Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA
On 24 February 2014 20:51, Galileo Vidoni gali...@gmail.com wrote: However, over the last months certain Wikimedia Commons administrators have conducted massive deletions of these contents, in many cases involving entire categories. The burden of proof has been inverted: instead of having to justify the deletion of a certain file, things go that volunteers have to devout their time trying to justify the validity of their efforts. This has caused great damage, not only by way of our readers loosing access to free educational contents, but also de-motivating many editors and volunteers by making them feel that their efforts are ultimately vain and that our goal of free knowledge for everyone is being replaced by a certain legal fetishism whose reason gets lost in processes and misses the outcome. This strongly suggests that URAA is a good reason to deprecate Commons, and have language wikis self-host images that fail the more unduly stringent requirements Commons is manifesting these days. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Cool Projects
2014-02-26 5:34 GMT+01:00 Àlex Hinojo alexhin...@gmail.com: thanks A LOT for all your hours and your time. strong +1. Also I think that the fact of being able of creating something that can continue after you is a great achievement and you should be proud of that. Enjoy the seats! C ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA)
I'm sorry but I find it pretty inappropriate that a chapter published such strong words about volunteers of a Wikimedia Project *certain legal fetishism whose reason gets lost in processes and misses the outcome.* I'm speaking on my behalf, however as a former board member of a Wikimedia Chapter I would never ever publish such a text, it's uncalled for and inappropriate to judge so strongly volunteers who dededicate their time for our common mission Free educational knowledge http://www.wikimedia.org/. As a Wikimedia Commons volunteer I'm disappointed by the process followed by some chapters, i.e. which have chosen to bypass the community and send a letter directly to the board of trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation. However, I must say I would have prefered the chapters to talk with the principal stakeholders, i.e. all the communities. I know, said chapters are not forced to talk with the communities but It is rather ironical, when ignoring the stakeholder is a blame that I have heard a lot this month :p I believe the community as a whole is capable of complex discussion and decision as proven by the *Trademark policy consultation*, or the *reclaim community logo discussions*. The thing that sadden the most is that I believe discussion on the URAA application is important movement wide (and also for the spread of free knowledge), however this discussion doesn't start on a good process and some letters were not mellow. I know people might not share my point of view on how we should work together as a movement, however I wanted to state it. That being said, it doesn't change all the good work done by WMIL, WMES, WMAR, and I'll be happy to talk with anyone of you guys around a drink the next time we can meet to share our vision of the movement. *Disclaimer:* I'm writting on my own capacity, my opinion as an administrator (and oversighter) on Commons is that I'm pretty neutral on the URAA matter, what I want and need is a community consensus to apply when I'm using the tools the Community gave me. Sincerely, Pierre-Selim 2014-02-24 21:51 GMT+01:00 Galileo Vidoni gali...@gmail.com: Dear movement fellows, Wikimedia Argentina would like to express its support for the letter by Wikimedia Israel regarding URAA-motivated massive content deletions in Wikimedia Commons. Yet, we would like to express our view not only to the Foundation BoT but also to all Wikimedia editors, and especially to those working in Wikimedia Commons. Volunteers from Argentina have been among the most affected by the policy adopted by Wikimedia Commons administrators regarding images that could fall under URAA copyright provisions. Argentine copyright law provides that images enter the public domain only 25 years after their production and 20 after their first documented publication. This relatively generous criterion has enabled unaffiliated volunteers and we as Wikimedia Argentina to enrich Commons with hundreds of thousands of historical images that are absolutely free under Argentine law: images of the political and every day life of the country, of its culture, of its popular idols, of its joyful and dark days, of its customs and architecture. However, over the last months certain Wikimedia Commons administrators have conducted massive deletions of these contents, in many cases involving entire categories. The burden of proof has been inverted: instead of having to justify the deletion of a certain file, things go that volunteers have to devout their time trying to justify the validity of their efforts. This has caused great damage, not only by way of our readers loosing access to free educational contents, but also de-motivating many editors and volunteers by making them feel that their efforts are ultimately vain and that our goal of free knowledge for everyone is being replaced by a certain legal fetishism whose reason gets lost in processes and misses the outcome. We acknowledge that the Wikimedia Foundation BoT and its Legal team have repeatedly stated, as has been reinforced in recent communications, that images shouldn't be deleted unless we receive a takedown notice, and that it has not received a single URAA-motivated notice to date. Certain Wikimedia Commons administrators have dismissed the Foundation's statement as a mere opinion vis-à-vis the SCOTUS ruling. Yet, it is an opinion by the organization that is legally responsible for the contents being hosted in Wikimedia Commons. We respectfully call the Wikimedia Commons community to reflect on the practical consequences of its current policy on URAA's implementation. Those files generating potential conflict could be even identified as such without the need for a pre-emptive deletion. And we would like the Commons community to reflect not only on the preventive loss of free contents we are generating, but also on the harmful disconnection between Wikimedia Commons and all of the other Wikimedia projects it serves as
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA)
2014-02-26 13:26 GMT+01:00 Pierre-Selim pierre-se...@huard.info: As a Wikimedia Commons volunteer I'm disappointed by the process followed by some chapters, i.e. which have chosen to bypass the community and send a letter directly to the board of trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation. However, I must say I would have prefered the chapters to talk with the principal stakeholders, i.e. all the communities. I know, said chapters are not forced to talk with the communities but It is rather ironical, when ignoring the stakeholder is a blame that I have heard a lot this month :p WM-IL and the other chapters have posted a text on meta, saying what they think. I don't know how this counts as bypassing the community, isn't Meta the place where the community discuss? That said, it is not the first time I see strong opinions in a discussion within our community. Also note, that these open letters do not imply any decision (as the board resolution, which you are referring to, did). C ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA)
Maybe it's a cultural issue, does e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_letter have a geopolitically limited point of view? Open letters are a common tool of *discussion* with the public (= community in our case) in the corners of the world that I know best. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] [WMCON14] Next version of the programme outline published
Dear fellow Wikimedians,
the programme team has just published an updated version of the
sessions that we are planning to cover at the Wikimedia Conference
(April 10-13, Berlin): Right now, we have 30 sessions on the
agenda![1]
Please note that this is still work in progress, it is not all set in
stone - at least not yet. We will now be working with the facilitators
to figure out the best possible session formats and will present a
schedule draft by mid March.
We are still looking for several speakers, panellists and discussion
partners among the participants, and have indicated this need with an
OPEN CALL for speakers for the respective sessions. Several sessions
still need qualified speakers, please reach out to the programme team
and express your interest in preparing and holding or contributing
otherwise to a session.
The official programme of the conference starts on Friday. For groups
who would like to arrange separate or special meetings, we have
reserved the conference venue for an Open Thursday already[2]. Please
get in touch with WMDE's event management (wmcon{{@}}wikimedia.de) to
make respective arrangements.
Let us know if you have any comments, ideas, wishes or concerns and
help us make this conference very productive and sustainable.
Best regards, on behalf of the programme team,
Nicole
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014/Programme
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014/Open_Thursday
--
Nicole Ebber
Leiterin Internationales
Head of International Affairs
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49 30 219158 26-0
http://wikimedia.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,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA)
On 26 February 2014 13:51, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe it's a cultural issue, does e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_letter have a geopolitically limited point of view? Open letters are a common tool of *discussion* with the public (= community in our case) in the corners of the world that I know best. As a major unpaid Commons contributor, I find these emotive and political emails to lists and open letters elsewhere confusing and rather wasteful of the good faith volunteer effort behind them. If anyone wants to create meaningful and lasting change to Commons, then please create a Request for Comment on Commons[1] rather than making a fuss and criticising Commons (volunteer) administrators in non-Commons discussion channels, which most Commons volunteers are unlikely to either notice or care much about. For Chapters, I suggest you check who among your active volunteers are most active on Commons[2] and ask them to help engage or create discussion about policy and guideline changes. If you cannot find anyone close to your chapter that is active and engaged on Commons, perhaps you should change that situation before firing off official letters. Links: 1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:RFC 2. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Userlist Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA)
Wait, aren't the chapters composed from people from the wikimedia community? Also, didn't you guys stop by a second to think the chapter thoroughly discussed the contents of the letter with its members, which may vote in favor or against publishing it? And if it is on Meta, is open to discussion, no? Finally, in Venezuela we say el que se pica es porque ají come. No need to take it personally if you are not among those certain Commons admins, right? Sent from Samsung Mobile Original message From: Fæ fae...@gmail.com Date: 26/02/2014 18:46 (GMT+02:00) To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA) On 26 February 2014 13:51, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe it's a cultural issue, does e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_letter have a geopolitically limited point of view? Open letters are a common tool of *discussion* with the public (= community in our case) in the corners of the world that I know best. As a major unpaid Commons contributor, I find these emotive and political emails to lists and open letters elsewhere confusing and rather wasteful of the good faith volunteer effort behind them. If anyone wants to create meaningful and lasting change to Commons, then please create a Request for Comment on Commons[1] rather than making a fuss and criticising Commons (volunteer) administrators in non-Commons discussion channels, which most Commons volunteers are unlikely to either notice or care much about. For Chapters, I suggest you check who among your active volunteers are most active on Commons[2] and ask them to help engage or create discussion about policy and guideline changes. If you cannot find anyone close to your chapter that is active and engaged on Commons, perhaps you should change that situation before firing off official letters. Links: 1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:RFC 2. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Userlist Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA)
On 26 February 2014 16:46, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: If anyone wants to create meaningful and lasting change to Commons, then please create a Request for Comment on Commons[1] rather than making a fuss and criticising Commons (volunteer) administrators in non-Commons discussion channels, which most Commons volunteers are unlikely to either notice or care much about. The trouble with your proposed course of action is that it seems the action *least* likely to resolve the problem. Commons is at a stage where the problems with its approach can only be worked around. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA
Hi, ... Many years ago, the editors of the Spanish Wikipedia decided to close the possibility to directly host images, choosing instead to use Wikimedia Commons. If we miss the opportunity to find a workaround that saves hundreds of thousands of images from an unrequested deletion that hurts our very mission, Wikipedia editors could ultimately evaluate reversing that decision, reopening project-hosted uploads just to avoid the restrictive and exclusionary URAA interpretation that Wikimedia Commons has been sustaining against the Foundation's political and legal advice. That would be far from being an optimal outcome. The french version of Wikipedia http://fr.wikipedia.org is already doing that by keeping pictures of recent buildings that got erased from Commons. So I think you should do exactly the same and keep all those documents in your local Wikipedia until they become Free enough for Commons. If you can read french, the decision is here : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Prise_de_d%C3%A9cision/Remise_en_cause_de_l%27exception_au_droit_d%27auteur_sur_les_b%C3%A2timents_r%C3%A9cents Best regards. -- Lionel Allorge April : http://www.april.org Lune Rouge : http://www.lunerouge.org Wikimedia France : http://wikimedia.fr ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA)
On 26 February 2014 17:07, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 26 February 2014 16:46, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: If anyone wants to create meaningful and lasting change to Commons, then please create a Request for Comment on Commons[1] rather than making a fuss and criticising Commons (volunteer) administrators in non-Commons discussion channels, which most Commons volunteers are unlikely to either notice or care much about. The trouble with your proposed course of action is that it seems the action *least* likely to resolve the problem. Commons is at a stage where the problems with its approach can only be worked around. No David. It is just the least dramatic approach. As for the mantra OMG Commons is broken, you wore out that record a long time ago. Those using channels elsewhere to create noise and heat, can hardly be considered to be using their time to help us reach a community consensus if deliberately avoiding the community they are targeting. Folks, dust off your Wikimedia Commons accounts, and log in. You can start by raising your issues at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:VP rather than by sending emails or writing in other places where Commons volunteers are never going to read your opinion. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA
Hi, 2014-02-26 16:01 GMT+05:30 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: On 24 February 2014 20:51, Galileo Vidoni gali...@gmail.com wrote: However, over the last months certain Wikimedia Commons administrators have conducted massive deletions of these contents, in many cases involving entire categories. The burden of proof has been inverted: instead of having to justify the deletion of a certain file, things go that volunteers have to devout their time trying to justify the validity of their efforts. This has caused great damage, not only by way of our readers loosing access to free educational contents, but also de-motivating many editors and volunteers by making them feel that their efforts are ultimately vain and that our goal of free knowledge for everyone is being replaced by a certain legal fetishism whose reason gets lost in processes and misses the outcome. This strongly suggests that URAA is a good reason to deprecate Commons, and have language wikis self-host images that fail the more unduly stringent requirements Commons is manifesting these days. If only some Commons admins were not pursuing a political campaign to delete all these under false pretences, everything would be much better. Regards, Yann ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA)
Hi, 2014-02-26 22:56 GMT+05:30 Fæ fae...@gmail.com: On 26 February 2014 17:07, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 26 February 2014 16:46, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: If anyone wants to create meaningful and lasting change to Commons, then please create a Request for Comment on Commons[1] rather than making a fuss and criticising Commons (volunteer) administrators in non-Commons discussion channels, which most Commons volunteers are unlikely to either notice or care much about. The trouble with your proposed course of action is that it seems the action *least* likely to resolve the problem. Commons is at a stage where the problems with its approach can only be worked around. No David. It is just the least dramatic approach. As for the mantra OMG Commons is broken, you wore out that record a long time ago. Those using channels elsewhere to create noise and heat, can hardly be considered to be using their time to help us reach a community consensus if deliberately avoiding the community they are targeting. Folks, dust off your Wikimedia Commons accounts, and log in. You can start by raising your issues at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:VP rather than by sending emails or writing in other places where Commons volunteers are never going to read your opinion. On this, I agree (at least partially) with David. If only some Commons admins were not pursuing a political campaign to delete URAA-affected files under false pretences, everything would be much better. I am not saying (yet) that Commons cannot be fixed, but there is certainly wrong there. I am thankful to the board who, in its last statement, has taken a position allowing the community to find a solution to these files. However some admins continue to ignore that, and to oppose any kind of proposition. This needs to change. If these admins didn't take that position, no chapter would have felt the need to send such letters. Regards, Yann ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA)
On 26 February 2014 17:55, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote: ... On this, I agree (at least partially) with David. If only some Commons admins were not pursuing a political campaign to delete URAA-affected files under false pretences, everything would be much better. If you have the evidence that individual troublesome Commons admins are disrupting Commons against the aims of the project, then desysop them. As you know Yann, Commons has a simple governance process compared to most other Wikimedia projects, as described at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/De-adminship. After the required /on-project/ discussion, the number of desysop votes needed would be fewer than the number of active members of most Chapters as it only needs a 50% majority to take effect. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA)
Fæ, 26/02/2014 17:46: For Chapters, I suggest you check who among your active volunteers are most active on Commons[2] and ask them to help engage or create discussion about policy and guideline changes. If you cannot find anyone close to your chapter that is active and engaged on Commons, perhaps you should change that situation before firing off official letters. As for WMIT, we're considering to write one letter too and of course we'll give maximum priority to the opinion and advice of our members who are active on Commons and Wikisource. I've not reviewed the exact wording of each letter to ensure they don't attack/offend Commons: they certainly should not, the hard-working and backlog-overwhelmed Commons users are jewels; but I think on-wiki essays, including open letters, are an entirely legitimate method for any person or group to freely express their opinion on any Wikimedia topic. Especially on Meta-Wiki, freedom of opinion and expression from all wikimedians is highly valued. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA)
2014-02-26 23:39 GMT+05:30 Fæ fae...@gmail.com: On 26 February 2014 17:55, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote: ... On this, I agree (at least partially) with David. If only some Commons admins were not pursuing a political campaign to delete URAA-affected files under false pretences, everything would be much better. If you have the evidence that individual troublesome Commons admins are disrupting Commons against the aims of the project, then desysop them. Hopefully, we will not go that far. The debate is still going on. Yann ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] ( National Students Union of India ) Goa- State President. Sanjay R.S.
( National Students Union of India ) Goa- State President. Sanjay R.S. Like his father, Sanjay Roque Santan started his public life at an early age while in high school by participate in the 1979, 50% concession struggle of Goan students, Public transport on strike he is known to have walked the whole distance from Velim to Panjim to participate in the struggle. He was the front leader in the HSSC marks scandal which rocked the Government of Goa in the early 80’s. Together they won free education for all in Goa up to degree level. People close to Sanjay say that he has worked closely with AICC(I) leaders namely Ramesh Chennithala of Kerala, Mukul Wasnik, Farid Arrifudin, Manish Tewari and Oscar Fernades for Congress President Rajiv Gandhi, He was Goan student representative to Bombay University student council in 1985. He was appointed as State president in 1988(1988-1995). As the State President of National Students Union of India(NSUI), frontal organization and the student wing of the Congress party, under his leadership Goa- NSUI won several University students councils for the Congress party. Names of his office bearers from the Congress house, Panjim files are Vice-President Daniel Britto, Sandesh Padiyar, Orlando Menezes, General Secretaries , Uttam Raut Dessai, Chitra Shriwaikar, Clemente Desouza, Treasurer Agnelo Fernandes, South Goa District President Amresh Ramesh Naik, Joint secretaries, Merwyn Fernandes, Amul Dessai, Legal cell, Eddison D’Cruz. Medical Cell Zelio Dmel Sanjay is known by his associates for his aggressive work ethics, basically warrier at the core, after the 1989 All India Congress, AICC(I) session in New Delhi he got into open confrontation with the Goa Pradesh Congress Committee, GPCC(I) top brass for not implementation the party aims and objectives of grass root level party building putting up a bold face that nobody was spared. As the member of the Congress Pradesh candidate selection committee for All India General election of 1989 and 1991 a state apex body for the selection of wining candidates for the Congress party he stood for Rajiv Gandhi’s intention to deny part tickets for economic offenders. In1989 Sanjay was under age to contest Assembly Elections. All his state office bearers say Sanjay had a clear vision, wanted to eradicate corrupt elements within the party and was campaigning for a law to keep economic offenders and criminal convicts out of the Democratic process. He wanted to review all Goan land sale transaction and suspicious power of attorney under Congress rule in Goa in the interest of public. We here in Panjim are waiting for his reaction to Lokpal law. Having seen his classmates suffered and his academic life disturbed by ‘always absent teacher’ who was a politician he also wanted teachers out of active politics. Sanjay was the Chairman, All Goa Anti-Smoking and Anti-Drugs Campaign and submitted recommendations to Goa Government to end smoking and drugs in and around college campuses. He was part of the NSUI delegation to the 1989 International Youth Conference held in Korea, 1991 he was part of 11 member South Asian United Nation delegation to Manila, Philippines to study urban and rural poverty. In 1993 he submitted case studies to United nations with regards to Safat, Kuwait, Dubai and Manama, Bahrain labour conditions to press for minimum wage and dignity of domestic/commercial labour in oil rich countries. In 1994 he was part of a 6 member Capitalist Economics Forum to study Presidential form of Democracy in Washington DC, USA and Parliamentary form of Democracy in London, UK. At a press briefing in Panjim on 22-23st May 1991 following the tragic assassination of AICC(I) President Rajiv Gandhi at the hands of LTTE, himself physically shaken and choked he expressed shock and sorrow at the life cut short of a leader who had all good intentions for the people of India, there on in the absence of genuine leadership Sanjay is said to have found himself in a vacuum, his work grind to a halt. Despite several requests from his side of stepping down he was told to continue and tried to work under the leadership of Narasimha Rao AICC(I) President and Prime Minister. In 1991 he lead the Goa NSUI delegation demanding to erect a life size statue of Rajiv Gandhi in the Goa Medical College Complex, Bambolim, Goa. A copy of a resignation letter from Congress house Panjim, NSUI files, dated 21st Dec 1995 addressed to All India NSUI President, Salem Ahmed the whole state committee signed and resigned ‘to make way for the new committee’ , some time there after he left this country and is heard to have settled in USA, is married and has a son. Sanjay’s well wishers are waiting for his return to Goa the place he and his family loves. Descending from the ancient royal family which ruled south Indian mainlands for over a thousand years, Sanjay’s family still occupies and live in one of their royal premises by the
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA
Thanks for your replies. We'll surely take the French precedent into account if Commons' admins fail to reconsider the current policies and we propose hosting images on the Spanish Wikipedia. By the way, I forgot to mention that we've also published this letter on Meta and that there's also an ongoing discussion there: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Argentina/Open_letter_regarding_URAA Best, Galileo On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, 2014-02-26 16:01 GMT+05:30 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: On 24 February 2014 20:51, Galileo Vidoni gali...@gmail.com wrote: However, over the last months certain Wikimedia Commons administrators have conducted massive deletions of these contents, in many cases involving entire categories. The burden of proof has been inverted: instead of having to justify the deletion of a certain file, things go that volunteers have to devout their time trying to justify the validity of their efforts. This has caused great damage, not only by way of our readers loosing access to free educational contents, but also de-motivating many editors and volunteers by making them feel that their efforts are ultimately vain and that our goal of free knowledge for everyone is being replaced by a certain legal fetishism whose reason gets lost in processes and misses the outcome. This strongly suggests that URAA is a good reason to deprecate Commons, and have language wikis self-host images that fail the more unduly stringent requirements Commons is manifesting these days. If only some Commons admins were not pursuing a political campaign to delete all these under false pretences, everything would be much better. Regards, Yann ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA
On 24 February 2014 20:51, Galileo Vidoni gali...@gmail.com wrote: Dear movement fellows, Wikimedia Argentina would like to express its support for the letter by Wikimedia Israel regarding URAA-motivated massive content deletions in Wikimedia Commons. Yet, we would like to express our view not only to the Foundation BoT but also to all Wikimedia editors, and especially to those working in Wikimedia Commons. Volunteers from Argentina have been among the most affected by the policy adopted by Wikimedia Commons administrators regarding images that could fall under URAA copyright provisions. Argentine copyright law provides that images enter the public domain only 25 years after their production and 20 after their first documented publication. You really should cite the relevant law if you want commons to pay attention to you. Okey I get that the 20 years come from Article 34 but I'm not sure where the 25 years comes from. This relatively generous criterion has enabled unaffiliated volunteers and we as Wikimedia Argentina to enrich Commons with hundreds of thousands of historical images that are absolutely free under Argentine law: images of the political and every day life of the country, of its culture, of its popular idols, of its joyful and dark days, of its customs and architecture. Absolutely free? Not so. Due to Article 31 pretty much any photo that shows a person who hasn't been dead for 20 years isn't free (this is a side effect of Argentina going for a rather extreme form of personality rights) I'd also advise you against hosting locally. Under Article 72 bis (d) copyright violations can carry a prison sentence. -- geni ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] VisualEditor Office Hours for March April
Hi, guys. I just wanted to let you know, so you could mark your calendars if interested, that there are two IRC office hours scheduled to discuss VisualEditor in March and one in April. The first will be held on Monday March 17 at 1500 UTC and the second will be held on Wednesday March 19 at 0100 UTC. (See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours for time conversion links.) Logs will be posted on meta after each office hour completes. You'll find them, along with logs for older office hours on the topic, at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:VisualEditor_office_hours_logs The April office hour is scheduled for Saturday April 19 at 2000 UTC. Please see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours for more information on what office hours are and how to join in. Thanks! Maggie -- Maggie Dennis Senior Community Advocate Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA
[Sorry for this excurse] Dear Geni, the 20 years indeed come from article 24 of law 11 723. The 25 years come from the Berne Convention. In any case, Argentine copyright law is already known and documented in Commons, and we have been using a specific template (PD-AR-Photo) for years. Regarding article 31, personality rights do not apply to public activities; what the law is protecting are private portraits in particular: Publication of portraits is free when related with scientific, didactical and in general cultural goals, or with facts or events in the public interest or that have developed in public. Best, Galileo On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:51 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 February 2014 20:51, Galileo Vidoni gali...@gmail.com wrote: Dear movement fellows, Wikimedia Argentina would like to express its support for the letter by Wikimedia Israel regarding URAA-motivated massive content deletions in Wikimedia Commons. Yet, we would like to express our view not only to the Foundation BoT but also to all Wikimedia editors, and especially to those working in Wikimedia Commons. Volunteers from Argentina have been among the most affected by the policy adopted by Wikimedia Commons administrators regarding images that could fall under URAA copyright provisions. Argentine copyright law provides that images enter the public domain only 25 years after their production and 20 after their first documented publication. You really should cite the relevant law if you want commons to pay attention to you. Okey I get that the 20 years come from Article 34 but I'm not sure where the 25 years comes from. This relatively generous criterion has enabled unaffiliated volunteers and we as Wikimedia Argentina to enrich Commons with hundreds of thousands of historical images that are absolutely free under Argentine law: images of the political and every day life of the country, of its culture, of its popular idols, of its joyful and dark days, of its customs and architecture. Absolutely free? Not so. Due to Article 31 pretty much any photo that shows a person who hasn't been dead for 20 years isn't free (this is a side effect of Argentina going for a rather extreme form of personality rights) I'd also advise you against hosting locally. Under Article 72 bis (d) copyright violations can carry a prison sentence. -- geni ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA
On 26 February 2014 22:39, Galileo Vidoni gali...@gmail.com wrote: [Sorry for this excurse] Dear Geni, the 20 years indeed come from article 24 of law 11 723. The 25 years come from the Berne Convention. But that merely established a minimum under international law. Unless you have some case law that says otherwise I'd suggest that article 6 applies to unpublished photographs which results in an effective term of life+10 for unpublished photographs (although life+30 could be gained through careful timing of publication). In any case, Argentine copyright law is already known and documented in Commons, and we have been using a specific template (PD-AR-Photo) for years. See the last section of the template talk page which covers some of the issues the template has with US law. I'm afraid years of use doesn't mean that it has been reviewed by common's more serious copyright nerds. -- geni ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA)
I really expect to not being, what in Brazil we call as jogar lenha na fogueira (throw fuel on the fire in a literal translation) but... The question here is something that the Board of Trustees known since 2007 [1], when it raised firstly by Wikisource volunteers: what to do with works still protected in USA but PD-old on country of origin? They finally remembered to research for legal advice for better alternates than making forks only recently, getting an answer more than one year ago [2]. So instead of communities fighting against communities we must demand that the Wikimedia Foundation really research on ways to proper support free knowledge in all countries, acting more quickly, instead of ignoring such subjects as they are shamefully doing until now. Or it will end as some suggested to me back in 2007: every national groups making local forks and stopping to contribute in a global platform. [[:m:User:555]] [1] - https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=639122oldid=619743 [2] - https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=5216837 On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-02-26 23:39 GMT+05:30 Fæ fae...@gmail.com: On 26 February 2014 17:55, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote: ... On this, I agree (at least partially) with David. If only some Commons admins were not pursuing a political campaign to delete URAA-affected files under false pretences, everything would be much better. If you have the evidence that individual troublesome Commons admins are disrupting Commons against the aims of the project, then desysop them. Hopefully, we will not go that far. The debate is still going on. Yann ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA)
Look, I have no problem with the open letters from WM Venezuela, España or Israel. I might not agree 100% with everything in them, but they are generally on top of the issues, and they focus on the problems they law poses for us and our need for better solutions - all worth bringing to a wider audience. But the letter from WM Argentina is very different. It condemns the actions of certain Wikimedia Commons administrators who have deleted URAA-affected files (without naming them or linking to any of the relevant deletions), and makes various claims about how Commons policy and practice has changed and is inconsistent with statements by the WMF Board and Legal team. If you want to make these sorts of claims in an open letter, you should be ready to back them up. But WM Argentina cannot do so IMO, because many of their claims are untrue. Our practice is consistent with the WMF Board and Legal team statements, and it isn't true that the burden of proof has been inverted - the burden of proof has always been on those who want us to keep hosting a file. These sorts of mistakes could easily have been avoided if they had talked directly to experienced Commons editors first. I'm a Commons admin, but I'm fairly inactive these days and I don't believe I have deleted any URAA-affected files, so I don't think I am one of the certain Commons admins they refer to. But I do find defamation of hard-working members of my community offensive. If WM Argentina wants to respectfully call the Wikimedia Commons community to reflect on something, that does not seem the best way to start. On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 6:03 AM, Carlos M. Colina ma...@wikimedia.org.vewrote: Wait, aren't the chapters composed from people from the wikimedia community? Also, didn't you guys stop by a second to think the chapter thoroughly discussed the contents of the letter with its members, which may vote in favor or against publishing it? And if it is on Meta, is open to discussion, no? Finally, in Venezuela we say el que se pica es porque ají come. No need to take it personally if you are not among those certain Commons admins, right? Sent from Samsung Mobile ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
