru purchases from Wikipedia? Yes, Bundesarchiv's online sales of high resolution digital images rose significantly after they donated 100,000 medium resolution images to Wikimedia Commons. Informally, the word is that their sales approximately doubled. -Durova -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] BBC blog on WSJ study
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote: It's hard to understand the conjecture that Wikipedia ties in with those plans. If anything, Wikipedia's habit of referencing historic news articles would help Mr. Murdoch's bottom line because it sends traffic to old articles, which can generate advertising revenue from old news that would otherwise be valueless. You could say the same thing about goggle search, yet some of these organizations are claiming that google search is ripping them off for linking to them (and not just the google news headline scraping). It's complicated. The advertising income these kinds of sites get is strongly driven by keeping users within their garden. When someone pops into their site grabs only the information they need the paper makes a lot less money then if the users hang out. Compare to the standard grocer's practice of putting common goods (like milk) at the back of the store. True. Which is one reason why it would make intuitive sense for webmasters to restructure incoming links from Wikipedia as entry points to their sites. It ought to be feasible for news site webmasters to design a functionality around certain keywords in historic articles, so that visitors are directed to other stories from that news source about the same subject. That would be quite useful and keep readers within their garden. For instance, the two NYTimes links for operat soprano Mignon Nevada: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mignon_Nevada One NYTimes source is a PDF hosting that goes nowhere; the other is a 1909 review for one of her performances. Advertisements and links fill the screen, but none is remotely related to Mignon Nevada's career or to opera or to Ireland, where she performed on that occasion. A large banner trumpets a Consumer Reports sweepstakes. A sidebar links to Blackberry ad, flu treatments, a health care firm, career opportunities, and home value estimates. Then another ad section for financial advice, health care, and weight loss. This is completely untargeted. The average reader skims the one paragraph of useful information and then flees. They'd have a better chance of keeping my attention if they linked to other articles about that opera--or at the very least to ads for the New York Metropolitan Opera and Irish vacation spots. -Durova -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] International Olympic Committee tells Flickr user to change license
Commons discussions on this type of point usually have more to do with museum terms of entry. Many museums issue fine print on the backs of their admissions tickets which assert contract law to restrict distribution of visitor photography. Practice has been to regard that as irrelevant to Commons when the underlying artwork is PD and the uploader places the photograph under free license, since any applicable contract law would apply between the institution and the patron rather than downstream users. One question that comes to mind is whether photography at the Olympic games falls under any other applicable concept besides contract law. These are human beings rather than historic art objects, so if the photography occurs indoors then personality rights might arguably apply. It would be interesting to hear from someone with specific legal expertise whether--for example--amateur photographs of an ice skating competition would be on the same footing as equivalent photographs of a downhill skiing event, or whether the summer marathon would be different from a gymnastics event. -Durova On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Sage Ross wrote: What are the legal implications here? Does the contract (private use only for photos) implicitly agreed to by Giles when he bought a ticket to the Olympics invalidate the CC-BY-SA license, despite that downstream re-users (like us) weren't a party to the original contract? Can anyone produce a copy of the actual text on the back of the ticket? I nevertheless see no basis for enforcing this against a third party. Here in BC we also have the provincial government, at the behest of the IOC, trying to pass legislation to allow officials to remove signs from the windows of people's homes without a warrant if those signs offend the IOC. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Durova wrote: Suppose for discussion's sake we can fully trust that the brother-in-law of Jeane Dixon's nephew has indeed commented upon the matter. Relatives have been known to get their facts wrong. The more distant, the more likely a mistake. Your presumption here is that the information came from the brother-in-law of Jeane Dixon's nephew. That may very well have some weight in evaluating the information on a death certificate. The birth information in the SSDI could reasonably be from a different source: her own application for a social security number. Other official sources exist Not a presumption but a direct reference to the opening thread post. No secondary source and no other primary confirms his assertion, according to the opening post. That's subnotable. My own cousins and I debate the spelling of a grandmother's name. And certain records are unverifiable because of warehouse fires. In a few instances I know the later records are wrong because I was present when the later data was recorded and the person who answered the questions, who was choked with grief, simply misspoke. Others who were present were jet lagged from sudden arrangements to attend the funeral and too slow to react. There's a family member who ought to have a military honor on his burial marker but doesn't, because of that. I wish I'd had the presence of mind to correct the omission when the opportunity came. Spelling gives rise to a broad range of different errors. My own father misspelled my middle name on my birth record as Micheal even though his own first name was Michael. I may be the only person alive who knows the original spelling of my father's middle name (hint: if you started kindergarten in 1945 it was slightly uncool to have a name that was recognizably German). On census records spelling errors abound. When census takers went out to gather information in a less literate era they were left to their own devices when they had to record the name of an illiterate, particularly in the case of an immigrant whose name was in a strange tongue. Priests who performed marriages often fixed names to make them more consistent with community norms. But does any census record, ever, give the 1904 birthdate? Has any secondary source determined it was worth repeating? That would change the discussion substantially. What we're discussing is near unanimity. A single primary source from the close of her life and a putative distant relative are all that contest it. A fourteen year gap would be substantial; [[WP:UNDUE]] that isn't enough to merit coverage. Plenty of reliable small presses would run the story if the nephew's brother-in-law cares enough and has a good case to make for it. -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
Suppose for discussion's sake we can fully trust that the brother-in-law of Jeane Dixon's nephew has indeed commented upon the matter. Relatives have been known to get their facts wrong. The more distant, the more likely a mistake. My own cousins and I debate the spelling of a grandmother's name. And certain records are unverifiable because of warehouse fires. In a few instances I know the later records are wrong because I was present when the later data was recorded and the person who answered the questions, who was choked with grief, simply misspoke. Others who were present were jet lagged from sudden arrangements to attend the funeral and too slow to react. There's a family member who ought to have a military honor on his burial marker but doesn't, because of that. I wish I'd had the presence of mind to correct the omission when the opportunity came. Let's go with the secondary sources here. No disrespect intended. On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Kat Walsh k...@mindspillage.org wrote: On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: The soundbite I use is that Wikipedia outsources truth. The debate about what is or isn't true is not ours but is played out amongst the various sources that we can draw upon as references. Good soundbite. :-) -Kat -- Your donations keep Wikipedia online: http://donate.wikimedia.org/en Wikimedia, Press: k...@wikimedia.org * Personal: k...@mindspillage.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage * (G)AIM:Mindspillage mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net * email for phone ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Things to do with your home movies
Congratulations! And thanks for your dedication to the project. You realize when he turns thirteen he's going to die of embarrassment over this...? On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.comragesoss%2bwikipe...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.comragesoss%2bwikipe...@gmail.com wrote: It's not too hard now if you're running Firefox 3.5. Just edit your video in whatever video software is easiest on your machine (e.g., Windows Movie Maker) and save a high quality version in a convenient format (e.g., AVI, MPEG, other common formats), then go firefogg.org, install the plug-in, click make ogg, and use the default encoding settings. If you're feeling especially ambitious, you can add metadata and/or fiddle with the resolution and bit-rate settings (all through firefogg). Converting to Commons-ready ogg with firefogg is actually easier than uploading a file to Commons. Hmm, sounds like that would make a good extension to Commonist. Firefogg is part of the add media wizard that (I think) is being refined for default deployment on Commons. (It's already available if you add a bit of code to your javascript page.) So yeah, sooner or later it will be possible for many users to simply upload their non-free format videos have them seamlessly transcoded. Along the same lines, hopefully Commonist will simply become unnecessary and batch uploads possible without extra software. On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: See now...when I read Steve's question, I was thinking about the hard work of taking care of the star of the film... All the jokes I thought of in response require too much familiarity with me to be unambiguously non-sexist to WikiEN-l subscribers, so I'll just say... that's how I read the question at first, too. -Sage ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Permission required on copyright expired images...
Actually the Bundesarchiv did something along those lines with 100,000 images last December. They owned unambiguous copyright over the collection so they relicensed medium resolution versions under CC-by-sa and uploaded those to Commons while they retained full copyright over the high resolution versions. Of course Germany isn't Australia, and WMF servers are in the States, and the readers of this list are scattered across a variety of countries. It bears repeating that cultural institutions have been asserting a variety of innovative claims in order to assert proprietary control over media in their collections. One runs into these kinds of obstacles all the time when working with historic media. The claims range across copyright and contract law, often entering untested areas. There are basically four ways of responding: 1. Ignore the claims and use the material. Probably nothing bad will happen to you although you might win the 'lottery' and end up in the same legal position as Derrick Coetzee. Do you want to risk that hassle? 2. Jump through the institution's hoops. You may have qualms about acting in ways that validate an assertion of rights that you basically disagree with, but if the requirement isn't very onerous it's one clear way of avoiding problems later on. In the particular instance of this library, part of the 'permission' requirement amounts to an offer to have the staff research copyright status. If it would take about the same effort to do that research yourself then it might be worthwhile. 3. Back away sheepishly. Not very satisfying, but safe. 4. Persuade the staff to change policy. This is the approach I've been working on, one institution at a time. A group of volunteers have been pooling information and resources toward that end. We've had some successes and are gaining momentum. For more information see the open letter I coauthored for Signpost in July. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-07-13/Open_letter And one of our subsequent successes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-08-10/Tropenmuseum_partnership If this sounds intriguing, write to me off list. Especially if you happen to live near Montreal, Canada or Santa Barbara, California. ;) -Durova On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 2:42 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 7:11 AM, Chris Down neuro.wikipe...@googlemail.com wrote: Although I suspect what's also happening is the image that we see there is low quality, and you'd need permission to get a higher quality, printable version. And they'd never give permission to cc-sa it. Copyright doesn't work like that. An image is not copyrighted by itself, a work is, and most people would not consider an image that is simply resized to be an entirely different work to the original. Therefore, licensing a resized version differently to a higher quality original (or whatever) is simply not possible Legally, I think you are correct, but in *practice* different-sized images are used very differently and this is reflected in how they are (in the commercial world) priced very differently. There is also sometimes more effort and labour involved in producing a high-resolution image (i.e. when careful scanning using hi-tech equipment is involved, as opposed to changing a setting on a digital camera). Consider a close-up of a high-res picture, showing previously unseen detail. The same close-up, with a low-res picture, would be a pixellated mess. Ask people if the images are different, and they would say yes. So while they are both from the same work, they are different images. They contain different sets of data and the information contained in that data is different. Sometimes high-resolution images will show you things that are not obvious to the naked eye when looking at the original. And high-resolution images are the ones used in print media, and to produce large poster-sized images in adverts. That is where the money side of things comes in. Low-resolution images are useless for most print purposes. So while none of this strictly relates to copyright, it does relates to the financial side of things, so it is unsurprising that people want to protect any investment they made have made in producing high-resolution images. That is something that can be sometimes forgotten by those taking a stand on the 'free culture' side of things. We are used to seeing others benefit from the fruit of our labours. Others are not. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org
Re: [WikiEN-l] Permission required on copyright expired images...
Most of these institutions have a mission to inform the public. Openness helps fulfill that mission. In the Bundesarchiv's case, donation of 100,000 images significantly increased their sales of images. That may seem counterintuitive but if an organization is smart about it everyone benefits. We're working to build synergies. Various kinds of synergies can develop. That's one of them. -Durova On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 3:30 AM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote: 4. Persuade the staff to change policy. This is the approach I've been working on, one institution at a time. A group of volunteers have been pooling information and resources toward that end. We've had some successes and are gaining momentum. For Interesting, what's in it for them? They're giving up control over their property, but what do they get in return? Steve ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay
A small group of people do digital image restoration regularly; we can hold focused discussions among ourselves. Perhaps there's a large gap in base knowledge between us and Wikimedians in general because when we bring concerns to a wider forum the discussion usually gets derailed. Not derailed in a malicious sense; derailed because there isn't enough shared agreement to communicate. It's as if two groups came together to discuss geometry and didn't realize they meant different geometries. Your previous post was like asking whether I had come here to discuss the parallel lines postulate. That's an aha moment which shows the Euclideans were scratching their heads while I was discussing spherical planes. It is eye-opening to see the assumptions that get put forward. Possibly the best thing that can come out of our discussion is to step back and examine what this tells about the audience. Your points are numbered and articulate, but I hesitate to answer them as framed. It's like asking about flatness when you're certain parallel lines never meet and I'm specifically discussing a situation where they do. The *Signpost* has an open request for editorials. I'll be drafting something for them. It won't answer your questions directly, but it will explain the underlying importance of *access*. That's absolutely essential for historic media discussions. Think of *provenance* as a proof that derives from *access*. -Durova On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote: That question has already been answered several times, in several ways. I am at a loss for how to restate it, and the insinuation posed alongside the question discourages further attempt. Ok, I've read through all your posts on this thread again, and here's are the points I see you making: 1) You do restorations of images and they take a lot of time and effort. 2) People have advised you to claim copyright/left over those restorations, but you resist doing so because it may harm the copyleft movement in general. 3) People are selling some of your images on eBay without crediting you, which you feel breaches your moral rights. 4) Physical restoration and digital restoration are very different, and it is difficult to define exactly how much effort should be put into a digital restoration for it to count as a creative work in its own right. 5) Some discussion about how best to carry out certain restorations, which isn't relevant here. I have made the following point: 1) The two images in question that I looked at were both clearly marked public domain, with the clear assertion that anyone could reuse these images for any purpose whatsoever. Further, the images neither clearly asserted you as the creator, nor requested (let alone, demanded) that people attribute you (or anyone) as an author. I'm sorry if I'm being obtuse or dense here, but I don't see how you've addressed my question, which is, in its simplest form: why do you think the eBay vendor in question is at fault? They took an image clearly marked public domain, with no authorship information or request for attribution, printed it and sold it, well within their rights. To state my position even more clearly: 1) I'm on your side. I think you're doing a great job restoring valuable images for Wikipedia and the wider community. 2) It seems ethical to me that a person should acknowledge the hard work someone has put into producing the work that they are now profiting from, but I have no idea of the legalities. 3) I think your position would be a lot stronger if the image pages in question identified you more clearly or asserted your request for acknowledgement. Is the issue that you want acknowledgement but don't want to assert authorship? How do you expect end reusers of your content to figure it out? I hope this isn't a flamewar, I really want to figure out where you're coming from so perhaps we can offer some useful advice or help in some way. Steve ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay
David, please reread the entire thread and view the eBay store of this vendor. It's quite obvious that this vendor does violate copyrights: in the middle of a section of mostly public domain NASA shots, a publicity portrait of Nichelle Nichols as Lieutenant Uhura. And a 1930s portrait of Walt Disney with Mickey Mouse, offered at exactly the same price as the public domain material? Disney Inc. charges a premium when it licenses its properties; check the price tags at any Disney store. Various examples like that are littered throughout its eBay store. Part of the reason I started this thread was because I confirmed that this vendor uses our featured pictures and am uncertain how far that overlap extends. This vendor jumbles historic material with recent photography, much of which is public domain but a significant minority of which isn't. Some of that public domain material is quite recent such as Carol Highsmith's photography. We have Highsmith featured pictures, but I don't trust myself recognize every Highsmith from our own volunteer-created copyleft photographic FPs--not with regard to a collection this large that credits none of the authors. When this thread began I hoped more people would comb the collection in search of copyleft license violations. We have been losing FP volunteers over license violation problems. It doesn't come as too much of a surprise to see confusion emerge instead. But David, to construct a cherry picked insult is beneath you. With your long commitment to free culture, I really expected better. On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:26 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/22 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com: A small group of people do digital image restoration regularly; we can hold focused discussions among ourselves. Perhaps there's a large gap in base knowledge between us and Wikimedians in general because when we bring concerns to a wider forum the discussion usually gets derailed. Y'know, if you're going to claim something is a violation of copyright or moral rights, it helps if you could actually answer the questions Steve asked. I've been waiting all thread for the answers too. If you can only say ah, but I'm actually talking in restorer language when you're using terms with precise and specific meanings, then it's not us making communication difficult. If you think you can only communicate by redefining English words to mean what you need them to to make your point, that's unlikely to help either. Even if you think you answered Steve's questions, please accept my assurance that you really, really haven't. Could you please go through the list of questions he posted and actually answer them? This will definitely help those of us (almost everyone here, from the looks of it) who don't speak restorer like a native. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:14 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/22 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com: When this thread began I hoped more people would comb the collection in search of copyleft license violations. We have been losing FP volunteers over license violation problems. That's a large statement, and it needs substantiation to convince. Please list the examples you are thinking of. No David, I have already stated that the best thing to do at this point is step back and examine the differing assumptions that made this thread nonproductive. My previous attempts to clarify matters with specific examples led to accusations that I had taken the thread off topic. I will not go down that path again in this discussion. Particularly not when the audience is as hostile as you have been. That way lieth the flame war. -Durova ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay
During this thread things could have spun off in many more directions than they did. Mainly because the assumptions of most posters were at odds with my firsthand experience on multiple points. So I picked out a couple of the most important ones and attempted to address them, but that turned out to be much more difficult than anticipated. So I stated I'd draft a proposed editorial for Signpost. That's probably the best thing that can come out of it. Am wrapping up a Google Document on another topic and planning a draft outline right now. We all have our strengths and our weaknesses; multitasking isn't one of mine. David's posts really looked like a bizarre attempt to bait me into a flame war just as the thread had reached its natural end. As in: 'No no, you can't walk away. You started this thread and I don't like what I think I understand and I'm angry at you about that.' Yes, David: I can walk away. It's the right decision because this has proven itself to be the wrong venue. Now to be perfectly candid, each additional post is exhausting to read. As in Whoa Nellie: back up ten steps. You're on the wrong path there. And it's not only pointless but counterproductive because all it's doing is leaving everyone frustrated and sucking attention away from that draft outline. The solution is simple: I'll be working on other things which *are * moving forward and not reading this thread anymore. Sage and David, I think you're big enough people to understand that decision. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay
That question has already been answered several times, in several ways. I am at a loss for how to restate it, and the insinuation posed alongside the question discourages further attempt. There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell them. - Louis Armstrong On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote: Going through their online store revealed a dozen more of my restorations for sale, all without credit. Other featured picture contributors may want to review the vendor's collection to see whether their work is also being exploited. I also confirmed items in this vendor's collection that are copyrighted to the NAACP and Walt Disney Coporation. Made relevant phone calls this afternoon. I still wish you would answer the original question: why are you angry, what do you think they have done wrong, and how do you think they were supposed to know that wanted to be credited, based on the information on the relevant image pages? Or did you really just want to start an open discussion about the creativity involved in image restoration? Steve ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay
So which path would you follow? 1. Eliminate the paper texture during restoration because a textureless background facilitates physical printout? 2. Convert to vector graphics? 3. Remain in raster grahics and keep the paper texture to preserve the look and feel of a period document? All three directions have led to featured pictures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Punch_-_Masculine_beauty_retouched1.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ornamental_Alphabet_-_16th_Century.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lincoln_and_Johnsond.jpg The third option opens its own set of questions: balance the white to hot off the presses new? Day old? Five years in the scrapbook? Historic media editors debate these decisions; there are good arguments for and against all of them. And there isn't any absolute solution. Sometimes we change our minds. -Durova On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 11:59 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Durova wrote: Restoration is inherently interpretive. Consider something simple: a newspaper cartoon in black and white. There are many possible whites; which do you select? The reasonable assumption is that the background white is an unprinted area; the white is a function of the paper rather than of the printing.. Otherwise we need to distinguish between a printing on fresh paper and an old printing on paper that has since yellowed with age. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] German Wikipedia and Sei grausam
That isn't a policy. This is the list of the German Wikipedia policies. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Richtlinien Their structure is different; this is roughly on the level of Wikipedia:Assume no clue. -Durova On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Carcharoth wrote: Is there anything like this page on the English Wikipedia? Apparently WP:SO TOUGH has yet to be created. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay
Thanks for the kind words, David. With digital restoration, often one encounters elements about the original that are unknowable. A couple of examples follow. Segregated drinking fountain, North Carolina, 1938: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Segregation_1938.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Segregation_1938b.jpg The child is pushing away from the fountain and rotating on his hip with one foot raised, turning to get away from the photographer. Which suggests that the shot was taken very quickly: not much time to get an ideal composition. What was the photographer's intention? Many Americans of the 1930s had a view of the subject that would be intolerable today. Farm Security Administration photographers were discouraged from photographing racial issues so the fact that this image exists raises intriguing possibilities. That's a courthouse at upper left. It stayed in frame while the crop took out the curb, outbuilding, and power lines. There are several ways to explain the reasons for this crop in terms of overexposure and compositional principles, one of which is the dynamic effect of diagonal lines. There's a diagonal from the courthouse to the segregated fountain sign to the child: cropping kept that diagonal but moved the center off the child to a midpoint between the sign and the child, enhancing tension between the two. I don't know what John Vachon thought when he took this, but to my eye this is about the difference between law and justice. It's possible that I changed the entire POV of the photograph. Early this year when I worked on the Wounded Knee Massacre restoration (which discovered four human remains and became a minor news story), it was a pattern of five dark spots which seemed to follow the contours of the snow that led to the discovery. http://durova.blogspot.com/2009/01/discoveries-and-tough-decisions.html These finds don't quite happen accidentally. I browse through thousands of files looking for ones that might have something interesting in them. That original had an unusual composition: why were there several large bundles in the foreground? The bibliographic record is often underdocumented, so subtle cues within the image itself may be all one ever has to go by. Old photographs often have thousands of dust and dirt specks. So how does one tell random degradation from meaningful information? Dust from blood? Genuine photographic elements often look slightly different from print damage, but software plugins aren't trustworthy at telling the difference. Intelligent decisions often require a knowledge of historic context. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lynching.jpg Yes, it's a lynching. His feet are only a few inches above the forest floor; his shadow nearly meets his foot. Beneath him there's also a discoloration. Is that a stain on the negative or real part of the scene? Well, it seems to be directly beneath something dripping from his left shoe. There appears to be a pattern of drip stains on the left leg of his overalls from the ankle to the knee. Then a similar discoloration in a circular pattern at his crotch. Could the elements be related? People who were being hanged have been known to lose bladder control. Yet I suspect something worse. Look at the stains on his shoe again. That's unusually dark for a urine stain, and it shines in the sunlight. Possibly dried blood. This man may have been castrated. High resolution digitized photos of lynching are hard to find. This one happened to have the right technical specifications for restoration; it is--within its gruesome subject--comparatively understated. Others show more obvious mutilation, often with a crowd of smiling vigilantes next to the corpse. The perpetrators were hardly ever prosecuted. I can't mention this speculation onsite because the circumstances are unconfirmed. The man's name and the location are unknown. The photograph was taken in 1925. It helps to speak from experience when discussing digital restoration. -Durova -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay
Here's the after link for the second example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lynching2.jpg After all the work was done it was startling to pull back and view at thumbnail. It's possible to look at the unrestored file and seek visual reminders of this was long ago; restoration takes away that comfortable little refuge. I wonder whether it's still possible to identify him. On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the kind words, David. With digital restoration, often one encounters elements about the original that are unknowable. A couple of examples follow. Segregated drinking fountain, North Carolina, 1938: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Segregation_1938.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Segregation_1938b.jpg The child is pushing away from the fountain and rotating on his hip with one foot raised, turning to get away from the photographer. Which suggests that the shot was taken very quickly: not much time to get an ideal composition. What was the photographer's intention? Many Americans of the 1930s had a view of the subject that would be intolerable today. Farm Security Administration photographers were discouraged from photographing racial issues so the fact that this image exists raises intriguing possibilities. That's a courthouse at upper left. It stayed in frame while the crop took out the curb, outbuilding, and power lines. There are several ways to explain the reasons for this crop in terms of overexposure and compositional principles, one of which is the dynamic effect of diagonal lines. There's a diagonal from the courthouse to the segregated fountain sign to the child: cropping kept that diagonal but moved the center off the child to a midpoint between the sign and the child, enhancing tension between the two. I don't know what John Vachon thought when he took this, but to my eye this is about the difference between law and justice. It's possible that I changed the entire POV of the photograph. Early this year when I worked on the Wounded Knee Massacre restoration (which discovered four human remains and became a minor news story), it was a pattern of five dark spots which seemed to follow the contours of the snow that led to the discovery. http://durova.blogspot.com/2009/01/discoveries-and-tough-decisions.html These finds don't quite happen accidentally. I browse through thousands of files looking for ones that might have something interesting in them. That original had an unusual composition: why were there several large bundles in the foreground? The bibliographic record is often underdocumented, so subtle cues within the image itself may be all one ever has to go by. Old photographs often have thousands of dust and dirt specks. So how does one tell random degradation from meaningful information? Dust from blood? Genuine photographic elements often look slightly different from print damage, but software plugins aren't trustworthy at telling the difference. Intelligent decisions often require a knowledge of historic context. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lynching.jpg Yes, it's a lynching. His feet are only a few inches above the forest floor; his shadow nearly meets his foot. Beneath him there's also a discoloration. Is that a stain on the negative or real part of the scene? Well, it seems to be directly beneath something dripping from his left shoe. There appears to be a pattern of drip stains on the left leg of his overalls from the ankle to the knee. Then a similar discoloration in a circular pattern at his crotch. Could the elements be related? People who were being hanged have been known to lose bladder control. Yet I suspect something worse. Look at the stains on his shoe again. That's unusually dark for a urine stain, and it shines in the sunlight. Possibly dried blood. This man may have been castrated. High resolution digitized photos of lynching are hard to find. This one happened to have the right technical specifications for restoration; it is--within its gruesome subject--comparatively understated. Others show more obvious mutilation, often with a crowd of smiling vigilantes next to the corpse. The perpetrators were hardly ever prosecuted. I can't mention this speculation onsite because the circumstances are unconfirmed. The man's name and the location are unknown. The photograph was taken in 1925. It helps to speak from experience when discussing digital restoration. -Durova -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Permission required on copyright expired images...
Actually this isn't a copyright discussion. http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=581 To ensure that publication of material from its collections receives due acknowledgment and promotion, the Library requires that permission to publish is obtained prior to publication. All requests for permission to publish should be made in writing, giving details of the item/s required and their proposed use. The requirement for permission to publish is based on ownership, not copyright, to ensure copyright and donor provisions are met, the State Library of South Australia receives due acknowledgement and promotion for use of material from its collections, material is cited in a way that ensures it can be found by other researchers. Am I the only one who follows links? http://images.slsa.sa.gov.au/mpcimg/01000/B838.htm On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Sarah Ewart sarahew...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: Is that date taken or date published? This is why provenance of photographs (both photographer and publication details, and dates) is important. You should also make clear *who* is saying that this photograph was taken in 1903. Sometimes publication and photographed dates are mixed up. Also, the location where something is published can be important. If the photographer is known, it's 'taken before 1 Jan 1955'. If the photographer is not known or they are anonymous or pseudonymous, it's 'taken or published before 1 Jan 1955'. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay
Restoration is inherently interpretive. Consider something simple: a newspaper cartoon in black and white. There are many possible whites; which do you select? Do you retain or eliminate paper grain? Older illustrations are often imperfect by a few tenths of a degree, so when the border isn't quite rectangular what rotation do you choose? Do you crop wider to compensate or do you crop out the border itself? When you detect an obvious printing error such as an uninked spot within a straight line, do you fill it in or do you retain the empty spot? If you retain that spot when it looks like a printing error, what do you do when ink rubs away from the page after printing? Or when you're not sure of the cause? The two most prolific Wikimedians in this area are Shoemaker's Holiday and myself, and although we often work together we also have longstanding philosophical differences that reflect in our featured picture galleries. The most obvious of these regards color balance. A more interesting debate concerns nineteenth century etchings and engravings (it's interesting to us--might bore the rest of you to tears). People who rely on tools and plugins don't avoid interpretion; that only delegates the interpretive work to a computer program. There's an example from my bookshelf which, fortunately, also happens to be available via Google Books preview. Scroll to the Texas saloon on page 11. http://books.google.com/books?id=SNoNlmvJQy4Cprintsec=frontcoverdq=digital+restorationei=-_mzSqbdNqKIkATfoamJBA#v=onepageq=f=false This author is very helpful in some other respects, but his reliance on plugins is a liability here. The software has made choices with the building facade which are clearly wrong: real windows don't morph into puddles. Enough of the right window remains visible to show that it is a duplicate of the left window. A better reconstruction would borrow data from the intact window. The vertical lines of the facade planks can be rebuilt in a similar way. Shadows on the facade and men's clothing gives a trustworthy measure of the sunlight's angle, direction, and intensity. That would serve as a reference for distinguishing and correcting brightness variances that result from stains. Of course if this were a Commons upload the edits would be documented in detail on the image hosting page, the unrestored file would be uploaded under a separate filename, and both file descriptions would link to each other for cross reference. -Durova On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Phil Nash pn007a2...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: I agree from this, and your previous post, that restoring historical images can be a difficult process, particularly when the images themselves may have originally been pure factual journalism rather than having a polemical purpose, although in my experience, that is more allied to the commentary attached than the image itself. In the case you cite, processing an image may well involve some interpretation of the depiction, and you rightly point out some of the pitfalls involved. Absent the intention of the photographer, who may not even have considered how his image may have been used (as long as he was paid), making assumptions I believe to be unhelpful, and even Original Research. All this convinces me that image restoration should be limited to correcting obvious physical defects in the source, and not going beyond that. I am not in any way criticising those who do this (after all, I've done it with my own images, although I do know what I intended when I created the image), bur I do believe that restoration should not blur into interpretation./ramble -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay
Image uploads have a broad range of license options. Over the last year several knowledgeable people have approached me and advised that I assert copyleft over restorations due to the amount of creative input involved. The principal argument against that advice has not arisen in this discussion, which is an indication of how much awareness needs to be raised. A large number of institutions withhold image collections from public circulation. The National Portrait Gallery legal threat against Derrick Coetzee is the tip of a rather large iceberg. Icebergs are dangerous because they extend beneath the surface in multiple directions, as is the case here. Institutional claims of proprietary control take a variety of shapes from innovative interpretations of copyright law to attempts at extending contract law. Some of these attempts are laughable such as an otherwise respectable university library which claimed to own copyright on an image merely because it came from book on their shelves. The bottom line is money. People are willing to pay good money for pretty pictures. Traditionally, the institutions that curated these items have depended upon sales of reproductions to cover part of their operating expenses. They had a monopoly until digital technology changed things. Now we are in a transitional phase where cultural institutions are putting forth a variety of arguments to reassert that monopoly. A small number of institutions are experimenting with openness, and a small part of the free culture movement is working to make that possible in ways that yield benefits for everyone. If I were to place restorations under copyleft license it would backfire. Not necessarily backfire against me personally, but against the free culture movement. Look at the paint by numbers analogies within this list thread: many people cannot distinguish between careful hand restoration and simple crop/filter/auto-levels editing. My featured picture restorations take about ten hours' labor on average and one of my greatest fears is that fellow Wikimedians will mistake that for five minutes of running plug-ins. Imagine how simple it would be for an institution to protect its income stream by exploiting that confusion. There's a lot more to be said on the subject, but that's enough to digest for now. -Durova -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay
A new creative copyright is generated each time a tourist stands beneath the Venus de Milo and takes a snapshot due to the inherent creative decision in choosing angle and lighting when photographing three dimensional artwork. Creative copyright also attaches when the same tourist heads over to the Mona Lisa and takes another snapshot, since the frame around the Mona Lisa is three dimensional (there's also the creative joy of capturing dozens of tourist ballcaps in the periphery). http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Derivative_works Compare that creative effort to--for example--the creative intuition of reconstructing Admiral David Farragut's eyes. This was the man who said, Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead! Working on his portrait at 700% resolution, I was fascinated by that quote. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AdmFarragut.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Adm2.jpg At the time of that work I was thinking if it came out right, a viewer might imagine for an instant that Admiral Farragut was capable of turning and ordering another assault on New Orleans. Of course with eyes a few pixels moved and the expression could have turned out entirely different. -Durova On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipe...@zog.orgwrote: 2009/9/18 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com If I were to place restorations under copyleft license it would backfire. Not necessarily backfire against me personally, but against the free culture movement. Look at the paint by numbers analogies within this list thread: many people cannot distinguish between careful hand restoration and simple crop/filter/auto-levels editing. My featured picture restorations take about ten hours' labor on average and one of my greatest fears is that fellow Wikimedians will mistake that for five minutes of running plug-ins. Imagine how simple it would be for an institution to protect its income stream by exploiting that confusion. I'm sorry, but I don't understand your argument. I know firsthand that hand restoration takes time. I also know that some people can't distinguish hand restoration from dustscratches + auto levels. I stand by my painting by numbers analogy for most digital restorations. But even if it weren't the case, and digital restoration was as incomparibly hard an frought with judgement calls as, say, the [[Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes]]... do the restorers assert any rights? Should they be able to? Michel ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay
You're starting to touch on the vigorous debates that a few media editors have and which hardly anyone else understands. Let's frame the terms of discussion properly, though: you begin from the debatable presumption that restoration and creative input are mutually exclusive concepts. -Durova On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote: snip Compare that creative effort to--for example--the creative intuition of reconstructing Admiral David Farragut's eyes. Some would say that any attempt to recreate the eyes and present it as a restored photograph is misleading. It crosses the line into a a new creation, rather than a restoration. Intuitive, maybe, creative, yes, but accurate? Who can tell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_of_the_Sistine_Chapel_frescoes#Eyes If you paint the eyes back onto the Sistine Chapel ceiling, have you truly restored it? Or have you created something new? Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay
Let's set the Sistine Chapel example to rest: physical restoration and digital restoration are so different that it clouds the discussion to compare them. On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Sam Blacketer sam.blacke...@googlemail.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: If you paint the eyes back onto the Sistine Chapel ceiling, have you truly restored it? Or have you created something new? For that matter, what about the restoration of the Dresdner Frauenkirche? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dresdner_Frauenkirche -- Sam Blacketer ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay
Then let's take a better example. The dilemma with this restoration on an architectural design is easy to explain. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Concourse_Singapore_compressed.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Concourse_Singapore2_courtesy_copy.jpg Normally I wouldn't nominate a compressed courtesy copy for featured picture, but the original TIFF is well over 300MB. So even an uncompressed JPEG conversion turned out to exceed the Commons upload limit. (I discovered this once the restoration was finished). This extremely high resolution reproduced detail which would rarely be visible, which is what makes this interesting. At the upper right in the sky the original has a very small pattern, roughly C-shaped, which repeats several times. At first it seemed like a very odd coincidence. Upon close examination I became convinced of an explanation: this was an eraser rubbing which had gotten between the paper and the drafting table, and which formed an imprint several times as the architect Paul Rudolph moved the paper to fill in sections of sky. Eventually he lifted the paper, brushed off the table, and the imprint stopped occurring. So should a restoration of this image retain the eraser rubbings or remove them? Viable arguments could be made either way. This obviously wasn't part of the original creative intention. Yet Paul Rudolph spent several years as dean of the Yale School of Architecture--deliberate retention of the rubbings could convey the creative statement that even a man at the top of his profession is not quite perfect. I was leaning toward keeping the rubbings until the thought occurred that reviewers might mistake this for bad clone stamping. Red herring inferences make about twenty percent of my featured picture nominations go haywire. Most of the people who review restorations lack firsthand experience. So as a practical measure I removed most of the rubbings. I still have qualms about that. -Durova On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipe...@zog.orgwrote: 2009/9/18 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com Let's set the Sistine Chapel example to rest: physical restoration and digital restoration are so different that it clouds the discussion to compare them. I could not disagree more. But I get the impression this is a discussion that would be a lot easier to have in person rather than by e-mail, so I'll graciously bow out. :) Michel ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay
A strawman argument occurs when a response attempts to redefine a statement into something it isn't--something simpleminded and easier to rebut--and then pokes at the holes it created. Note the actual statement: The vendor violates moral rights on all the items it offers for sale. And the rebuttal: If you have not created a creative work, you are not the author and do not have moral/authorship rights. This vendor offers hundreds of items for sale, a substantial number of which are obviously copyrighted: among a group of NASA photographs, a publiciity shot of Nichelle Nichols as Lieutenant Uhura, a portrait of Thurgood Marshall owned by the NAACP, and a potrait of Jane Russell taken by George Hurrell. The vendor does not credit Hurrell or any other creative contributor. Several of them, such as Carol Highsmith, are still alive and active. Some of these images may violate Wikimedians' copyleft licenses; featured pictures have been stolen for commercial purposes before. In his eagerness to construct a strawman, John Vandenberg ignores all these factors. This is one reason why the pool of featured picture contributors is small. -Durova On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:15 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote: The vendor violates moral rights on all the items it offers for sale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_%28copyright_law%29 If you have not created a creative work, you are not the author and do not have moral/authorship rights. Even if you were the author, how does ebay business violate your moral rights? -- John Vandenberg ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay
Have you identified any items for sale which are from Wikimedia projects and not clearly marked as being in the public domain? Part of the reason for notifying the list was to alert other Wikimedians to that possibility. Luckily the ebay items have sufficient metadata that we should be able to track them all down. A big job, but worth doing. In his eagerness to construct a strawman, John Vandenberg ignores all these factors. This is one reason why the pool of featured picture contributors is small. You started this thread with An eBay vendor is exploiting a volunteer restoration of the Holocaust. and Going through their online store revealed a dozen more of my restorations for sale, all without credit. Obviously I assumed that you were concerned that you and other restoration volunteers had some moral rights being violated. My apologies for that assumption. It was a cop-out for me to say that faithful restorers have no moral rights. I wouldn't go as far as to say I was being simpleminded, but I am a bit biased in that regard. As I am shocked to learn that I am somehow partly responsible for the pool of featured picture contributors being so small ... I'd better pick up my act and help identify the creators of these works and look for cases where moral rights have been violated. A number of our featured picture photographers have been complaining for a long time. Recently Wikipedia's most prolific FP photographer retired after five years' and 164 featured pictures' service, due in part to the reactions of text editors that range from apathetic to hostile when media contributors express concerns over exploitation. One of our featured picture photographers discovered her work in use in a commercial advertisement, in violation of license and entirely without credit. Several months ago I wrote to this list after discovering that my restoration of US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis was being used uncredited by *Time* magazine. To date, no one has joined my letter writing campaign to contact the magazine. The magazine still isn't replying to email. The Louis Brandeis restoration was 20 hours' labor. Extensive staining and chemical damage required careful reconstruction including large portions of his face. It is, likewise, shocking to encounter a senior editor--an arbitrator no less--who calmly presumes such work entails no creative input and no share of authorship. If *Time* were to plagiarize a text editor the matter certainly would be taken seriously. The Brandeis restoration is also among the items exploted by this eBay vendor. Our pool of talented media contributors is not deep. Wikipedia has exactly one FP photographer from sub-Saharan Africa, who has expressed similar complaints. Much of our best visual content is location-specific: cityscapes, landmarks, and species can seldom be transmitted via interlibrary loan. If it doesn't shock you to see even the Holocaust exploited then I'll shake my head and move on. It isn't easy to expand the volunteer pool under these conditions. But a new group of high resolution images arrived from the Tropenmuseum today; when one door closes another one opens. -Durova ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay
An eBay vendor is exploiting a volunteer restoration of the Holocaust. Another volunteer at Commons first spotted it. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Durova#Photo_on_ebay Warsaw Ghetto Uprising eBay: http://cgi.ebay.com/1943-WWII-WARSAW-GHETTO-UPRISING-Jurgen-Stroop-Photo_W0QQitemZ200380794664QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item2ea7a04728_trksid=p3286.c0.m14 Restored: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stroop_Report_-_Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising_06b.jpg Unrestored: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stroop_Report_-_Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising_06.jpg Going through their online store revealed a dozen more of my restorations for sale, all without credit. Other featured picture contributors may want to review the vendor's collection to see whether their work is also being exploited. I also confirmed items in this vendor's collection that are copyrighted to the NAACP and Walt Disney Coporation. Made relevant phone calls this afternoon. http://cgi.ebay.com/GEORGE-WASHINGTON-MOUNT-RUSHMORE-CONSTRUCTION-Photo_W0QQitemZ200380798081QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item2ea7a05481_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262 Mount Rushmore http://cgi.ebay.com/1910s-VERNON-IRENE-CASTLE-Ballroom-Dancing-Photo_W0QQitemZ200380821338QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item2ea7a0af5a_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262 Vernon and Irene Castle http://cgi.ebay.com/LUDWIG-VAN-BEETHOVEN-German-Composer-Death-Mask-Photo_W0QQitemZ130329176753QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item1e58396ab1_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262 Beethoven http://cgi.ebay.com/1911-HELENE-DUTRIEU-Female-Aviation-Pioneer-Photo_W0QQitemZ200380819313QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item2ea7a0a771_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262 Helene Dutrieu http://cgi.ebay.com/1873-NAVAJO-DINE-NATIVE-AMERICAN-INDIANS-NM-Photo_W0QQitemZ200380819488QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item2ea7a0a820_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262 Navajo family http://cgi.ebay.com/1900S-RAMALLAH-WOMAN-Palestinian-Costume-Photo_W0QQitemZ130329177046QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item1e58396bd6_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262 Ramallah woman http://cgi.ebay.com/1882-OSCAR-WILDE-Irish-Playwright-Portrait-Photo-3_W0QQitemZ200380821152QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item2ea7a0aea0_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262 Oscar Wilde http://cgi.ebay.com/1879-CHARLES-ROBERT-DARWIN-Portrait-Photo_W0QQitemZ200380820462QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item2ea7a0abee_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262 Charles Darwin http://cgi.ebay.com/1916-LOUIS-DEMBITZ-BRANDEIS-Portrait-Photo_W0QQitemZ200380819778QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item2ea7a0a942_trksid=p4634.c0.m14 Louis Brandeis http://cgi.ebay.com/1943-TYPHOID-VACCINATION-DOCTOR-SCHOOL-GIRL-Photo_W0QQitemZ200380798806QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item2ea7a05756_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262 Typhoid vaccination http://cgi.ebay.com/1941-PEARL-HARBOR-HAWAII-USS-WEST-VIRGINIA-RESCUE-Pic_W0QQitemZ130329160904QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item1e58392cc8_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262 USS West Virginia http://cgi.ebay.com/WWII-1945-US-Army-63rd-DIVISION-WALDENBURG-Photo_W0QQitemZ130329160282QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item1e58392a5a_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262 Waldenburg, Germany -Durova -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay
The vendor violates moral rights on all the items it offers for sale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_%28copyright_law%29 In particular, though, it happens to be useful that along the line they're selling Walt Disney's portrait with Mickey Mouse. Cheers, Durova On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote: On 15 Sep 2009, at 23:05, Durova wrote: An eBay vendor is exploiting a volunteer restoration of the Holocaust. They are profiteering off public domain material (at least in the case of Warsaw Ghetto Uprising). As it's public domain, there's no actual legal requirement to provide attribution... Although it's certainly not nice, is it actually breaking copyright/ the law in this case? For copyrighted / Creative Commons images, it's obviously a very different matter... Mike ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Well-known
For the most part this barely merits consideration. We're a wiki. When someone's idea of a well-written sentence differs from mine they're welcome to revise it. Two pet peeves: 1. POV-pushers who use 'copyediting' as a pretext to insinuate content changes. 2. Copyeditors who don't actually copyedit but instead install themselves at featured content processes, telling other people what to do. -Durova On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Clearly, though, this is a cultural matter. Readability in this sort of sense is conditioned by the expectation that the written language is very close to the spoken language, for example, which is something for which you can find widely varying types of cases if you go to different languages. (It is hard to imagine this thread going the same way with French speakers, in particular.) Dunno. I've written technical documents in French. I'll say this: French grammar is harder than English grammar, with more clear-cut rules, and many French people make mistakes. They frequently use constructions such as Après qu'il soit là, which is technically an error (though I seem to recall the Académie Française eventually conceded defeat on that one...) On the topic, most known occurs frequently in enWP, rather than best known. I would change that. And, sadly, more known also is common, rather than better known. I think for the latter one can speak frankly of a grammatical error: known is a participle rather than an adjective, while well-known is certainly an adjective, with comparative and superlative forms. Hmm. Known looks and behaves a lot like an adjective there. I don't think I'd write most known, but I wouldn't be rushing to correct it either. I guess I'd see it as an example of poor quality writing rather than an error as such. Steve ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] IRC Office Hours
Would you consider holding office hours in Skype sometime? Not everyone uses IRC. On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Philippe Beaudette pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote: IRC office hours for the strategy project are upon us again Our next office hours will be: 20:00-21:00 UTC, Tuesday 15 September. Local timezones can be checked at http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=9day=15year=2009hour=20min=0sec=0p1=0 Office hours are on IRC (#wikimedia-strategy at freenode) You can access the chat by going to https://webchat.freenode.net/ and filling in a username and the channel name (#wikimedia-strategy). You may be prompted to click through a security warning. It's fine. Another option is http://chat.wikizine.org. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Is Wikipedia the first draft of history - New York Times take on Joe Wilson article
A Wikipedian troll had a few observations too. http://hamletprinceoftrollmark.blogspot.com/2009/09/who-writes-history.html ;) -Durova On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 1:56 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: That's funny your link got it's final character cut off in my email box so it didn't work. Testing whether this link will work... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Wilson_%28U.S._politician%29 -Original Message- From: Keith Old To: English Wikipedia Sent: Thu, Sep 10, 2009 1:38 pm Subject: [WikiEN-l] Is Wikipedia the first draft of history - New York Times take on Joe Wilson article Folks, The New York Times reports: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/the-wikipedia-battle-over-joe-wilsons-obama-heckling/ If journalism is the first draft of history, what is a Wikipedia entry when it is updated within minutes of an event to reflect changes in a person’s biography? This is the very live issue that cropped up in a heated argument on the discussion page that accompanies Wikipedia’s entry on Representative Joe Wilson Wednesday night, just 30 minutes after the Republican from South Carolina interrupted President Barack Obama’s speech by shouting “You lie!” As my colleague Carl Hulse reported in a blog post published about 10 minutes after the fight got going on Wikipedia, Mr. Wilson’s outburst came in response to the president’s statement that his proposed changes to health insurance laws would not give coverage to illegal immigrants. Since Mr. Wilson’s shout was made during a live television broadcast — nowarchived on YouTube by The Associated Press — in front of all of his colleagues, the fact that it happened is not in dispute. Afte r Wikipedia’s editors initially removed the first reference to the event from the entry on Mr. Wilson, citing concerns about sourcing and potential “vandalism,” the page was locked to prevent new or unregistered users from editing it. That is when the argument among Wikipedians — which can be read in full on the discussion page starting here — really took off. (More in article) The Joe Wilson article is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Wilson_(U.S._politician)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Wilson_%28U.S._politician%29 Regards *Keith Old* ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Putting some perspective on the end of Wikipedia
Try this instead to refute the Wikipedia is dying argument. Wikipedia's featured picture program started in May 2004. It took until 30 December 2007 to reach 1000 featured pictures. We're on track to reach number 2000 within a week: currently at 1973 FPs with 63 active nominations. It would be interesting if someone wrote a tool to check article citations. Footnoting has been getting more and more commonplace, as well as more extensive. -Durova On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 7:02 AM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: Passed on to WP:AN http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Protection_template_issuehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Protection_template_issue FT2 On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 2:36 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: Okay, found out why. You need to account for [[Category:Wikipedia pages protected due to dispute]] and other protection categories, as well. Pages such as Russell's teapot and Developed country are in there, protected, but not tagged. The root cause seems to be that the category isn't itself a subcategory of some protected pages category. Specifically, there are protection templates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Protection_templates such as Pp-dispute that don't also include the page in one of the main protected pages categories you name. FT2 On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 2:29 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry, no. A quick look at the protection log shows many more protections of articles as well as other pages; listing in the protected pages categories almost seems an exception when these are clicked on. As well a wide range of pages are salted - deleted then protected to prevent recreation. Those don't appear in categories either. It looks like you'd need to do a check on actual status of mainspace pages via the toolserver to get accurate statistics. FT2 On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Joseph Reagle rea...@mit.edu wrote: One of the best responses to some of the hyperbole out there about the closing, failure, end of WP is the figure of how many articles are actually locked down in any way, however, this is a difficult figure to authoritatively find/claim. There's Main and Featured [1] of course, about 11 protected articles [2], and then 785 semi-protected [3]. So are those the right numbers? If so can we claim about .0026% of pages are protected from editing by anyone and .4% of pages are protected from Wikipedians (i.e., you've signed up for an account and haven't done anything stupid for a few days.) How many pages (BPL + ?) are likely to fall under Flagged Protection? [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_indefinitely_protected_pages [2]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_protected_pages [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_semi-protected_pages ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Annoying hatnotes
Actually this looks like the perfect subject for a blog post. The Beirut/beer pong diff is a classic. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beirutoldid=21810147 Got more like that? I'd be glad to blog it, or possibly grant editor ops at the WikiVoices blog (a group blog). Thanks very much for the laughter. -Durova On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: Will, simple question: do you accept that trivial disambiguations can be unencyclopedic and give the wrong impression, and if so, is having a neutral dab hatlink better than a jarring note being sounded at the top of a page, the first thing the reader will read after the title? OK, that was a long simple question... Carcharoth On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 8:47 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: This is how I do it. If in Plankton we have only one other thing named planton, then we shouldn't have a disamg page just for two items. That seems overkill. So in that case SB_Plankton makes sense. If however in Bob Jones we have 15 people, 3 things, and 2 places named Bob Jones then it makes sense to have a disamg page. I.E. there's a trade-off in having too many clicks, where it is? two items? or three? W.J In a message dated 8/19/2009 7:37:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time, carcharot...@googlemail.com writes: If there really is a chance that people will search for plankton in an attempt to find out about the SB character, then the hatnote should be neutral and direct people to a disambiguation page (for other things named plankton, see here). And I don't care if that disambiguation page only has two entries. That is an acceptable trade-off to having a spongebob squarepants character name jarring people's reading experience by being placed at the top of an unrelated article. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] NYT: Wikipedia May Be a Font of Facts, b ut It’s a Desert for Photos
Click-throughs are much lower, often on the level of 15,000-30,000 during main page time. Yet remember these are also generating a steady stream of attention on the articles themselves. The one amateur photo of a sound card is receiving 2,000 direct page views at en:wiki plus an unknown number at two dozen other language editions of Wikipedia. Multiply that kind of attention across a few hundred articles and one year: this has the potential to become a major source of web traffic to the donating institution. Bundesarchiv has retained full copyright over high resolution copies of the images they uploaded (the copyright in these instances is uncontroversial). Without any actual advertising, readers have been using the source link from the image hosting page to go to the Bundesarchiv site and purchase high resolution files. Their sales of high resolution images have increased significantly since the donation. Whether and how to give additional credit is a question I'd rather not address personally. Whatever the community decides I'll honor; the salient point is that even with what we do right now it's a net benefit to institutions that are smart about it. We need to communicate to them where the advantages are, since this is new territory and a radical departure from how they're used to operating. Indirectly this helps our position with regard to NPG, because a significant part of NPG's argument is that WMF is impossible to work with. Each time we develop a cooperative relationship with another cultural institution we prove that part of NPG's argument empirically wrong. The more this happens, the more likely NPG is to look silly; the net effect could soften their approach. Now is an excellent time to build those relationships because the current situation is drawing attention to the media side of Wikipedia. Rather than assault the brick wall we walk around it: work with the institutions whose copyrights are either uncontroversial, or who don't try to assert claims over public domain material. As they benefit, Wikipedia benefits, and ultimately the others may abandon their claims and get in line to cooperate with us. -Durova On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: How many people click through to the image itself? That is where the credit is, and the link onwards to the source. Would it help if the source (if it was an institution, rather than an individual photographer) was automagically credited in the articles, not just on the image page? Or would that be the thin end of a wedge and be seen as overt advertising? There are some photographer names that will never be suitable to be treated this way, but if doing this for reputable organisations made it more likely they would donate images, is it worth looking at it again? I also saw a reference somewhere to how having shortcuts dedicated to an institutions photographs can avoid nofollow. Something like [[:xy:image name.jpg]]? Is that acceptable or not? Carcharoth On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Durovanadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote: Usually I prefer the carrot to the stick and take a very long view. For instance, baseball player Babe Ruth had a career that crossed the PD-1923 threshold under US law, and most of the more famous part of that career happened after 1923. Right now our featured picture of him is a restored publicity photo from 1920. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Babe_Ruth2.jpg This was featured in March and hasn't run on the main page yet. When it does I intend to note the traffic statistics for main page views for that day. One of the most powerful arguments we have to gain access to more material under free license is to come to the people who control those rights and show them how it benefits them. As the examples collect this becomes very persuasive. This May, for instance, ten of the images I restored from Library of Congress archives ran as Picture of the Day; the main page received a total of over 58 million page views while they were up. The New York Times has a circulation of 23 million a month, so each image that gets featured is receiving the equivalent of front page attention on NYTimes every day for a solid week. Copyright owners sit up and pay attention when they hear that. They ought to be lining up for this opportunity. So far most of them don't know it exists. We're working on building tangible examples and momentum. The great thing is, institutional donors are proving willing to share large numbers of images in return for a handful of showcase restorations. After the NPG threat came out the Tropenmuseum of Amsterdam agreed to donate 100,000 images to Commons. Negotiations had been underway for a while but the timing was serendipitous. We're negotiating further cooperation with them and with other institutions that we hope to be able to announce soon. -Durova
Re: [WikiEN-l] NYT: Wikipedia May Be a Font of Facts, b ut It’s a Desert for Photos
Click-throughs are much lower, often on the level of 15,000-30,000 during main page time. Yet remember these are also generating a steady stream of attention on the articles themselves. The one amateur photo of a sound card is receiving 2,000 direct page views at en:wiki plus an unknown number at two dozen other language editions of Wikipedia. Multiply that kind of attention across a few hundred articles and one year: this has the potential to become a major source of web traffic to the donating institution. Bundesarchiv has retained full copyright over high resolution copies of the images they uploaded (the copyright in these instances is uncontroversial). Without any actual advertising, readers have been using the source link from the image hosting page to go to the Bundesarchiv site and purchase high resolution files. Their sales of high resolution images have increased significantly since the donation. Whether and how to give additional credit is a question I'd rather not address personally. Whatever the community decides I'll honor; the salient point is that even with what we do right now it's a net benefit to institutions that are smart about it. We need to communicate to them where the advantages are, since this is new territory and a radical departure from how they're used to operating. Indirectly this helps our position with regard to NPG, because a significant part of NPG's argument is that WMF is impossible to work with. Each time we develop a cooperative relationship with another cultural institution we prove that part of NPG's argument empirically wrong. The more this happens, the more likely NPG is to look silly; the net effect could soften their approach. Now is an excellent time to build those relationships because the current situation is drawing attention to the media side of Wikipedia. -Durova On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: How many people click through to the image itself? That is where the credit is, and the link onwards to the source. Would it help if the source (if it was an institution, rather than an individual photographer) was automagically credited in the articles, not just on the image page? Or would that be the thin end of a wedge and be seen as overt advertising? There are some photographer names that will never be suitable to be treated this way, but if doing this for reputable organisations made it more likely they would donate images, is it worth looking at it again? I also saw a reference somewhere to how having shortcuts dedicated to an institutions photographs can avoid nofollow. Something like [[:xy:image name.jpg]]? Is that acceptable or not? Carcharoth On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Durovanadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote: Usually I prefer the carrot to the stick and take a very long view. For instance, baseball player Babe Ruth had a career that crossed the PD-1923 threshold under US law, and most of the more famous part of that career happened after 1923. Right now our featured picture of him is a restored publicity photo from 1920. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Babe_Ruth2.jpg This was featured in March and hasn't run on the main page yet. When it does I intend to note the traffic statistics for main page views for that day. One of the most powerful arguments we have to gain access to more material under free license is to come to the people who control those rights and show them how it benefits them. As the examples collect this becomes very persuasive. This May, for instance, ten of the images I restored from Library of Congress archives ran as Picture of the Day; the main page received a total of over 58 million page views while they were up. The New York Times has a circulation of 23 million a month, so each image that gets featured is receiving the equivalent of front page attention on NYTimes every day for a solid week. Copyright owners sit up and pay attention when they hear that. They ought to be lining up for this opportunity. So far most of them don't know it exists. We're working on building tangible examples and momentum. The great thing is, institutional donors are proving willing to share large numbers of images in return for a handful of showcase restorations. After the NPG threat came out the Tropenmuseum of Amsterdam agreed to donate 100,000 images to Commons. Negotiations had been underway for a while but the timing was serendipitous. We're negotiating further cooperation with them and with other institutions that we hope to be able to announce soon. -Durova On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: You are right Durova. I apologise for sidetracking things there. Do you have views on how to address situations where we have a free pictures of someone when they are very old, but all the pictures of them when they were young
Re: [WikiEN-l] NYT: Wikipedia May Be a Font of Facts, b ut It’s a Desert for Photos
Many professional photographers have older work whose commercial value is almost nil. In fashion photography, for instance, the commercial lifespan of a photograph is extremely short. Here's a featured picture of that type: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gotsiy3edit2.jpg These types of shots normally go into a photographer's portfolio as proof of their skills. Yet often they still have encyclopedic value and the photographer may have more to gain by relicensing them under cc-by-sa with a source link to their own website. -Durova On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 8:38 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/arts/20funny.html One error on licensing. Claim that Wikipedia requires you to give up your copyright unchallenged. Otherwise, pretty good! And should have the right effect in terms of promo photo donations. The bit I found most fascinating was the professional photographer explaining how Wikipedia can help his career, but can also reduce his income (from resale of his pictures). He said that having his work on Wikipedia has increased his online visibility [...] but that the costs are potentially high. “This is the lifeblood of my career,” he said, noting that photographers may get paid very little for a celebrity shot for a magazine. They make their money from resales of the image. Earlier in the article, his contributions to Wikipedia (Commons) were described: Jerry Avenaim, a celebrity photographer. He is unusual in that he has contributed about a dozen low-resolution photographs to Wikipedia It would be interesting to compare why low-resolution is considered OK here, to support and encourage the revenue stream of a professional photographer, but not in the case of the National Portrait Gallery (where the underlying works are public domain), and the revenue stream is (in theory) supporting the digitisation costs. I should disclose here that although I am not a professional photographer, I do work in the photography industry, and I'm aware of some of the ins and outs of how photographers (and others) earn money from their services, skills, and the end products of photographs and images. It usually comes down to access and opportunities, in this case to celebrities, in the case of the NPG, to a collection of public domain artworks. For news photographers, it is being in the right place at the right time. For nature and landscape photographers, it is funding trips to far-flung landscapes or having the patience and skill to find, photograph and identify an animal or plant. And there are lots if niche photographers as well, that specialise in certain areas, which may require specialised and expensive equipment. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] NYT: Wikipedia May Be a Font of Facts, b ut It’s a Desert for Photos
Yes, that's how we got the featured picture of Michele Merkin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michele_Merkin_1.jpg Would you like to follow up on that idea? -Durova On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.comwrote: Has there ever been a concerted effort to contact some celebrity agents and suggest picture submissions? Like: Your client XYZ has an article on Wikipedia [accessed N times in the last month, if that data is available], but no/bad photo. We'd be happy to display a picture of your choice if you can release one under a free license, e.g., cc-by-sa. I'm sure many agents would at least try to pry a decent picture from the hands of a photographer for this. Magnus ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] NYT: Wikipedia May Be a Font of Facts, b ut It’s a Desert for Photos
Yes, I think that's what Videmus Omnia was doing. He used to have a subpage in userspace to explain it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Michele_Merkin_1.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Videmus_Omnia/Free_Imagesaction=editredlink=1 -Durova On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.comwrote: I could try to automatically generate some lists with people missing pictures (actors, politicians etc). People with bad images could be listed manually. Don't know how to best get agent emails. Maybe use press contact addresses? Someone with a wikimedia email could then mail out standard suggestions. Magnus On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Durovanadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, that's how we got the featured picture of Michele Merkin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michele_Merkin_1.jpg Would you like to follow up on that idea? -Durova On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.comwrote: Has there ever been a concerted effort to contact some celebrity agents and suggest picture submissions? Like: Your client XYZ has an article on Wikipedia [accessed N times in the last month, if that data is available], but no/bad photo. We'd be happy to display a picture of your choice if you can release one under a free license, e.g., cc-by-sa. I'm sure many agents would at least try to pry a decent picture from the hands of a photographer for this. Magnus ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] NYT: Wikipedia May Be a Font of Facts, b ut It’s a Desert for Photos
Here's an example of what we could be showing the professional photographer community about how they can do well by doing good. The WP article is getting 30,000 page views per month: http://stats.grok.se/en/200906/Sound%20card Plus another 12,000 views at two other articles: http://stats.grok.se/en/200906/Sound_Blaster http://stats.grok.se/en/200906/Sound_Blaster_Live! Which yielded nearly 2000 direct page views for the image at en:wiki: http://stats.grok.se/en/200906/File%3ASblive!.jpg And more views from other languages; the image is used in 35 pages on 25 projects: http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CheckUsage.php?i=Sblive!.jpgw=_10#end And the fact is it's an older model of sound card nearly 10 years out of date. Yet it's being used as the lead image at the high level Sound card article. Obviously Wikipedia would be more informative with a newer professionally shot sound card photograph at lead position. -Durova On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, I think that's what Videmus Omnia was doing. He used to have a subpage in userspace to explain it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Michele_Merkin_1.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Videmus_Omnia/Free_Imagesaction=editredlink=1 -Durova On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com wrote: I could try to automatically generate some lists with people missing pictures (actors, politicians etc). People with bad images could be listed manually. Don't know how to best get agent emails. Maybe use press contact addresses? Someone with a wikimedia email could then mail out standard suggestions. Magnus On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Durovanadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, that's how we got the featured picture of Michele Merkin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michele_Merkin_1.jpg Would you like to follow up on that idea? -Durova On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.comwrote: Has there ever been a concerted effort to contact some celebrity agents and suggest picture submissions? Like: Your client XYZ has an article on Wikipedia [accessed N times in the last month, if that data is available], but no/bad photo. We'd be happy to display a picture of your choice if you can release one under a free license, e.g., cc-by-sa. I'm sure many agents would at least try to pry a decent picture from the hands of a photographer for this. Magnus ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] NYT: Wikipedia May Be a Font of Facts, b ut It’s a Desert for Photos
Geni is right; professional photographers who own an uncontroversial copyright over an image are completely within their rights to relicense and upload a low resolution version. That's what the Bundesarchiv did with 100,000 images last December. It doesn't really facilitate those negotiations, either with photographers or with cooperative institutions, to sidestep discussion about the cooperative alternatives and refocus on one legal threat. This is our opportunity to build upon Noam's article and create new synergistic relationships; let's make the most of it. -Durova On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 5:06 PM, genigeni...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/7/20 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com: It would be interesting to compare why low-resolution is considered OK here, to support and encourage the revenue stream of a professional photographer, but not in the case of the National Portrait Gallery (where the underlying works are public domain), and the revenue stream is (in theory) supporting the digitisation costs. Because the photographers copyright claim is legit. Under US law the National Portrait Gallery's isn't. Not copyright. Revenue stream. Freedom. Not beer money. Something being in the public domain doesn't mean you can't make money out of it. The question is whether you are restricting access by others to the originals. If the NPG gave people the option of either: a) Buying our high-resolution images to fund our digitisation program and our general cultural mission (because the government says we have to generate some of our own funding). Or: b) Allowing access for professional scanners and photographers to obtain scans to release under a free license. What would the response be? This strikes at the heart of why some people do react as if people are stealing something from the NPG. In effect the NPG are restricting access (and in a sense 'stealing' the public domain), and in another sense, people are 'stealing' by piggybacking on the efforts of the NPG who digitised the images. Ethics, here, not copyright. The NPG almost certainly wouldn't agree to (b), but if they did, what would the case be then? Oh, we can't afford to pay for people to come and scan the pictures, so we will just use the ones you've produced instead. Or would Commons and the WMF organise a parallel scanning effort that would duplicate what had already been done? Seems a waste of time and resources, doesn't it? But when someone says there is a photograph here of something on public display, can we use it?, and the answer is no, the photograph is copyrighted, go and take your own photograph, we see the same duplication of effort and resources. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] NYT: Wikipedia May Be a Font of Facts, b ut It’s a Desert for Photos
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote: Click-throughs are much lower, often on the level of 15,000-30,000 during main page time. Yet remember these are also generating a steady stream of attention on the articles themselves. The one amateur photo of a sound card is receiving 2,000 direct page views at en:wiki plus an unknown number at two dozen other language editions of Wikipedia. Multiply that kind of attention across a few hundred articles and one year: this has the potential to become a major source of web traffic to the donating institution. Bundesarchiv has retained full copyright over high resolution copies of the images they uploaded (the copyright in these instances is uncontroversial). Without any actual advertising, readers have been using the source link from the image hosting page to go to the Bundesarchiv site and purchase high resolution files. Their sales of high resolution images have increased significantly since the donation. Whether and how to give additional credit is a question I'd rather not address personally. Whatever the community decides I'll honor; the salient point is that even with what we do right now it's a net benefit to institutions that are smart about it. We need to communicate to them where the advantages are, since this is new territory and a radical departure from how they're used to operating. Indirectly this helps our position with regard to NPG, because a significant part of NPG's argument is that WMF is impossible to work with. Each time we develop a cooperative relationship with another cultural institution we prove that part of NPG's argument empirically wrong. The more this happens, the more likely NPG is to look silly; the net effect could soften their approach. Now is an excellent time to build those relationships because the current situation is drawing attention to the media side of Wikipedia. Rather than assault the brick wall we walk around it: work with the institutions whose copyrights are either uncontroversial, or who don't try to assert claims over public domain material. As they benefit, Wikipedia benefits, and ultimately the others may abandon their claims and get in line to cooperate with us. -Durova -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] NYT: Wikipedia May Be a Font of Facts, b ut It’s a Desert for Photos
You might be surprised. The biggest obstacle is that most of the people who own copyrights simply don't understand wikis and free culture. They're used to thinking in terms of reproduction permission, which presupposes an older type of static publication. That can change; what we need to do is communicate while we have the public's attention. Fortunately many copyrights have almost zero commercial value. When individuals hold those copyrights they often regard it as flattering that a site such as Wikipedia could use them. Think of it in terms of someone whose aunt was an Olympic bronze medalist decades ago: photographs of her would be treasured within the family, but elsewhere she's just a name on a long list of athletes. The default action that people take when they discover Wikipedia would publish their photos is to offer permission. When we try to answer 'that doesn't work, you need to go to OTRS and...' nine times out of ten their eyes glaze over and they wander away. They simply don't comprehend. We need to stop being defeatist and get serious about commuincating on a broader scale that yes, these things are possible. The solutions are simple, but they require a paradigm shift. -Durova On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 12:14 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/7/20 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com: You are right Durova. I apologise for sidetracking things there. Do you have views on how to address situations where we have a free pictures of someone when they are very old, but all the pictures of them when they were young (and famous) are copyrighted? This can happen with sports stars and others. Does the presence of an arguably less relevant free picture (of them when they are old) dissuade people from attempting to get a free picture that may be more relevant to the article (from when they were young)? Carcharoth Taking the age of the average wikipedian into account the general solution involves their parents and grandparents photos and a scanner. But realistically whatever we do we are likely to an effective image dark age of things between about 1923 and 2005. But then we have similar issues with photos of things outside the western world and popular holiday destinations. -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] NYT: Wikipedia May Be a Font of Facts, but It's a Desert for Photos
Policy changes are usually slow and difficult. Right now we have the public's attention. Wikipedians, collectively, have a habit of responding to real world attention with onsite process and discussion. That can be useful up to a point, but it fails to appreciate two factors: 1. There are windows of opportunity for following up on these opportunities, before the public's fickle attention turns elsewhere. 2. Most of the public neither reads nor understands WP namespace. What we can do right now is communicate: reach a broader audience in the mainstream venues they do read and educate them about copyleft. Present a coherent summary of WP's license structure and step by step practical instructions for copyright owners to donate material so that we can use it. Don't write that as an essay on Wikipedia; write it as an article for a photography trade magazine. -Durova On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Steve Summit s...@eskimo.com wrote: Durova wrote: The default action that people take when they discover Wikipedia would publish their photos is to offer permission. When we try to answer 'that doesn't work, you need to go to OTRS and...' nine times out of ten their eyes glaze over and they wander away. They simply don't comprehend. We need to stop being defeatist and get serious about commuincating on a broader scale that yes, these things are possible. Or we could do the unthinkable and change our policies to better mesh with the way nine out of ten people actually think. (Or, yeah, I know, pigs could fly. But still.) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Featured churn
Saturn's moon Triton; not my nomination. That delisting nomination was a particularly bad example of two trends: FPC reviewers failing to read the article for encyclopedic context, and the valued pictures program functioning as a parasitic growth upon the FP program. VP ought to be casting a broader net and building its own base of support, rather than trying to siphon the most encyclopedic images out of FP. At the same time as Triton was nominated, VP enthusiasts tried to delist the atomic bombing of Nagasaki. -Durova On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:. Here's a great example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Face_of_a_Southern_Yellowjacket_Queen What an incredible image. This is a *wasp*, and we have great detail of the *hairs* on its forehead. Stunning sharpness, and this photo would not be out of place in a good science magazine. Yet two editors managed to oppose its promotion to featured on the basis of the tip of one antenna being obscured by an out of focus leaf fragment. Another, neutral, came up with An amazing detail and sharpness...with a clumsy framing and cropping ruining an otherwise excellent picture. ... I will not support the promotion as I find little excuse for those flaws. These would be perfectly apt comments if we were voting on National Geographic's photo of the year. But Wikipedia featured picture? Whee. You should ask Durova about featured image reviews - she had a live one not long ago. Photograph of a moon (Eros perhaps?) that was the best that anyone could possibly take with current (government) technology, but it was opposed for reasons more suited to critiquing everyday items in posed situations. Nathan ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Grape Lane (euph.)
If anyone is inspired to try a sequel there was a Mount Whoredom in colonial Boston. Center left, second hill from the shoreline. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boston,_1775bsmall1.png -Durova On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 5:19 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: Tim Starling wrote: I suspect frequent editors of Wikipedia have long since become desensitized to obscene language, thanks to the constant stream of it that gets inserted into articles as vandalism, and written all over their user talk pages as revenge for reverting that vanadalism. I for one enjoy reading about history and etymology, and have read articles on obscene words and euphemism sequences with interest. A good recommendation on those lines, is our article on the man who coined the phrase Make love, not war. That phrase is not all he is known for. [[Gershon Legman]]s brick sized work on dirty jokes is one of the most cherished treasures I found as a pre-teen, while playing hookie from school, and spending leisurely days combing through the bookshelves of the Helsinki University Library. The featured article choices that really rile me are the pop culture trivia, like individual episodes from TV series. But whatever offends you about a feature article choice, regular Wikipedians probably know that there's not much point trying to convince Raul654 of anything. +1 Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Policy inquiry - slack for blocked users venting on their talk page
Actually, a current poll is running 38-18 in favor of treating talk page incivility the same as incivility anywhere else. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility/Poll#Should_a_user.27s_own_talk_page_be_considered_differently.3F -Durova On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 5:58 AM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: Such an approach may be better than extending the block, since it prevents them acting up while blocked... Better: *Such an approach may be better than extending the block, since it prevents them acting up and creating a spiral of increased problems for themselves while they are blocked. * In simple terms, the aim is that users who would talk themselves out of a mild heated point into a major division and hardened stance, should not be pushed in the latter direction by punishing their ignorable anger at the block. At the same time the preventative/deterrent purpose of the original block (intended to say you can't act that way here) should equally be respected, and if their response is not so ignorable that should be respected too. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:News suppression (was: News agencies are not RSs)
Yes, there's a slippery slope nearby. Welcoming ideas that would give the soil good traction. On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 9:24 AM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: 1/ when people should be protected, is not self-explanatory. Some may feel that people are best protected by knowing the full truth in all cases. 2/ doing right is even more ambiguous of a concept than improving the encyclopedia; the reason we have actual rules is that people will not always agree about such generalities Some of us may think doing right is publishing everything known to be verified; others, only those that lead to desirable social consequences. What constitute desirable social consequences is also not a uniform concept, or there would be no political differences. The present government of China would completely agree with these principles for the flow of information, and the leaders there undoubtedly think they apply them in practice. Probably the Taliban would also. So would anyone who thinks that only those doing right ought to be permitted to communicate--this is the basic characteristic of repressive governments. . David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Ken Arromdeearrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Durova wrote: With respect and appreciation extended toward Apoc2400, it's dubious that there would be a need for a separate policy to cover this rare situation. At most, a line or two in existing policy would articulate the matter. How about this as a start: -- Modify WP:NOTCENSORED to say that Wikipedia is censored in rare cases in order to protect people. -- Modify WP:IAR to say that rules can be violated if they prevent doing what's right, rather than only if they prevent improving the encyclopedia. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:News suppression (was: News agencies are not RSs)
Not that it matters, but over at WikiVoices we have only three rules. They've served us well without modification for over a year. 1. Cluefulness is mandatory. If someone lacks clue, offer them one of your spare clues. If clueless person refuses multiple offers of clue, clueless person gets booted. 2. In voice chat, belching is permissible only if it includes a three second duration and a good chest tone. 3. In voice chat, heavy breathing is allowable only if accompanied by video. Otherwise mute the mike. -Durova On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 5:18 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Ken Arromdeearrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Protecting people is really very broad isn't it? How about If the publication of certain information on a subject would lead a reasonable person to believe that it poses a credible threat to the subject's life. Much narrower. For IAR, it's also much too long. You've tripled its length. IAR currently reads: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. We just need to phrase it so that you can ignore rules for purposes other than improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Exact details aren't needed, as long as that restriction is removed. I think that the particular phrased wording works just fine as an overriding preamble to BLP, but as Ken states not well with IAR. Possibly a new policy, but it would fit into BLP just fine. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
Gwern: see the Ken Hechtman example above. In 2001 a Canadian journalist who was held by the Taliban did have his life endangered by news coverage. -Durova On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.comwrote: Can I ask what policy this was done under? While I generally approve of the action here, it seems that the admins involved were not entirely following the letter or really entirely the spirit of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. So how are they not technically rouge admins? So shouldn't there, if practical to do so, a policy for this kind of thing? At the very least that way the boundaries of what is and isn't acceptable can be discussed. I'm also left wondering whether there are any other similar things going on, either temporary activities, or extended ones; or whether there have been in the past. If administrators do things, how is a user supposed to know that they're doing it for a sensible reason, rather than some less savoury purpose? -- -Ian Woollard All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
I absolutely support treating the life of a Talib with comparable respect. On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Durova wrote: Agreed. The challenge is to codify this in a manner that doesn't step upon the slippery slope of censorship. On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Ian Woollard wrote: On 30/06/2009, Durova wrote: Our usual BLP standards demonstrate respect for unwarranted damage that causes hurt feelings, or professional and community standing. Surely, when a human life may reasonably be at stake, our responsibility is to be more careful rather than less careful Interestingly, that isn't currently part of WP:BLP. I think it needs to be codified. Clearly, when the subject of the BLP's life may be significantly endangered, through no fault of their own, from information that may be widely published for the first time in the wikipedia, then there's a very reasonable case that it shouldn't be published in the wikipedia. If this is to be codified that could begin by taking it out of the already contentious BLP arena. Endangering lives can apply just as easily to individuals about whom we would not otherwise have biographies at all in the first place. If the information was already published by an Italian and an Afghan news agency, one can hardly say that Wikipedia was publishing it for the first time. The whole reliable sources argument too easily becomes another way of pushing a POV when there are no guidelines whatsoever for determining ahead of time what is or isn't a reliable source. What will be reliable in an era of citizen journalism when reports do not go through the filter of paid editorial staff, and the traditional sources of original news are no longer consistent with the economics of news consumption? What makes tweets out of Tehran reliable? Is it merely because they support our preconceptions? If saving lives is the issue where do we get the arrogant idea that we are so important that our reporting will make any difference. If we are smart enough to suspect that a person from Montreal with the name of Hechtman might be Jewish, it underestimates the Taliban enemy to suggest that they would not be able to figure that out for themselves. Do we apply the policy even-handedly? Doing so would require treating a Taliban life, or that of his innocent family member, with the same respect as a Western life. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
Is it possible to call foul at this mailing list? This is not an abstract referendum about the George W. Bush administration policies; it's a discussion that regards the physical safety of one kidnapping victim. To the extent that this victim's circumstances can be generalized, it regards the safety and fate of others like him. Wikipedians have tangible editorial and policy responsibilities regarding the latter. The former is tangential politics. It is best to keep these matters separate. -Durova On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Gwern Branwen wrote: On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Sage Ross wrote: It would raise his profile, indicate that Western media had taken notice of the kidnapping, and therefore raise his value to the kidnappers (either his value as a negotiating chip or his symbolic value if executed). I don't buy this thinking. This is the sort of wooly-headed stuff that has us throwing billions down the black hole of Homeland Security taking off our shoes at airports. 'security experts' will say anything; I don't trust them unless they're Bruce Schneier. Fear is one of the great motivators, and those (motivated by the other great motivator, greed) making big money out of Homeland Security know it. I doubt that their antics would stand up to any kind of cost/benefit analysis. Smaller amounts spent in other areas would be far more effective at saving more lives. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:News suppression (was: News agencies are not RSs)
With respect and appreciation extended toward Apoc2400, it's dubious that there would be a need for a separate policy to cover this rare situation. At most, a line or two in existing policy would articulate the matter. On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 5:26 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/6/30 Apoc 2400 apoc2...@gmail.com: Regarding the recent discussion, I have made a draft proposal at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:News_suppression I'd rather cover it using the expectation that editors not be stupid. That's actually a rule listed on Meta. “Keeping details out of a Wikipedia article on a living person just because there aren’t any reliable sources because of a censorious conspiracy to keep him from getting killed is a slippery slope to the destruction of the trustworthiness and usefulness of every article in the encyclopedia,” said administrator WikiFiddler451. “People are seriously suggesting that our rules should be applied using common sense and a clue. I just don’t see how that could possibly work. Next they’ll suggest we ‘assume good faith’ or something.” http://notnews.today.com/?p=546 - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] NY Times: Wired Editor Apologizes for Copying from Wikipedia in New Book
A more proactive approach would be very welcome where it comes to featured pictures. WMF photographers have occasionally discovered their work reused without credit in commercial advertising. -Durova On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com wrote: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: After my recent perusals of reuses of my images, here's my take: No one is ever going to pay attention to, let alone understand, let alone respect, let alone follow the CC-BY or GFDL requirement for credit. Soon, we will stop asking for it. In order for it to happen, we would have to: a) Make the requirement really really prominent b) Respect it ourselves c) Vehemently complain in a very public manner when a few individuals fail to do so. when d) we have far bigger fish to fry. Open question: do you think the Foundation and/or local chapters should complain more when their local media fail to respect Wikimedia copyrights? Andrew ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
In reply to Wjhonson, here's an example of a captured reporter who subsequently had the chance to explain how careless coverage endangered his life. In late 2001 Canadian journalist Ken Hechtman was in Afghanistan when the United States invaded, and was arrested as a suspected spy. Here's the situation he faced. Before the trial begins, the judge tells me to pick a name out of his hat. What does he win? I asked, indicating the big, black-turbaned Talib with the shit-eating grin. He gets to shoot you, just as soon as we finish this formality of a trial. Okay, let's get started! Ya gotta love these guys and their wacky black humour! Did I mention that my translator, a doctor from the Malaysian refugee camp where I'd started the day, was convinced I was guilty and never missed an opportunity to tell me or the judge so? Afterward they actually aimed a rifle at him and pulled the trigger, in an effort to get him to talk. They didn't tell him the clip was empty. Just about at the point where he thought he was persuading the authorities that he really wasn't a spy, the news of his situation spread through the Canadian and international press. Journal de Montréal published a fact that put his life right back in danger: he was Jewish. The Taliban had Internet connections; they picked up on that. It wasn't possible for him to publish those circumstances in a reliable source until after his release. http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2001/120601/news8.html -Lise On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:51 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:07 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote: Three more points: 1) Rohde's experience in reporting the mass murder of Bosnian Muslims by Serbian Christians may have drawn sympathy and support from Muslim officials, including perhaps some who may have sway with the kidnappers. Publishing details of his kidnapping in a Muslim country would have raised the issue of his work on behalf of human rights - of Muslims in particular - and gotten significant airplay in the Muslim context. The NY Times presumably analyzed that, talked it over with security professionals in government and private employ, and decided against it. They have correspondents abroad in danger areas, and have had them kidnapped before. I think they know better than Wikipedians - though I do not presume they know perfect. 2) Not publishing the story and then creating an issue after the fact, makes such tactics unlikely to be successful in the future. Tactics have the problem of being exactly that - overt and discernible forms of movement that after study can be countered. That's again assuming that these tactics were substantially contributive to any success in this case. You're assuming that terrorists and professional kidnappers in the hinterland of Afghanistan have networks that include sophisticated Wikipedia and web history analysis experts. This is true for some organizations - but not many. The level of ignorance of advanced information sources is suprising even among groups that use some advanced high-tech tools such as websites and encrypted internet communications. Even on topics they were acutely interested in, Al Qaeda (who have doctors and engineers on staff) failed to gather useful information on modern chemical and biological and nuclear weapons. All the key info they're looking for is on the web and searchable - they didn't have much better than random stuff pulled from Google. The pirates in Somalia have good communications - but poor intelligence other than regarding shipowners. That this was done in one case does not mean it won't work again. Most intelligence gathering methods remain useful for quite a while after they're generally disclosed. Government intelligence agency and military targets harden rapidly, others tend to learn slowly. 3) Are the participating Western news orgs, just like the previous U.S. administration, now to consider Al Jazeera as hostile? Or perhaps as an organization that does not follow the same professional standards that Western news orgs claim to follow? I don't know of anyone who feels Al Jazeera is hostile. They're trying to be an independent, honest, neutral actor in newsgathering in the Mideast, from a natively middle eastern perspective. They're smart, sophisticated, and pissing just about everyone off on all sides. Around here, that usually means they're both accurate, zealous, and impartial. That does not always serve US short term interests. But then, from the US government's perspective, neither does the NY Times at times. My hopefully enlightened perspective is that the rise of middle eastern based honest modern newsgathering will be a major part of the ultimate enlightened modernistic muslim refutation of the reactionary islamic terrorists. I think Al Jazeera's staff see themselves that way and I hope and think that they're
[WikiEN-l] The edit heard round the world
Hi all, Have been working on coaxing the return of a talented editor by the name of Shoemaker's Holiday--who is by far WMF's most skilled volunteer at restoring historic etchings. Turns out he's been working on an important project: perhaps someone can help obtain source material. The subject is Paul Revere's engraving of the Boston Massacre: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.19159 http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.01657 As you can see, both of the Library of Congress copies are missing sections of data due to damage. If we can obtain a high resolution scan from a third copy of this etching, it will become possible to assemble a composite of the complete engraving. (For Wikimedians who aren't US-Based, the Boston Massacre was a key event that preceded the American Revolution. Paul Revere's famous depiction helped spread dissatisfaction with colonial rule). What we're looking for are editors who to interface with historic societies or libraries that own an original copy of the engraving. Particularly within Boston or Massachusetts, although copies probably exist across various locations in the eastern United States. We're looking to obtain an uncompressed scan of the document on the order of 25MB-100MB. Source credit will be provided to the institution, of course, and the final work might be selected to run on Wikipedia's main page. Please contact me if you can assist or provide contacts. -Durova -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] FW: [Foundation-l] antisocial production
Summary: Geeks use computers. This passes for insight? -Durova On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 6:46 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 6/27/2009 6:37:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time, wjhon...@aol.com writes: How dare you! Go away and be quiet! On a lighter note, I've never met anyone I couldn't piss off. Will grumpy Johnson -- Wait a moment. I think maybe I've confused grumpy with aggressively obnoxious. In other words, not only am I obnoxious, but I try to recruit others to my cause by aggressively proselytizing, that is, I annoy them to the point where they also become equally obnoxious. The ultimate plan of course is for everybody to be hostile all the time. That would be the pure world of hatred and animosity (and redundancy) that my dark overlord requires for his return. On a second note, I wonder how they selected their sample. Complacent Wikians would be less likely I would think to respond than newly-created activists. Will grumpy and dopey all in one Johnson ** Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood0005) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] NY Times: Wired Editor Apologizes for Copying from Wikipedia in New Book
There's an importance to this which needs to be communicated better, and quickly. Most of the world's image archives are not openly accessible. As some of them open their doors, Flickr is competing with Commons to become the primary point of deposit. We risk a situation where WMF loses out on valuable institutional relationships and our volunteers glean the crumbs from a commercial site. One of the arguments in favor of Wikimedia Commons is that we have a team of volunteers who restore historic material. There's a chance for the donating archive to get highlights from its collection designated as featured pictures, which run on the main page. The fact that our restorations get reproduced in Time Magazine, in Wired, and elsewhere ought to be strengthening that argument. Credibility requires credit. We are competing against a well funded commercial enterprise for large institutional donations; we need every advantage we can muster. -Durova On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 8:34 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/6/25 Siobhan Hansa helens...@gmail.com: Steve Bennett wrote: And why do you care anyway? Vanity? Curiosity? Is it that important? Is a little piece of text on some idiot's webpage the difference between you contributing your time next time and not? Is the gratification of your name in cyberspace your primary motivation for producing useful free images? (These questions are rhetorical and deliberately inflammatory. Take the bait with caution.) A less ego bound reason* for wanting to see some acknowledgment - especially through a link to Wikipedia or the like - is that it is advocacy for the intellectual commons. This could encourage others to get involved or to consider making their content free. Also if the importance of free content isn't widely understood it will be harder for policy makers to come to good decisions about laws or other public support that might impact it. Yes. It will help the commons considerably for free content licenses to visibly be out there and acknowledged. And it's not onerous for a newspaper to print Photo by , CC by-sa 3.0. Or even Photo by xxx, restored by xxx, even if the restoration wouldn't generate a fresh copyright. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] NY Times: Wired Editor Apologizes for Copying from Wikipedia in New Book
Wired also used one of my featured picture restorations without credit. On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 2:15 PM, William King williamcarlk...@gmail.comwrote: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/editor-of-wired-apologizes-for-copying-from-wikipedia-in-new-book/ Chris Anderson, the author, summarized the situation in two words: Mea culpa. Your thoughts? William King (Willking1979) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] NY Times: Wired Editor Apologizes for Copying from Wikipedia in New Book
Slight correction. It was Time Magazine that ran my Brandeis restoration uncredited. The one Wired ran uncredited was the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906. http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/dayintech_0418 Wired gives sole credit to the original source: *Image: H.D. Chadwick/National Archives and Records Administration* * * Here's my restoration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sfearthquake3b.jpg The unrestored version: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sfearthquake3.jpg Any suggestions what to do about this? -Lise On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 2:57 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/6/24 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com: Wired also used one of my featured picture restorations without credit. Credit for the original, or credit for the restoration? - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] NY Times: Wired Editor Apologizes for Copying from Wikipedia in New Book
Well, taking a first stab at this. Here's my letter to Wired: Per the recent New York Times admission that one of your editors plagiarized content from Wikipedia uncredited, I respectfully request credit for media work of mine that Wired has reproduced without credit. http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/editor-of-wired-apologizes-for-copying-from-wikipedia-in-new-book/ This reproduces a photograph in the digitally restored version I generated through painstaking restoration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sfearthquake3b.jpg My restoration of this image was selected as a featured picture, which designates Wikipedia's best content. It ran on Wikipedia's main page on 16 March 2008: one month before your uncredited reproduction of my volunteer labor. I seek no compensation other than credit. Please post credit as follows: Restoration by Lise Broer (Durova). Thank you very much, Lise Broer San Diego, California. On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote: Slight correction. It was Time Magazine that ran my Brandeis restoration uncredited. The one Wired ran uncredited was the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906. http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/dayintech_0418 Wired gives sole credit to the original source: *Image: H.D. Chadwick/National Archives and Records Administration* * * Here's my restoration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sfearthquake3b.jpg The unrestored version: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sfearthquake3.jpg Any suggestions what to do about this? -Lise On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 2:57 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/6/24 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com: Wired also used one of my featured picture restorations without credit. Credit for the original, or credit for the restoration? - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Image reuse
Well, I don't mind that these things run without financial compensation. But it would be nice to receive credit. The Brandeis restoration especially was a difficult job that took about three days. On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 4:41 AM, Durovanadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote: And the government of Australia appears to be using the restoration of Douglas MacArthur uncredited. http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/waratsea/kamikaze.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Douglas_MacArthur_lands_Leyte1.jpg Yeah but now you're getting really subtle. Crediting a restoration is a less obvious thing to do, and probably less serious if they don't. Speaking for myself, I often disregard copyright notices when the source material is clearly very old - I assume the copyright notices have been plastered all over without thought. But maybe I'm missing transformation processes... Btw, found an even better reuse of one of my images: http://article.wn.com/view/2007/11/30/A_man_says_he_was_robbed_of_700_during_a_cocaine_deal_before/ Kind of amusing. The text even refers to a pickup truck, not a cement mixer... Steve ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] RFC on paid editing
Actually we also get bookspam. The classic version of this is an IP turns up at a watchlist making one edit to an article to add an item to the references section. Check the IP history and it makes one edit each to a lot of different articles, each adding a book reference but not building the article. All the books come from the same publishing house. Check the WHOIS...surprise, surprise... On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:32 AM, Sam Kornsmo...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Andrew Grayandrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: 2009/6/10 AGK wiki...@googlemail.com: In practice, however, it would be exceedingly rare for that type of editing to not be problematic to some degree; the nature of the business world is such that paid editing would almost certainly not adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV policies. Consider this: if a client commissions a Wikipedia article's creation, would the client be satisfied with an article that did not reflect a stance that was at least a smidgen flattering? I wouldn't imagine so. On that basis, I think a blanket discouragement from editing for payment to be the most sensible approach to the issue. This only really applies to one type of paid editing, doesn't it? Commercial or quasi-commercial, ones where the client has a definite stake in the message of the article. You can easily have paid editing where this isn't the case at all - an educational group, for example, which pays people to produce content about a specific field without presupposing the tone of that content. In many cases, it may just be that the topic is one where it's hard to put the sponsor's slant in - mathematics, for example, would be a lot more resilient than alternative medicines! We've already had a very limited form of this - the project on Commons which pays for the creation of images - and there's no doubt that, if done carefully, this could be extended to article-writing without the danger of producing editorial slant in the end product. This is pretty much the traditional encyclopedia model, in fact - paid generalist or specialist editors, who may well bring their own prejudices to the text but aren't expected to comply with the central editorial slant on each. I agree entirely paid editing can be a bad thing - but so can unpaid editing for a topic you hold dear. Likewise, both can be forces for good. I'm not sure it's wise to completely throw away the opportunity for a powerful tool which we haven't used much yet, due to short-term fears about commercial interests. (In short: regulate, sure. Don't forbid; it'll bite us in the long run.) These are all excellent points. I would like to see the guideline state something along the lines of You are not required to state that you are being paid to edit. However, if it is later discovered that you have been doing so and you did not state this openly, people will be very suspicious about your motivations. If you are open, honest and neutral, people are more likely to trust you. Also, I would like to see the end of COIN and direct its traffic to the NPOV noticeboard -- it is highly misleading to suggest that the conflict of interests is the problem; it is the lack of neutrality that is the problem. My points, from a post I prepared yesterday (which I may post on-wiki at some point): *One point I don't think has been raised is that paid editing mostly focuses on living people and contemporary organisations. I can't actually think of examples of paid editing that don't involve biographies of living people ([[WP:BLP]]) or corporate companies ([[WP:CORP]]), plus a side-serving of political and non-corporate organisations (e.g. non-governmental organisations and charities) and I'm sure that is an important point, but maybe someone else could articulate that? What I'm thinking here is that editing on 'academic' topics such as history and science (if you ignore paid attempts to push fringe points of view - such as crackpot, pseudo and fringe history and science), is largely done either by academics or volunteer amateurs with interests. The editing on living people articles and corporations (and music groups) is largely done by fans (volunteers) or paid editors. But the editing on long-dead people (I've created several articles on 19th-century scientists) and organisations (think 19th-century independence movements, such as [[Hellenoglosso Xenodocheio]]). I'm not saying that paid editing is impossible in such situations, but it does seem that *corporate* and *contemporary* paid editing is mostly limited to certain areas. *The final point is that no-one seems to have mentioned the model of having paid editing done outside Wikipedia under a compatible license, and then filtered in through a vetting process (with strict disclosure of amount of
Re: [WikiEN-l] Daily Mail article on Sam Blacketer case
Tough situation. Even with David not talking, it's a little surprising that the background got presented like that. It looks like the reporter didn't fully understand. From this distant vantage (California), I wonder whether ComCom could have explained the context? On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 7:24 AM, AGK wiki...@googlemail.com wrote: To be fair on that last point, they hear we resolve disputes and they know there are hundreds of disputes a week. They just don't have the awareness AC doesn't solve 99% of them :) The argument stands: the Daily Mail are printing gross inaccuracies, and it's harming our public image. AGK ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Daily Mail article on Sam Blacketer case
Very well stated. The ability to oversight, or to promote a successful RfA, or to checkuser, or even to be one vote among fifteen in whether dates should be delinked--is all trivial compared to real world news like this. Let's hope that everyone else who holds a position of similar trust (arbitrator, functionary) examines these matters and takes proactive measures to examine and remedy any other problems that may exist, both for themselves and in review of their peers. On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com wrote: AGK wiki...@googlemail.com wrote: From: AGK wiki...@googlemail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, 8 June, 2009 15:24:30 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Daily Mail article on Sam Blacketer case To be fair on that last point, they hear we resolve disputes and they know there are hundreds of disputes a week. They just don't have the awareness AC doesn't solve 99% of them :) The argument stands: the Daily Mail are printing gross inaccuracies, and it's harming our public image. Gross inaccuracies that harm our public image? Not that I can see. Some of the details are wrong - number of ArbCom cases for instance, but that's pretty irrelevant to the story or indeed our reputation. Likewise with the relationship between Wikimedia UK and the Foundation. The Daily Mail will spin the story as they see fit. What we might disagree with is the editorialising, which we can do little about, not any errors of fact. The harm to our public image comes from the fact that a senior trusted user has managed to deceive Wikipedia over a number of years and our systems were inadequate to deal with this. I hope there will be an honest debate in Wikipedia about how we can make sure this doesn't happen again. Coming not that long after the Essjay controversy, requiring trusted users to verify their identities seems like a sensible response. Andrew ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma
Um, that's an attempt at humor right? On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Jay Litwyn brewh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote: Okay, if I hav this straight, then wikipedia should not index the article, either. In other words, you would not find some people from their family name or stage name, unless they issue some form of approval. Those who are interested in getting their facts acceptable would know exactly where the article is, so they can keep working on it, and links to the subject from categories and from other articles would not function: You would still be able to get there if you type out the URL. The noindex and nofollow directives in a robots.txt file (and something like them on each web page in meta tags) are nearly standard, because some people want to keep their writing projects under the scrutiny of a few friends before any spider finds it. A simpler option would be password-protecting an article, along with the names of people who can offer the password. Once you explain your purpose, you should be able to get the password by e-mail. There was once a popular disclaimer on web pages Under Construction. It is almost certainly still around, because it is the nature of the web to provide volatile information or incorporate feedback. So, the protection levels for an article COULD be: Deleted -- Subject made application to oversight committee. Protected -- sysop only. Moderated -- Edits go through moderators; identical to proxied edits. Password protected -- Primarily for biography under construction. Not Indexed -- Hard, and not impossible to find -- fails approval from subject. Semi-protected -- Contentious subjects demand a degree of identification. Open -- Not a debatable topic. (So far, nobody is trying to tell user:cluebot that wikipedia is not censored) ___ Yo momma so fat she had to go to Sea World to get baptized Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote in message news:a01006d90906041359p5465d053w10bdd7fffb71a...@mail.gmail.com... Hi all, in two years of looking for solutions to the BLP issues have finally stumbled upon an idea that hasn't been raised before. Basically it's this: *Suppose we noindexed biographies of living persons, upon the subject's request.* This would require developer assistance, and require a bit of structure to make sure the ability doesn't get misused. An initial draft proposal is at my blog. Am interested in thoughts and suggestions. http://durova.blogspot.com/2009/06/biographies-of-living-persons-ingenius.html Best regards, Durova -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma
Perhaps I should have thought of this example sooner: one extreme instance
that comes to mind is the following biography:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Sanchez
Which was nominated for deletion three times and kept:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Matt_Sanchez
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Matt_Sanchez_(2nd_nomination)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Matt_Sanchez_(3rd_nomination)
and caused an arbitration case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Bluemarine
The biography subject was the target of a long term harassment and
impersonation campaign across multiple sites on the Internet, which spilled
over onto Wikipedia, and during the arbitration that harassment culminated
in his computer getting hacked and his bank account getting emptied. The
offsite harassment continues, although fortunately (after about two years of
volunteer effort) its effects on Wikipedia have been minimized.
The subject himself is no boy scout. When he gained attention a ghost from
his closet emerged, and his attempts to deal with the resulting problems at
Wikipedia were so counterproductive that he got sitebanned. Wjhonson (who
posts actively to this list) was also active in that dispute and our
perspectives on it differed, so I hope this amounts to a brief neutral
summary. For purposes of this thread, that's background. Here's the
substance:
BLP vandalism at Wikipedia is not all random one-offs. It also consists of
persistent or strategic damage. Wikipedia does a much poorer job at
handling the latter problems.
In this instance the article subject was completing his education and
looking for work while Wikipedia's article persistently violated BLP, RS, V,
and NPOV. A series of experienced volunteers were unable to resolve the
problems without arbitration. The net result was two editors sitebanned,
one indefinitely blocked, and another topic banned.
Looking back on that long ordeal, that dispute might not have grown so long
and bitter if it were possible to noindex that BLP while the problems were
getting addressed.
-Lise
Now as an act of good faith I'm going to offer to initiate a request to have
that topic ban lifted. It's been about a year and the editor otherwise had
a good onsite record.
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 10:47 AM, philippe philippe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 5, 2009, at 9:47 AM, Jim Redmond wrote:
As several others have mentioned, noindexing won't prevent
vandalism, won't
prevent mirrors from showing the hidden content, and won't prevent
direct
visits to the hidden content.
Pardon the dumb question, but do we have a {{nomirror}} or similar
feature? If so, some combination of {{noindex}}, {{nomirror}}, and
flagged revisions might be a temporary panacea...
Philippe
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
http://durova.blogspot.com/
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma
Of course ArbCom doesn't ban someone merely for correcting BLP problems; no one suggests they did. :The subject himself is no boy scout. When he gained attention a ghost from his closet emerged, and his attempts to deal with the resulting problems at Wikipedia were so counterproductive that he got sitebanned. BLP problems did exist, though--very serious ones. For example, negative information was being sourced to non-notable forums where the harasser had impersonated the article subject. The subject was trollable, and got trolled. Wikipedia should have been able to resolve that mess without so much wasted time on everybody's part. On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 12:05 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Your characterization of the Matt Sanchez fiasco is incomplete. Arbcom doesn't ban a person for a year over merely attempting to address BLP issues on their own biography. Your characterization of the issue as BLP violations is an interpretation. Other editors saw the issues as not being violations at all, but rather consistent with our goal of presenting the evidence as it is. This is not a good example of what you think you're trying to address. I fail to see why you think opening this can of worms is appropriate. Matt Sanchez is a poster boy for duplicity in my opinion. Bringing him in here is not going to help your case. Will Johnson **Mortgage rates drop to record lows. $200,000 for $1,029/mo Fixed. LendingTree® ( http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222653866x1201461148/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.lendingtree.com%2Fborrower%2Falliance%2Ffrom.as p%3Fwhereto%3Dpromopagev3%26promo%3D00279%26loan%5Ftype%3D2%26source%3D28895http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222653866x1201461148/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.lendingtree.com%2Fborrower%2Falliance%2Ffrom.as%0Ap%3Fwhereto%3Dpromopagev3%26promo%3D00279%26loan%5Ftype%3D2%26source%3D28895 60%26esourceid%3D2889560%26800num%3D1%2D800%2D289%2D3915%26AdType%3D2) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma
Negative information was sourced to talk shows in the form of copyvio rehostings on YouTube of uncertain veracity in violation of WP:LINKVIO and WP:RS. The editors who wished to use those talk shows were invited to obtain legitimate video or transcripts, and never did so. Of course, as we all know digital information never gets manipulated in misleading ways. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jimbogoesswimming.jpg -Lise On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:42 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: -Original Message- From: Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 12:43 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma Of course ArbCom doesn't ban someone merely for correcting BLP problems; no one suggests they did. :The subject himself is no boy scout. When he gained attention a ghost from his closet emerged, and his attempts to deal with the resulting problems at Wikipedia were so counterproductive that he got sitebanned. BLP problems did exist, though--very serious ones. For example, negative information was being sourced to non-notable forums where the harasser had impersonated the article subject. The subject was trollable, and got trolled. Wikipedia should have been able to resolve that mess without so much wasted time on everybody's part. Whether anyone had impersonated the subject or not is speculation without any evidence other than the subject himself. That his bank account was cleaned up or whether it was even related to his article is again speculation without any evidence other than the subject himself. Negative information was sourced as well to nationally syndicated radio talk shows. As you recall. Matt is not an example of what you're trying to accomplish. He did not want his article removed (initially), what he wanted was a whitewash. However he went on record stating that he used to be a male prostitute. Investigations turned up his newspaper advertisements and his website advertising his sex services. Those were linked directly to his own address and phone number. The world in which we actually live, is one in which most people can be tracked, knowing only a few pieces of data. This has occurred a number of times in-project and out, as you know. No one makes your bed except you yourself. Again this isn't a good example. I'm sure you should be able to find a better one. Will Johnson ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma
It is to be hoped that Wikipedians can hold a mailing list conversation without inflicting further unwarranted damage upon the reputation of a living person. In fact the copyvio YouTube hostings were upheld as such at arbitration enforcement, and resulted in topic bans for two editors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive18#Matt_Sanchez That decision withstood scrutiny including an appeal directly to ArbCom itself. Nobody wikilawyered to achieve that outcome, and nobody suppressed anything. In fact, the appeal to AE was delayed a month to give time to obtain transcripts. AE was a last resort after offers of BLPN and RSN were refused. The requesting post at AE only only asked for removal of the violating material, and an uninvolved administrator stepped forward to topic ban. So far, no evidence has been forthcoming that the biography subject manipulated Wikipedia to seek attention. If anyone on this list has evidence that he did, please do not reply here but send it to ArbCom and cc me. If the evidence is credible I will terminate mentorship and the Committee will take appropriate actions. -Lise On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:13 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: -Original Message- From: Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 3:06 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma Negative information was sourced to talk shows in the form of copyvio rehostings on YouTube of uncertain veracity in violation of WP:LINKVIO and WP:RS. The editors who wished to use those talk shows were invited to obtain legitimate video or transcripts, and never did so. Of course, as we all know digital information never gets manipulated in misleading ways. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jimbogoesswimming.jpg -Lise - Yes I agree that certain editors wikilawyered the situation to get their own way because that is the only way to suppress plain evidence. The audio was not a Copy vio it was posted with the approval of the owner. Matt never stated that it was not accurate, only that it was not the full program, but only a portion. I really don't think that you want to trundle all of this history out here again. I am certainly able to remember in specific detail what occurred and didn't as well as you think you are. I don't think however this advances your cause whatsoever. If this is the *sole* example you can come with, then you have a long memory for situations. And I would point out, that the examples we are looking for are examples where their was actual provable damage with evidentiary documentation. Not examples of people trying to manipulate the project to seek attention and then realizing that they made a mistake and now want to go back into the closet once the skeletons are shown in daylight. Will ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma
These threads would be much shorter if the links provided actually got read for the information they contain. ;) The governing policy is linked from the opening post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COPYRIGHT#Linking_to_copyrighted_works Policy does not instruct editors to wait for a complaint, nor is it accurate to assert that no copyright violation has occurred until a complaint occurs. Yet in all probability actual complaint did occur, because right after linking to the relevant policy the opening post also notes Footnote 19 is no longer even functional because the copyvio material has been removed from YouTube. (that was as of 22 March 2008). Now this is getting silly. I'm not going to continually repost the details of evidence already provided, simply to rebut false negative assertions that get put forward with no evidence at all. I supported Bluemarine's siteban because it was merited by his conduct; afterward I mentored him--that's no secret. Nor is it partisanship. Frivolous claims of bias are one of the reasons I've stopped accepting new mentorships. Which is sad for the people who honestly want to turn over a new leaf. -Durova On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 wjhon...@aol.com wrote: ArbCom did not uphold copyright violation because there was no copyright violation. No person, holding copyright, ever complained about anything. What occurred was simply silence. The owner of the copyright has not now, nor ever had any problem with the audio being hosted from the radio program. Was he merely silent about the issue, or did he say I own the copyright, go ahead and host it? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma
Hi all, in two years of looking for solutions to the BLP issues have finally stumbled upon an idea that hasn't been raised before. Basically it's this: *Suppose we noindexed biographies of living persons, upon the subject's request.* This would require developer assistance, and require a bit of structure to make sure the ability doesn't get misused. An initial draft proposal is at my blog. Am interested in thoughts and suggestions. http://durova.blogspot.com/2009/06/biographies-of-living-persons-ingenius.html Best regards, Durova -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma
These policy pages seem to imply otherwise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy Presumption in favor of privacy Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DEL#Deletion_discussion Discussions on relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete. On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 2:40 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/6/4 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com: Hi all, in two years of looking for solutions to the BLP issues have finally stumbled upon an idea that hasn't been raised before. Basically it's this: *Suppose we noindexed biographies of living persons, upon the subject's request.* This would require developer assistance, and require a bit of structure to make sure the ability doesn't get misused. An initial draft proposal is at my blog. Am interested in thoughts and suggestions. http://durova.blogspot.com/2009/06/biographies-of-living-persons-ingenius.html Best regards, Durova Been suggested before. Answer is either: No what search engines do with wikipedia content is none of our business. No the subjects of articles have no right to determine wikipedia behavior Of course it could also be argued that effectively making a public record of people who are sensitive about their bios it's exactly an improvement on the current situation. -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma
Mirrors don't get such high search rank as Wikipedia. Most people who search Google never look past the first 10 entries (if they even scroll down to number 10, which many don't). Noindexing is a distinct advantage in situations such as job searches or business contract bids where one competitor might stoop to tactically damaging another candidate's biography. Yes, the information remains available, but deliberate misinformation doesn't shoot to the top position instantly. On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 4:22 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: -Original Message- From: Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 3:32 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma 2009/6/4 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Trouble is, even if you NOINDEX so it can't find it in google, they could still find it in the wikipedia or via inbound links. So, although, the proposal could (at best) conceivably improve things, it would ultimately solve nothing. And I would like to add that anyone could simply repost the information, point at the Wikipedia article as the source, obeying the GFDL considerations effectively eliminating any benefit from Noindex. Which basically is what mirrors accomplish anyhow. Any mirror can repost any manually crawled content without regard to Noindex. Noindex is not a requirement that anyone is bound to obey. Will Johnson ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma
Obviously the bids don't cite Wikipedia. It's not uncommon, though, for the decision maker to run a quick Google search. Now if exploitation is going to happen, Wikipedia happens to be one of the easiest platforms to exploit. Wikipedians try to manage our BLP problems, but very often we fail. Do we shrug off legitimate complaints as easily as you advise? Perhaps this is a philosophical/ethical difference. I say we look for solutions. On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 4:40 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: -Original Message- From: Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 4:33 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma Mirrors don't get such high search rank as Wikipedia. Most people who search Google never look past the first 10 entries (if they even scroll down to number 10, which many don't). Noindexing is a distinct advantage in situations such as job searches or business contract bids where one competitor might stoop to tactically damaging another candidate's biography. Yes, the information remains available, but deliberate misinformation doesn't shoot to the top position instantly. - If you noindex, then Wikipedia's entry doesn't appear at all. Some of our mirrors do have relatively high rankings, appearing on the first page. This is especially true of the more comprehensive, but obscure entries. Such as you might find say, with a University professor or second-tier author. We write up a full biography, noindex it, and our mirrors end up on the first page of Google hits. I fail to see the actual damage caused. Competitors already try to damage each other, if bids are based on Wikipedia entries, then it's doubtful that the businesses are really doing any sort of due diligence in the first place. All businesses have complaints lodged against them. If you don't have at least a few detractors, then you must have just started. I'd like to see some concrete examples of real damage, before such a sweeping modification is instituted. Will Johnson ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rand_Fishkin One of several BLPs I've nominated for deletion upon request from the subject. He's notable basically for two things: owning a business and having proposed to his wife at a professional sporting event. When he first discovered someone had created a biography on Wikipedia he was flattered. After a few months, though, it became burdensome to check every week and see whether it had been altered. He began to worry--since his business is a service industry--what would happen if one of his competitors vandalized it strategically while he competed for a contract. He wasn't famous enough to be on many watchlists. If the vandalism occurred the day after he checked the page it'd be six days more before he spotted it, and longer while OTRS processed his request. In that time, would a potential client be misled? Would he lose out on a contract and have to lay off good employees? Overall it simply wasn't worth it. This was one biography that got deleted upon request; many others don't. And that's partly because of opinions that have appeared in this thread: *Some Wikipedians believe that the subject of a BLP should never have a voice in editorial decisions at all. *Some Wikipedians argue that it's easy enough to Googlebomb people by other means, so Wikipedia shouldn't erect any barriers either. *Other Wikipedians believe every instance should be handled case by case, which means we can never give a simple and direct answer to a BLP subject who raises legitimate concerns. I don't like *any* of those solutions. When I call the phone company with a complaint about my bill, I want to know what the rules are in plain English--I want an outcome that's understandable and consistent. And even if the answer is no, I want a simple plain and direct no. There's no excuse for giving another human being the run-around when we can prevent it. On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 5:02 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/6/5 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com: Obviously the bids don't cite Wikipedia. It's not uncommon, though, for the decision maker to run a quick Google search. Now if exploitation is going to happen, Wikipedia happens to be one of the easiest platforms to exploit. Wikipedians try to manage our BLP problems, but very often we fail. Do we shrug off legitimate complaints as easily as you advise? Perhaps this is a philosophical/ethical difference. I say we look for solutions. I say you still haven't provided an example of the problem. - f. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma
The proposal is to noindex upon the subject's request. Isn't it best to let the people who live with the consequences weigh those pros and cons? If the main thing they want is to get Wikipedia off the top Google result, then it may be worth it to them. On principle, I'm not keen on paternalism. On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 6:59 AM, Durovanadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote: *Suppose we noindexed biographies of living persons, upon the subject's request.* As has been already mentioned, this has all been discussed before, but: NOINDEXing BLPs does nothing to stop vandalism of them. All it can hope to do is sweep it under the rug, which is exactly the wrong thing to do, as vandalism can only be fixed once it has been noticed. The Siegenthaler incident was so bad because the vandalism went unnoticed (or at least, uncorrected) for so long. On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Durovanadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy Presumption in favor of privacy Those ideas are about what types of content are accepted into BLPs (and what types of sources are used), and under what circumstances will we have or not have a BLP. Anyone who cares about these issues should put their efforts into working on those ideas, as well as on ideas about improving dealing with vandalism as it happens, instead of working towards futile obfuscation. Incidentally, NOINDEXing requires no developer assistance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:NOINDEX -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma
Penicillin may be great for strep throat, but that's no argument against chicken soup. Especially when the pharmacy's supply of penicillin is in back order. ;) On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Durovanadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote: The proposal is to noindex upon the subject's request. Isn't it best to let the people who live with the consequences weigh those pros and cons? If the main thing they want is to get Wikipedia off the top Google result, then it may be worth it to them. On principle, I'm not keen on paternalism. My concern is editors wasting their time and effort offering placebos when there is medicine to be made. -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Bans Scientology From Site - Huffington Post
Hm. 31K, start-class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Western_thought 79K, featured: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Simpson That probably explains it, Fred. -Durova On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Fred Bauder wrote: Actually, pretty good, aside from the misleading headline. They not only quote from the decision, but actually link to it. Fred That was part of what interested me; the way that events on Wikipedia, and decisions made there, are now newsworthy events...stuff that merits coverage. Of course that has happened in the past, but most frequently it's been coverage of teens sexting, or men picking up 13-year-olds, or sites being hackedsplashy stuff that often is more about the sensation than actual relevance. This got noticed because of the Scientology angle, but it's otherwise low-key enough, simple reporting of a news event that might impact the reader. 5 years ago, it would have been ignored or sensationalizedinstead, it's a regular story, reported upon as if it were a local court ruling. I actually find that really refreshing, and an interesting measure of 'we have arrived'. It's not That Time yet, but it's an intimation of it. There is more coming, if you could look at a history written 20,000 years from now, there will be a short section on intellectual developments in ancient times and two developments will be mentioned, Plato's Academy and Wikipedia. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] flagged revisions
Dang, there go my cheap mainspace edits reverting school vandalism at Andrew Johnson's biography. (snaps fingers) Seriously, thank you for this. On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 10:02 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: -- Forwarded message -- From: Brion Vibber br...@wikimedia.org Date: 2009/5/19 Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] flagged revisions To: Wikimedia developers wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org Quick update: * Yes, we do plan to roll out an English Wikipedia test setup for Flagged Revs. * There's not yet a fixed schedule for it, but I'd like to see it up and running in production before Wikimania. :) [August] * Right now we're running round tidying up general things, getting the 1.15 release set up, and prepping to get our live sites updated to development trunk -- nice things are afoot like a total upgrade to the preferences backend which Werdna has done, yay! * As we get back up to speed, we'll want to coordinate w/ Aaron to confirm that we've got a configuration planned and that it'll look good, and get that test config on en.labs.wikimedia.org and test.wikipedia for a while before we roll it to en.wikipedia. I'd also like to see folks ponder a bit on the final terminology for things -- we'd also like to roll out the Drafts extension (for saving your in-progress edit page in the background so you can return to it if you accidentally close it or your browser crashes), but Flagged Revs also uses the 'draft' terminology sometimes. We want to make sure we're not going to be looking too confusing having both of those things in the system. -- brion El 5/12/09 5:20 PM, private musings escribió: Hi all, The 'flagged revisions' bug ( https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18244 ) - has, by my reading been 'reopened' for 2 weeks now. Being as this is a reasonably big deal in the wiki scheme of things, I presume it's possible that matters are being discussed, or otherwise moved forward in some way, behind the scenes, but at this point, I thought it was probably worth making sure that this hasn't just been sort of forgotten. I think the enabling of flagged revisions on the english wikipedia is a very important, positive step for the project, and hope it might be acted upon in reasonably good order as a high priority. Apologies if such prodding is not a great fit on this list - don't mean to bug anyone (geddit?) ;-) cheers, Peter, PM. On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 3:55 PM, private musingsthepmacco...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, It seems to me that there's been sterling work on the 'flagged revisions' front - with the bulk of the credit due to User:Cenarium over on en, and the various folk working away over there. With that in mind, could I please encourage a dev.s attention to; https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18244 Hopefully we can enable the extension as soon as possible :-) best, Peter, PM. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Neutrality enforcement: a proposal
Please help me nuke it before this well-intentioned notion of arbitration does any more damage. -Durova On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 1:10 AM, SlimVirgin slimvir...@gmail.com wrote: I've started a proposal to enforce neutral editing on Israel-Palestine articles, which could be extended to other intractable disputes if it works. Input would be much appreciated. See [[Wikipedia:Neutrality enforcement]]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutrality_enforcement Sarah ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Neutrality enforcement: a proposal
Lilliputian nationalist form a network and come over to Wikipedia, turning the article about Blefuscu into a travesty. A lone Blefuscu native sees the imbalance and tries to address it, engaging in mediation and eventually arbitration. Afterward the Lilliputians successfully get the Blefuscuan topic banned because the Blefuscuan isn't adding to the imbalance of negative information about his own country. Interesting. -Durova On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 2:06 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 2:02 PM, SlimVirgin slimvir...@gmail.com wrote: This is the key point, I think. We don't have an absolute definition of neutrality. We don't even have a I know it when I see it kind of system. Neutrality -- everywhere -- is a work in progress. Now, That's exactly right. All this group would be looking for are good-faith efforts to edit in accordance with the NPOV policy. It's not an attempt to control content, but behaviour. Perhaps we should change the title to reflect that. You lost me. If you say its all about the content, I'd be on board. You say its about behaviour[-alism], and I go now elsewhere to let you rethink the idea entirely. -SV ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
