Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

[Erik Moeller]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:41 AM,   wrote:

> You must live in a very simplistic world, but I am afraid it does resemble 
> reality very well. Here are how some various types of things and people are 
> funded. Tool server=chapter. Developers= Mostly WMF but some chapter. 
> Marketing professionals=WMF but no chapter I am aware of. Legal 
> professionals=WMF and chapter.  Administration of fundraising campaign=WMF 
> and chapters. You will not find any bright lines in reality.

Indeed. And given the magnitude and multitude of problems we are
trying to solve as a movement, I think it's absolutely appropriate and
desirable for chapters to undertake, for example, software engineering
projects (I have reservations about infrastructure-hosting projects).
One of the advantages of our open source model is that we already have
to operate under a standard assumption that others may want to make
significant contributions without centralized management thereof, so
we _should_ be able to accommodate chapter-driven software engineering
work.

The Wikidata project is an example of this. What's notable about
Wikidata is not just that it's a very significant scale project
(>$1.5M in funding), but also that the funding doesn't come from the
classic contribution streams (online donations) but from a network of
funders that Wikimedia Germany brought together. The project would not
have been started or funded without Wikimedia Germany, which really
validates the importance of chapters.

Chapters indeed have the potential to build out a significant presence
to advance engineering and product development, and I'd love to see
more of that in future with regard to underrepresented technical
priorities (e.g. geo-data related functionality, quality management
tools, ProofreadPage style functionality, etc.). In addition to adding
to our overall ability to fund and manage projects, they have the
ability to recruit and build offices in their geographies, potentially
at a much lower salary cost than we do in the SF Bay Area as our
primary HQ.

The one caveat I have is that, if chapters don't contribute, as part
of this process, fully by means of participating in code review and
general MediaWiki development, there's a risk that any such
chapter-driven engineering work contributes to the overall backlog,
and requires adding to a centralized pool of resources. Moreover, a
short term project with limited funding has the potential to also add
to the long term maintenance/improvement burden for WMF.  We're trying
to manage this balance very carefully with the Wikidata project, and
we'll draw a lot of lessons from the project as it continues.

All best,
Erik
-- 
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Wikimedia-l] Fund-raising goal questions

[MZMcBride]

Hi.

How is the fund-raising goal determined each year?

Is there a fund-raising goal set for the upcoming fund-raiser (the one
beginning in November 2012)?

Is there a guideline or policy regarding what happens once the fund-raising
goal is met?

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Wikimedia-l] Engineering community contacts for the next few weeks

[Sumana Harihareswara]

(Sorry for spamming and cross-posting; figured that some people would
find this helpful to pass along.)

Starting sometime Friday (today), I am vacationing and will be offline
till August 16th.  In my absence, here's whom to contact about:

* Developer Access queue[1] for Git, Gerrit, and Wikimedia Labs: Varnent
and JeremyB
* Gerrit project ownership requests[2]: Chad Horohoe and Antoine Musso
* SVN commit access queue[3]: Tim Starling
* review queue of extensions to deploy[4]: would love for volunteers to
check in on this and nudge progress along
* checking Bugzilla for new patches, to encourage developers to use Git
instead: please feel free to help with this!
* 20% time by WMF engineers[0]: Rob Lanphier
* Engineering Community Team stuff in general[5]: Rob Lanphier

If in doubt, ask via Wikimedia engineering/tech IRC channels or mailing
lists[6] and you will be helped!  Thanks to everyone who's volunteered
to help out.

@MediaWikiMeet will be silent. :-)

[0] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_engineering_20%25_policy
[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Developer_access
[2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Git/Gerrit_project_ownership
[3] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Developer_access/Subversion
[4] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Review_queue
[5]
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Platform_Engineering#Engineering_Community_Team
[6] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Communication

-- 
Sumana Harihareswara
Engineering Community Manager
Wikimedia Foundation

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics

[Ray Saintonge]

On 07/26/12 9:31 AM, Peter Coombe wrote:

Unfortunately people will still be bombarded with coverage of it from
everywhere else, so probably a futile gesture.

We may not be able to get photos of the glamorous sporting events to
illustrate our articles, but there are plenty of associated events
that ought to be documented which the IOC can't prevent you from
photographing and freely licensing: transport gridlock, surface-to-air
missiles on rooftops, soldiers drafted in to cover security etc etc.
;)


It would be a great reflection on the Olympic movement if the only 
pictures in Wikipedia were of security and gridlock, with nothing about 
the athletic events. :-)


Ray

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

[Ray Saintonge]

On 07/26/12 4:41 AM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:33 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Ray Saintonge  wrote:

On 07/25/12 12:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:

So there were how many years of faffing about before they hired *one guy*
for this project? This is an organisation with a $20m annual budget, now
acquiring umpteen paid chapter officials.

The "paid chapter officials" are employees of the chapters themselves.

The money comes from the same pot, as you know. The chapters are funded
from the same donations as the Foundation.

The best way to bring hostility against your own pet projects is by being
hostile towards the projects of others. What makes one project more
deserving than another.

Simplistically, chapters are marketing, while programmers and designers are
product development. Marketing is important, but not more so than product
development. To be fair, the Foundation is hiring product development
staff, and it's not a choice of either/or.

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings

You must live in a very simplistic world, but I am afraid it does resemble 
reality very well. Here are how some various types of things and people are 
funded. Tool server=chapter. Developers= Mostly WMF but some chapter. Marketing 
professionals=WMF but no chapter I am aware of. Legal professionals=WMF and 
chapter.  Administration of fundraising campaign=WMF and chapters. You will not 
find any bright lines in reality.


To this must be added work with the GLAM community. This is largely 
driven by the chapters. Their ability to contact these institutions is 
likely key to opening up access to large stores of material. It would be 
far more difficult to do this as a foreign organization.


Ray

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics

[Anthony]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:06 PM,   wrote:
> On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:51 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Ray Saintonge  wrote:
>>> Copyrights wouldn't apply because you own the copyrights in the pictures you
>>> take.
>>
>> Maybe.  You own the copyright fully if you are the sole contributor of
>> the creative input which went into the picture.  If someone else also
>> contributed, then you might own the copyright in the picture as a
>> derivative work (extending only to your contributions), 
>
> I hope you don' t my picking out this piece from your email and ignoring the 
> rest. Simply photographing a
> copyrighted work does NOT create a photograph that is a derivative works.

Not necessarily.  Hence the word "might".

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics

[Birgitte_sb]

And here is the correct second link:

http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/03/photographs-are-not-derivative-works.html

On Jul 26, 2012, at 9:13 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:

> The first version sent too soon and was almost unreadable, sorry if you 
> struggled through it.  Here it is again with copy-editing.
> 
> 
> On Jul 26, 2012, at 9:06 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:51 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Ray Saintonge  wrote:
 Copyrights wouldn't apply because you own the copyrights in the pictures 
 you
 take.
>>> 
>>> Maybe.  You own the copyright fully if you are the sole contributor of
>>> the creative input which went into the picture.  If someone else also
>>> contributed, then you might own the copyright in the picture as a
>>> derivative work (extending only to your contributions), 
>> 
>> I hope you don' t mind my picking out this piece from your email and 
>> ignoring the rest.
> 
>> Simply photographing a copyrighted work does NOT create a photograph that is 
>> a derivative work. For a photo to become a derivative work you have to 
>> really go beyond timing, lighting, point and click.
>> 
>> This claim that photographs are derivative works came up just a few weeks 
>> ago in the trademark discussion.  I never directly addressed this issue 
>> during that discussion. While I felt certain there was some error in to the 
>> claim, I could not recall the reasoning behind the counter-point.  I just 
>> came across the in-depth discussion.  If anyone is interested the links 
>> follow, and don't forget to read the comments.  The comments are actually 
>> were it is all explained in lay terms with good examples instead of judicial 
>> terms.
>> 
>> http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.html
>> http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.html
>> 
>> Birgitte SB
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics

[Birgitte_sb]

The first version sent too soon and was almost unreadable, sorry if you 
struggled through it.  Here it is again with copy-editing.


On Jul 26, 2012, at 9:06 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:51 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Ray Saintonge  wrote:
>>> Copyrights wouldn't apply because you own the copyrights in the pictures you
>>> take.
>> 
>> Maybe.  You own the copyright fully if you are the sole contributor of
>> the creative input which went into the picture.  If someone else also
>> contributed, then you might own the copyright in the picture as a
>> derivative work (extending only to your contributions), 
> 
> I hope you don' t mind my picking out this piece from your email and ignoring 
> the rest.

> Simply photographing a copyrighted work does NOT create a photograph that is 
> a derivative work. For a photo to become a derivative work you have to really 
> go beyond timing, lighting, point and click.
> 
> This claim that photographs are derivative works came up just a few weeks ago 
> in the trademark discussion.  I never directly addressed this issue during 
> that discussion. While I felt certain there was some error in to the claim, I 
> could not recall the reasoning behind the counter-point.  I just came across 
> the in-depth discussion.  If anyone is interested the links follow, and don't 
> forget to read the comments.  The comments are actually were it is all 
> explained in lay terms with good examples instead of judicial terms.
> 
> http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.html
> http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.html
> 
> Birgitte SB
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics

[Birgitte_sb]

On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:51 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Ray Saintonge  wrote:
>> Copyrights wouldn't apply because you own the copyrights in the pictures you
>> take.
> 
> Maybe.  You own the copyright fully if you are the sole contributor of
> the creative input which went into the picture.  If someone else also
> contributed, then you might own the copyright in the picture as a
> derivative work (extending only to your contributions), 

I hope you don' t my picking out this piece from your email and ignoring the 
rest. Simply photographing a copyrighted work does NOT create a photograph that 
is a derivative works. For a photo to be a derivative work you have to really 
go beyond timing, lighting, point and click.

This claim of photographs as derivative works came up just a few weeks ago in 
the trademark discussion.  I never directly addressed this issue during that 
discussion While I felt certain at the time, there was some error in this 
claim. I could not recall the reasoning behind the counter-point.  I just came 
across the in-depth discussion.  If anyone is interested the links follow, and 
don't forget to read the comments.  The comments are actually were is explained 
in lay terms instead judicial terms.

http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.html
http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.html

Birgitte SB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics

[Birgitte_sb]

On Jul 26, 2012, at 4:23 AM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:

> kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sources for the restrictions:
> * http://www.tickets.london2012.com/purchaseterms.html
> * PDF: http://j.mp/london2012prohibited
>> 
>> I really can't figure out the difference between your example about
>> personality rights  and my previous, so I don't see why you're saying
>> that the above approch could not work, but IANAL.
>> 
>> As I said above I think this restrinction on commercial use of the
>> images imposed by IOC is not about copyright but is on a different
>> level and AFAICT is very similar to the case of personality rights to
>> some extent. So may you clarify?
>> 
> 
> There is a contractual arrangement between the IOC and the photographer as 
> specified in terms and conditions on the ticket. If some one makes photos 
> available commercially then they may be sued by the IOC under the terms of 
> that contract. The issue isn't about copyright but about the contractual 
> agreement and personal liability between the photographer and the IOC.
> 

This is a contract with the ticket fine print. But I don't see how that 
contract could actually bind the photographs. Certainly it prevents you, the 
contractually bound ticket holder, from using media you produced under this 
contract in a commercial manner.  However the IOC cannot possibly extend the 
contract beyond the ticket-holder. Nor force the ticket holder to police 
third-parties.  Let's run a few possibilities:

Ticket-holder (TH) places own-work photo on FaceBook.  It goes viral across the 
Internet and is eventually posters of the photo are found in the marketplace.  
IOC wishes to end poster sales.  Your position that this the contract must be 
effective against third parties would mean that if TH fails to hire a lawyer 
and vigorously enforce their copyrights; then they have broken the terms of the 
contract with IOC and are liable for damages. This is not how contracts work.  
If TH does not choose to enforce their copyrights then IOC can do nothing.

TH has a great photo, their sister owns a bookstore. TH informally licenses the 
photo to Sis to use in advertising.  The IOC does not even have the standing to 
discover if Sis has a license to use the photo or is instead infringing on the 
creator's copyright.  Only the copyright holder has standing contest the use of 
their work.  IOC can do nothing.

TH dies. Daughter inherits copyrights and sells photos taken at last month's 
Olympics. IOC can do nothing.

TH donates the full copyrights on all photos they created at the Games to a 
non-profit organization on the condition that their identity is not revealed. 
The non-profit, now copyright holder, licenses the entire collection CC-SA. IOC 
can do nothing.

The only reason the IOC was even able to make the empty threats it did about 
the Usain Bolt photo is that the photographer and licensing were all easily 
tracked down on Commons.  This issue (limits of contract law vs. copyright law) 
has been well hashed over in the past. The IOC cannot do what it seems to claim 
on this issue. I have actually dug around for the links to  past discussions of 
"contracts for access used in attempt to control copyright", but sadly no luck. 
(I did however find useful links on three other issues sitting at the back of 
my mind!) 

Really the IOC, whatever it wishes, cannot control the licensing, much less the 
actual usage, of photo taken at the Olympics. It has no right to do so, not 
under copyright, not under contract law.  It can in a very limited way exert 
control over individuals who voluntarily entered into binding contracts *with 
the IOC*. It cannot exert control over the photographs themselves nor any other 
individuals. The IOC has shown a willingness to harass and threaten people into 
a level of compliance that it has no right to demand. We can offer a shield 
from harassment to photographers, if any exist, who would like to offer their 
work to the common cultural landscape without being credited. Through 
pseudo-anonymity we can offer photographers a way to attribute their works to 
an account that cannot be identified today but can be repatriated tomorrow when 
the heat has cooled off. However, we probably should refrain from encouraging 
easily identified Flickr users to relicense their work in a way we now know 
will likely bring the IOC to their doorstep.

Birgitte SB



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Wikimedia-l] FW: [Wikimediauk-l] Statement regarding Ashley Van Haeften, Chair of Wikimedia UK

[joseph seddon]

I believe this recent statement from the board of WMUK is of interest to this 
list.
Seddon

> From: michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk
> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:02:36 -0700
> To: wikimediau...@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Wikimediauk-l] [WMUK Board] Statement regarding Ashley Van Haeften, 
> Chair of Wikimedia UK
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm sending this statement on behalf of the WMUK Board:
> 
> --
> 
> As some members of Wikimedia UK will know, our Chair, Ashley Van Haeften, 
> user name Fae, has been the subject of sanctions by the Arbitration Committee 
> of the English Wikipedia (Arbcom), the volunteer committee that exists to 
> provide binding remedies to Wikipedia disputes. In particular, he has been 
> banned from editing the English language Wikipedia for at least the next six 
> months, after which he can appeal the ban.
> 
> The Board of Wikimedia UK notes the decision of Arbcom.
> 
> The Board is united in the view that this decision does not affect his role 
> as a Trustee of the charity. His work at Wikimedia UK has always been 
> enthusiastic and diligent. In particular, his knowledge of charity 
> governance, and his ability to bring about consensus at WMUK's board 
> meetings, have been particularly valuable.
> 
> The Board points out that the editing issues were fully public before, and 
> during, the recent elections to the board, and were openly and publicly 
> discussed. Our membership placed their trust in him by electing him as a 
> Trustee. He was then elected unanimously as Chair of the Board. He continues 
> to have the full support of the Board.
> 
> --
> 
> Thanks,
> Mike Peel
> Secretary, Wikimedia UK
> 
> Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate 
> Wikipedia, amongst other projects). It is an independent charitable 
> organization with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its 
> contents.
> 
> Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. Wiki UK Ltd is a 
> Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 
> 6741827. Registered Charity No. 1144513. The Registered Office is at 4th 
> Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT, United 
> Kingdom.
> 
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Event coordinators: how to create many accounts from 1 IP address

[Asaf Bartov]

Thanks!

http://outreach.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Best_practices_in_organizing_a_Wikipedia_workshop&action=historysubmit&diff=38805&oldid=24788

  A.

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Sumana Harihareswara  wrote:

> Thanks to everyone who helped work on this documentation.  I really
> appreciate it.  Please distribute
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mass_account_creation and, within it,
> link to the relevant "becoming an account creator" pages on particular
> wikis.
>
> Thanks.
> --
> Sumana Harihareswara
> Engineering Community Manager
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
>
> On 05/24/2012 06:15 PM, Asaf Bartov wrote:
> > Thanks, Alex!  That was what I was looking for. :)
> >
> > It is now mentioned in the instructions on Meta. :)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> >Asaf
> >
> > On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 3:02 PM, J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov <
> > alexandrdmitriroma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> There is indeed a page on en.Wikipedia specifically for requests for the
> >> Account creator permission :
> >>
> >>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Account_creator
> >>
> >> I don't know about other languages or projects.
> >>
> >> Alex
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2012/5/24 Asaf Bartov 
> >>
> >>> So, I often find myself doing outreach related to enwiki before large
> >>> groups, and while I have no interest in becoming a sysop, could really
> >> use
> >>> the Account Creator permission.  Is there really no page to publicly
> >>> request this?  The instructions cited below, taken from here[1],
> suggest
> >>> so, but that just feels broken.  I don't like the idea of privately
> >>> reaching out to some admin for this permission.
> >>>
> >>> :-/
> >>>
> >>>   Asaf
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mass_account_creation#Becoming_an_.22account_creator.22
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



-- 
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia Foundation 

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Event coordinators: how to create many accounts from 1 IP address

[Sumana Harihareswara]

Thanks to everyone who helped work on this documentation.  I really
appreciate it.  Please distribute
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mass_account_creation and, within it,
link to the relevant "becoming an account creator" pages on particular
wikis.

Thanks.
-- 
Sumana Harihareswara
Engineering Community Manager
Wikimedia Foundation


On 05/24/2012 06:15 PM, Asaf Bartov wrote:
> Thanks, Alex!  That was what I was looking for. :)
> 
> It is now mentioned in the instructions on Meta. :)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
>Asaf
> 
> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 3:02 PM, J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov <
> alexandrdmitriroma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> There is indeed a page on en.Wikipedia specifically for requests for the
>> Account creator permission :
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Account_creator
>>
>> I don't know about other languages or projects.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/5/24 Asaf Bartov 
>>
>>> So, I often find myself doing outreach related to enwiki before large
>>> groups, and while I have no interest in becoming a sysop, could really
>> use
>>> the Account Creator permission.  Is there really no page to publicly
>>> request this?  The instructions cited below, taken from here[1], suggest
>>> so, but that just feels broken.  I don't like the idea of privately
>>> reaching out to some admin for this permission.
>>>
>>> :-/
>>>
>>>   Asaf
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>
>>>
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mass_account_creation#Becoming_an_.22account_creator.22

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics

[FT2]

Two quick notes

   - Photography from public land is permissible, though security/police
   may try to 
object.
   Cannot be stopped, equipment seized, or photos deleted unless "reasonable"
   suspicion of terrorism or evidence of terrorism. Security guards have
   claimed "you are breaching our security" but have no right in law to act on
   public ground; police and industry bodies have tried to train event
   security staff to be aware of
this.
   The British Security Industry Association has a leaflet which spells out
   the law: *"If an individual is in a public place photographing or
   filming a private building, security guards have no right to prevent the
   individual from taking photographs," ... [adding that filming or taking a
   photograph].. does not in itself indicate hostile reconnaissance or other
   suspicious behaviour*". *[previous link]
*
   - Reports and ticket terms conflict.
   Reports say "Earlier this year, Locog said photographers will not face
   confiscation of camera gear at the gates, but that security staff have a
   right to challenge people whose equipment interferes with the view of other
   spectators once inside. ‘No way are we trying to target camera users,' said
   a Locog spokesman in February. ‘The issue is basically around
size.' 
"
   but ticket T&C prohibitions include "unauthorised transmissions and/or
   recording through mobile telephones or other instruments (video cameras,
   tape recorders, etc)"
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics

[FT2]

Naive and over reactive. Do that all the time and it's pointless (loses
value). That was the consensus at the time of SOPA  and I don't see
anything that's changed since. Blackouts are the rarest of rare protests,
certainly not for matters that don't threaten us. At worst inability to
freely photo a sports event is no different than inability to freely
photograph inside some country's museums - negotiation and good example
gets further than petulant actions.

Photography in circumstances like the olympics is a very common matter -
the National Portrait Gallery issue wasn't dissimilar in a way, images were
validly able to be distributed without breaching copyright but location
owner had imposed conditions of entry on the person wishing to do so, that
were widely (by those in his camp anyway) felt to be unfair or desirous to
bypass.  Obtainer decided to and obtained images anyway and freely made
them available to others.

This generic situation is quite common, though not often so high profile as
NPG or the olympics.

FT2



On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> It's time to black out coverage of the olympics.
>
> This would be a blackout that could actually make a difference.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics

[Anthony]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Ray Saintonge  wrote:
> Copyrights wouldn't apply because you own the copyrights in the pictures you
> take.

Maybe.  You own the copyright fully if you are the sole contributor of
the creative input which went into the picture.  If someone else also
contributed, then you might own the copyright in the picture as a
derivative work (extending only to your contributions), or as a work
of joint authorship.  And joint works in the UK are quite different
from joint works in the US.  To grant a license on a UK joint work,
you need the permission of all the joint owners.  (It's also possible
that you don't own the copyright at all in a picture you take, because
you didn't contribute anything copyrightable, but that's unlikely to
be the case in this sort of scenario.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics

[Ray Saintonge]

On 07/26/12 2:23 AM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:

kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote:

Sources for the restrictions:
* http://www.tickets.london2012.com/purchaseterms.html
* PDF: http://j.mp/london2012prohibited

I really can't figure out the difference between your example about
personality rights  and my previous, so I don't see why you're saying
that the above approch could not work, but IANAL.

As I said above I think this restrinction on commercial use of the
images imposed by IOC is not about copyright but is on a different
level and AFAICT is very similar to the case of personality rights to
some extent. So may you clarify?

There is a contractual arrangement between the IOC and the photographer as 
specified in terms and conditions on the ticket. If some one makes photos 
available commercially then they may be sued by the IOC under the terms of that 
contract. The issue isn't about copyright but about the contractual agreement 
and personal liability between the photographer and the IOC.


Copyrights wouldn't apply because you own the copyrights in the pictures 
you take.


Athletes in the performance of their sport are public figures so the 
personality rights are more limited. This may be more of a concern in 
selecting which pictures to publish, and avoiding anything indiscrete.


The enforceability of those lengthy so-called contractual terms may be 
unrealistic. I do understand that there may be some justification in 
section 19.2.3 for a ban on refrigerators.


Ray

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics

[Guillaume Paumier]

Hi,

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Peter Coombe
 wrote:
>
> We may not be able to get photos of the glamorous sporting events to
> illustrate our articles, but there are plenty of associated events
> that ought to be documented which the IOC can't prevent you from
> photographing and freely licensing: transport gridlock, surface-to-air
> missiles on rooftops, soldiers drafted in to cover security etc etc.

Well, you may not run into trouble *with the IOC* for taking pictures
of all the security, but you may very well get into trouble with the
police / army / private security, and I'm not sure that's preferable
:)

(speaking as someone who once covered a G8 summit where security was,
well, what you'd expect around a meeting between heads of state and
their delegations).

-- 
Guillaume Paumier

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics

[Peter Coombe]

Unfortunately people will still be bombarded with coverage of it from
everywhere else, so probably a futile gesture.

We may not be able to get photos of the glamorous sporting events to
illustrate our articles, but there are plenty of associated events
that ought to be documented which the IOC can't prevent you from
photographing and freely licensing: transport gridlock, surface-to-air
missiles on rooftops, soldiers drafted in to cover security etc etc.
;)

Pete / the wub

On 26 July 2012 13:53, Anthony  wrote:
> It's time to black out coverage of the olympics.
>
> This would be a blackout that could actually make a difference.
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Lodewijk  wrote:
>> Would it make sense to start a more thorough long term lobby on this issue?
>> Considering that this will be a returning issue every two years, I guess
>> that would be worth the trouble...
>>
>> Lodewijk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board appointments July 2012

[Bishakha Datta]

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Bence Damokos  wrote:

> Hi Beria,
>
> I am sure Bishakha will give a more thorough answer if I am mistaken, but
> from what I heard from Board members when I asked the same question: the
> new board members fully participated in the meeting on the 11 July, but for
> technical reasons and simplicity's sake, they only assumed the positions of
> the outgoing board members

at the very end of the meeting.
>

Just confirming that this is exactly right.
Bishakha
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics

[Anthony]

It's time to black out coverage of the olympics.

This would be a blackout that could actually make a difference.

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Lodewijk  wrote:
> Would it make sense to start a more thorough long term lobby on this issue?
> Considering that this will be a returning issue every two years, I guess
> that would be worth the trouble...
>
> Lodewijk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics

[wiki-list]

kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Sources for the restrictions:
> >>> * http://www.tickets.london2012.com/purchaseterms.html
> >>> * PDF: http://j.mp/london2012prohibited
> 
> I really can't figure out the difference between your example about
> personality rights  and my previous, so I don't see why you're saying
> that the above approch could not work, but IANAL.
> 
> As I said above I think this restrinction on commercial use of the
> images imposed by IOC is not about copyright but is on a different
> level and AFAICT is very similar to the case of personality rights to
> some extent. So may you clarify?
> 

There is a contractual arrangement between the IOC and the photographer as 
specified in terms and conditions on the ticket. If some one makes photos 
available commercially then they may be sued by the IOC under the terms of that 
contract. The issue isn't about copyright but about the contractual agreement 
and personal liability between the photographer and the IOC.





___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

[Birgitte_sb]

On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:33 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Ray Saintonge  wrote:
> 
>> On 07/25/12 12:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> So there were how many years of faffing about before they hired *one guy*
>>> for this project? This is an organisation with a $20m annual budget, now
>>> acquiring umpteen paid chapter officials.
>>> 
>>> The "paid chapter officials" are employees of the chapters themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> The money comes from the same pot, as you know. The chapters are funded
> from the same donations as the Foundation.
> 
> 
> 
>> The best way to bring hostility against your own pet projects is by being
>> hostile towards the projects of others. What makes one project more
>> deserving than another.
> 
> 
> 
> Simplistically, chapters are marketing, while programmers and designers are
> product development. Marketing is important, but not more so than product
> development. To be fair, the Foundation is hiring product development
> staff, and it's not a choice of either/or.
> 
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings
> 

You must live in a very simplistic world, but I am afraid it does resemble 
reality very well. Here are how some various types of things and people are 
funded. Tool server=chapter. Developers= Mostly WMF but some chapter. Marketing 
professionals=WMF but no chapter I am aware of. Legal professionals=WMF and 
chapter.  Administration of fundraising campaign=WMF and chapters. You will not 
find any bright lines in reality.

Birgitte SB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Ray Saintonge  wrote:

> On 07/25/12 12:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
>>
>> So there were how many years of faffing about before they hired *one guy*
>> for this project? This is an organisation with a $20m annual budget, now
>> acquiring umpteen paid chapter officials.
>>
>>  The "paid chapter officials" are employees of the chapters themselves.



The money comes from the same pot, as you know. The chapters are funded
from the same donations as the Foundation.



> The best way to bring hostility against your own pet projects is by being
> hostile towards the projects of others. What makes one project more
> deserving than another.



Simplistically, chapters are marketing, while programmers and designers are
product development. Marketing is important, but not more so than product
development. To be fair, the Foundation is hiring product development
staff, and it's not a choice of either/or.

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics

[Cristian Consonni]

2012/7/24 Tomasz Ganicz :
> 2012/7/24 Cristian Consonni :
>> 2012/7/24 Amir E. Aharoni :
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The Olympic games are beginning soon. Apparently, ticket holders
>>> cannot use photo equipment longer than 30cm and cannot use the photos
>>> and videos for commercial purposes without accreditation.
>>>
>>> Practically everything that happens at the Olympics is notable and
>>> should be on Wikipedia, Commons, etc. Does anybody know whether there
>>> are professional accredited photographers who are Wikimedia-friendly
>>> and plan to upload their photos? If there aren't any, does anybody
>>> know whether a Wikipedian can obtain such accreditation?
>>>
>>> This doesn't concern me directly, but there are many, many people who
>>> write Wikipedia articles about sports in all languages and it may be
>>> interesting to them. Also, it may be a frequent issue in sports and
>>> I'm just not aware of it because I rarely follow sports.
>>>
>>> Sources for the restrictions:
>>> * http://www.tickets.london2012.com/purchaseterms.html
>>> * PDF: http://j.mp/london2012prohibited
>>
>> I think this another layer of problems besides copyright, with
>> CC-BY-SA the author grants permission to reuse the photo also for
>> commercial purposes without requesting permission to the author. But
>> there are many other layers of rights which could interfere with the
>> free (or better the "anarchic") reuse of a photo. For example I think
>> that using an image of Usain Bolt to promote a book without explicit
>> permission from the athlete (or his agent) is anyhow unlawful even if
>> the photo was taken, for example, in the street and freely licensed.
>> That said I think with can treat photo from the Olympics in a similar
>> way as we do for photos with "personality rights", we could put a
>> template saying "Olympics photo warning: to reuse for commercial
>> purposes this photo you should obtain permission from IOC and/or
>> individuals depicted in the photo".
>> The point is that the author of the photo allows for it the widest
>> possible reuse permitted by CC-BY-SA, thus sharing part of its
>> copyright with others,  but if one wants to use the photo for
>> commercial purposes that he should go (himself, not the author)
>> through the hassle of obtaining permission from the relevant subjects.
>>
>> Could it work?
>>
>
> No. CC-BY-SA clearly allows for commercial use of works, and there is
> also clause that the licence cannot be accompanied by extra
> restrictions which are not compatible with the licence.  However,
> CC-BY-SA is only copyrights licence, so all other legal restrictionz
> are still in power. For example: using someone's face in big-scale
> commercial or political campaign may be treated as a infringement of
> personal rights, even if the face is taken from CC-BY-SA picture...

I really can't figure out the difference between your example about
personality rights  and my previous, so I don't see why you're saying
that the above approch could not work, but IANAL.

As I said above I think this restrinction on commercial use of the
images imposed by IOC is not about copyright but is on a different
level and AFAICT is very similar to the case of personality rights to
some extent. So may you clarify?

Thanks,
Cristian

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

[Ray Saintonge]

On 07/25/12 12:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:


So there were how many years of faffing about before they hired *one guy*
for this project? This is an organisation with a $20m annual budget, now
acquiring umpteen paid chapter officials.

The "paid chapter officials" are employees of the chapters themselves. 
The best way to bring hostility against your own pet projects is by 
being hostile towards the projects of others. What makes one project 
more deserving than another.


Ray


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

On 26 July 2012 02:57, Kim Bruning  wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 09:48:50PM +0200, Svip wrote:
> > Oh and here is a fun fact I have discovered over the years; reading
> > large texts of a serif typeface is a lot easier than a sans-serif
> > typeface.
>
>
> See, I'm *not* crazy to think that! 
>
> That's why I still use the classic skin, it's the only skin that
> has serif fonts for body text. :-/
>
>
Serif vs. sans for legiblity: the jury's still out. It's been a contentious
question for ages (see
http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are-more-legible-serif-or-sans-serif-typefaces/
for
a discussion, with plenty of sources, in 2008).

The one thing we know for sure is that as displays get better and better,
we'll be able to approach paper typography better and better.

Incindentally, you can safely switch to Vector and edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yourusername/vector.css to contain
something like

#bodyContent { font-family: Georgia, serif; }

(Change "Georgia" to your favourite serif font or leave it out to have the
browser choose a default).

Michel
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l