[Wikimedia-l] Reminder: Call for volunteers: Election Committee
Hi Everyone, 2013 is an election year for the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation. As you may recall the board has three directly elected representatives on it which serve for two years. Currently those are Mindspillage, SJ and Wing. As in the past years we rely on an effective election committee to coordinate the elections for us. They not only guarantee that the election is overseen by an independent body, but they also make sure that the tremendous amount of work that needs to be done is taken care of. My job is to coordinate the formation of this committee. This is a call for volunteers to serve on the election committee. If you feel that you can contribute to this committee, please contact me and give a small summary of why you think you would be able to help out with this process. Just to make sure we all understand: you cannot be part of the election committee if you are planning to be a candidate or are planning to support any candidate publicly. Deadline for any extra volunteers is January 31st 12:00 UTC. The timeline for the next steps in the process will be published somewhere in February by the election committee. So if you are interested in becoming a candidate, time to start preparing! Regards -- Ting Chen Member of the Board of Trustees Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. E-Mail: tc...@wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] OTRS summaries and statistics report, 2012
Keegan Peterzell wrote: 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/Reports/2012 2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS Nice. Thanks for putting this together. :-) MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2013 scholarship now accepting application
Glad to see the process is coming along :-) Could you please clarify the purpose of one of the mandatory questions in the form: Hong Kong is an international gourmet paradise. Please use less than 200 words to describe your favourite dish of food. Is this an English-language test? Or, is this to help determine the best catering options? Or something else? -Liam wittylama.com Peace, love metadata On 22 January 2013 05:03, Simon Shek simon.s...@wikimedia.hk wrote: Hi all, Scholarship applications for Wikimania 2013 in Hong Kong are being accept. The application window is one month (through 22 February). Wikimania 2013 scholarship is an award given to an individual to enable them to attend Wikimania in Hong Kong from 7-11 August, 2013. Both types of scholarships will be available this year. Partial scholarships will cover travel expenses to Wikimania, capped at 50% of the estimated air fare from your nearest international airport according to [[wm2013:Getting to Hong Kong]]. Full scholarships will cover round-trip travel, dorms accommodations as arranged by the Wikimania Team, and registration for Wikimania 2013. Applicants will be rated on the following four dimensions: 1. Activity within Wikimedia (on-wiki and off-wiki) - 50% 2. Activity outside of Wikimedia and other free knowledge/software projects - 15% 3. Interest in Wikimania and the Wikimedia movement - 25% 4. Fluency of English language - 10% To learn more about Wikimania 2013 scholarships, please visit https://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships To apply for a scholarship, you can fill out the application form here: https://scholarship.wikimedia.hk If you have any question, email us at wikimania-shcolars...@wikimedia.org. Good luck! Simon Shek Community coordinator - Wikimania 2013 / Wikimedia Hong Kong wikimedia.hk ___ 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] Licencing question
On 22 January 2013 17:41, Philippe Beaudette phili...@wikimedia.org wrote: FYI, each and every edit on Commons has this text above the edit box: ...You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. Yeah, but Commons pulls in stuff from other CC-licenced places, so we can't presume the creators have clicked said button. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Licencing question
And I'm also unsure all the upload wizards have the same text? 2013/1/22 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com On 22 January 2013 17:41, Philippe Beaudette phili...@wikimedia.org wrote: FYI, each and every edit on Commons has this text above the edit box: ...You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. Yeah, but Commons pulls in stuff from other CC-licenced places, so we can't presume the creators have clicked said button. - d. ___ 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] Licencing question
I've always considered this poor policy on the part of Wikipedia; a sort of intellectual grab that we do so well :( I've uploaded images before by great photographers, after working to obtain their permission, and make a point of crediting them when inserting the image into the article - partly because it's useful to know and partly because it seems fair. Tom On 22 January 2013 17:46, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: And I'm also unsure all the upload wizards have the same text? 2013/1/22 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com On 22 January 2013 17:41, Philippe Beaudette phili...@wikimedia.org wrote: FYI, each and every edit on Commons has this text above the edit box: ...You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. Yeah, but Commons pulls in stuff from other CC-licenced places, so we can't presume the creators have clicked said button. - d. ___ 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] Licencing question
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: All, I have a question for you which I am sure you will enjoy discussing. It's about licencing. Wikimedia sites do not use a 'byline' on their images - for example, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page requires an image to be clicked on before you can view the licence and the author information. The same applies for Wikipedia, and the WMF (and WMUK) blogs. Hi Richard, On the Wikimedia blog, we include Copyright notes at the bottom of each post with images and include the Title of the photo, the author's name (and link to userpage if available) and the link to the relevant license page on CC or elsewhere. See for example: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/01/19/wikimedia-sites-move-to-primary-data-center-in-ashburn-virginia/ This process was formalized after a Commons user pointed out to us that we appeared not to be in compliance with the URI sub-clause of the CC-BY-SA license. cf sections 4 a) and 4 b) here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode Our legal team affirmed the Commons user's assertion and we have subsequently implemented the Copyright notes special field in the admin end or our blog. You can see a bit more info here on the instructions we give to post authors and editors: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Blog/Guidelines#Add_Copyright_Notes thanks, Matthew -- Matthew Roth Global Communications Manager Wikimedia Foundation +1.415.839.6885 ext 6635 www.wikimediafoundation.org *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] Licencing question
On 22 January 2013 16:51, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: It appears that opinion is divided on whether a hyperlink is acceptable as attribution, therefore I'm asking the experts: - Does anyone have any input on this? - Has this discussion been had before, if so, where? - Should Wikipedia, Commons and the various Wikimedia sites use the full byline, or are we OK just using a hyperlink? If we need to have bylines for images, surely we need them for text as well? It's been discussed hundreds of times before, as you can imagine. I'm not aware of any particular conclusions being reached, other than no-one caring enough to get the status quo changed. The issue of us taking freely licenced content from other sources is potentially more of an issue. When you submit something, you agree to be attributed through a link to the Wikipedia article, but when you import something the author has made no such agreement. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Licencing question
On 22/01/2013 18:28, Thomas Dalton wrote: On 22 January 2013 16:51, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: It appears that opinion is divided on whether a hyperlink is acceptable as attribution, therefore I'm asking the experts: - Does anyone have any input on this? - Has this discussion been had before, if so, where? - Should Wikipedia, Commons and the various Wikimedia sites use the full byline, or are we OK just using a hyperlink? If we need to have bylines for images, surely we need them for text as well? It's been discussed hundreds of times before, as you can imagine. I'm not aware of any particular conclusions being reached, other than no-one caring enough to get the status quo changed. The issue of us taking freely licenced content from other sources is potentially more of an issue. When you submit something, you agree to be attributed through a link to the Wikipedia article, but when you import something the author has made no such agreement. Commons may have related issues where they clone out a copyright watermark. If nothing else it is likely to aggravate the content creator and in the case of one German archive resulted in them saying that after donating 80,000 images they weren't donating any more images to Commons because of it. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Licencing question
2013/1/22 ??? wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk: On 22/01/2013 18:28, Thomas Dalton wrote: On 22 January 2013 16:51, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: It appears that opinion is divided on whether a hyperlink is acceptable as attribution, therefore I'm asking the experts: - Does anyone have any input on this? - Has this discussion been had before, if so, where? - Should Wikipedia, Commons and the various Wikimedia sites use the full byline, or are we OK just using a hyperlink? If we need to have bylines for images, surely we need them for text as well? It's been discussed hundreds of times before, as you can imagine. I'm not aware of any particular conclusions being reached, other than no-one caring enough to get the status quo changed. The issue of us taking freely licenced content from other sources is potentially more of an issue. When you submit something, you agree to be attributed through a link to the Wikipedia article, but when you import something the author has made no such agreement. Commons may have related issues where they clone out a copyright watermark. If nothing else it is likely to aggravate the content creator and in the case of one German archive resulted in them saying that after donating 80,000 images they weren't donating any more images to Commons because of it. That's a very simplified description of what happened. See e.g https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-11-22/News_and_notes ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Licencing question
Hi, great question, Richard! Seconding Matthew's comment on WMF blog policy: At Wikimedia Deutschland we adopted the bottom notes for posts with multiple images[1]. As a general rule, we include attribution in the bylines[2]. Adding yet another aspect to sufficient CC licensing, let's not forget that CC deeds actually recommend linking to deeds[3], as exemplified here[4]. I particularly like Thomas' notion of not differentiating between attribution requirements for text and images. From my personal understanding of CC license terms, I agree. There is no difference, which indeed leads to the question: How to deal with authorship attribution of dozens of authors (to pick a rather simple example) under CC-BY-SA in any convincing manner? That is, convincing as in intuitive and practical use cases. I sense that this is, first of all, an issue for Creative Commons licensing politics. Best, Michael [1] see e. g. https://blog.wikimedia.de/2013/01/17/die-gesichter-hinter-den-zahlen-ein-ruckblick-auf-die-spendenkampagne-2012-2/ [2] see e. g. https://blog.wikimedia.de/2013/01/21/die-server-der-wikimedia-foundation-ziehen-um/ [3] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ [4] please follow the asterisc here http://blog.wikimedia.de/2012/06/20/zahlen-und-bilder-die-wikimania-2012-in-washington-d-c/ 2013/1/22 Matthew Roth mr...@wikimedia.org On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: All, I have a question for you which I am sure you will enjoy discussing. It's about licencing. Wikimedia sites do not use a 'byline' on their images - for example, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page requires an image to be clicked on before you can view the licence and the author information. The same applies for Wikipedia, and the WMF (and WMUK) blogs. Hi Richard, On the Wikimedia blog, we include Copyright notes at the bottom of each post with images and include the Title of the photo, the author's name (and link to userpage if available) and the link to the relevant license page on CC or elsewhere. See for example: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/01/19/wikimedia-sites-move-to-primary-data-center-in-ashburn-virginia/ This process was formalized after a Commons user pointed out to us that we appeared not to be in compliance with the URI sub-clause of the CC-BY-SA license. cf sections 4 a) and 4 b) here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode Our legal team affirmed the Commons user's assertion and we have subsequently implemented the Copyright notes special field in the admin end or our blog. You can see a bit more info here on the instructions we give to post authors and editors: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Blog/Guidelines#Add_Copyright_Notes thanks, Matthew -- Matthew Roth Global Communications Manager Wikimedia Foundation +1.415.839.6885 ext 6635 www.wikimediafoundation.org *https://donate.wikimedia.org* ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Öffentlichkeitsarbeit Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstraße 72 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 260 http://wikimedia.de http://www.wikimedia.de Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch freien Zugang zu der Gesamtheit des Wissens der Menschheit hat. Helfen Sie uns dabei! *Helfen Sie mit, dass WIKIPEDIA von der UNESCO als erstes digitales Weltkulturerbe anerkannt wird. Unterzeichnen Sie die Online-Petition:* http://wikipedia.de/wke/Main_Page?setlang=de Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] OTRS summaries and statistics report, 2012
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 1:51 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Keegan Peterzell wrote: 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/Reports/2012 2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS Nice. Thanks for putting this together. :-) MZMcBride +1, thanks, this is a great report! It's very cool to see these numbers. Answering 50K emails, many of which are complex and delicate, is a pretty massive undertaking -- as ever I am super impressed with the diligence of our OTRS'ers! -- phoebe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
