Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: I've never heard Principle of Least Astonishment used this way. I've only heard it used in the context of software design- specifically user experience- and never to describe content. WP seems to agree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment Certain terms seem to have special significance in the WP community; is this one of those cases? Yes -- although I don't think it's been linked in this discussion, I'm pretty sure the resolution Kevin is referring to is this one: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content Two comments on that: - It does not have specific requirements of the community that must be complied with; rather, it makes suggestions of stuff to keep in mind, which have certainly been much discussed since the passage of the resolution in 2011; - Beyond the issues related to applying a principle of software design to the world of editorial judgment, this resolution has itself been the topic of some controversy in the Wikimedia movement. But not, as far as I'm aware, from the Commons community specifically; as I understand it, it was more a matter of the German Wikipedia community rebelling at the notion of a software feature designed to suppress (for instance) images depicting nudity from the default view (or even as an opt-in feature, since that would require tagging certain images in a way that might support entities outside Wikimedia to apply censorship.) FWIW, I'm not taken aback by words like fuck, but in my experience it always undermines serious arguments that it is used in. Agreed. Especially in a discussion of meeting cultural expectations, this seems like a very strange and provocative choice of words. Pete ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
On 13 May 2014 21:08, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: I've never heard Principle of Least Astonishment used this way. I've only heard it used in the context of software design- specifically user experience- and never to describe content. WP seems to agree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment Certain terms seem to have special significance in the WP community; is this one of those cases? FWIW, I'm not taken aback by words like fuck, but in my experience it always undermines serious arguments that it is used in. This is grand historic debate :-) POLA got thrown around a lot in the c. 2011 debates about whether WP should support/enable/allow/contemplate some kind of image filtering - it was used in the Board resolution which more or less kicked the whole thing off. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content The sense here seems to be that you might expect nudity on a medical or sexuality-related page, but you wouldn't expect random nudity in an article about a bridge.* But then, what level of nudity? Click-to-view? How graphic? etc. It's a good principle but relies on individual editorial common sense, which of course is very difficult to scale and very vulnerable to deliberate disruption. We had a few months of yelling, lots of grumbling and accusations of bad faith, and the whole thing eventually ground to a halt in late 2011 with very little actually done. The resolution is still out there, though... Andrew. * today's surprising fact: a particularly odd contributor tried to argue for this, at great length, in ~2005. I forget which article on enwiki it was. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
Pierre, if you could point out to where exactly I've insulted a volunteer I don't know, it would be appreciated. As someone who has been significantly active in meta-discussions about Commons, and at times significantly active on Commons, and who has monitored all traffic on all Wikimedia mailing lists (or at least 95% of it) for the last three years as well as a significant portion of traffic on individual projects, I'm also going to have to disagree with the idea that I know nothing about Commons :) Having looked back over my posts here, the closest I see is implicitly suggesting that Russavia might be snarky, and suggesting that people with advanced privileges on Commons, as a whole, have frequently exercised less than ideal judgement, as well as an incidental use of a profanity on my part (when interacting in multiple contexts at once, I don't always context switch appropriately.) The first two things which could be conceived as insults (I suppose) are first and foremost true, and secondarily I'm sure that Russavia can deal having it suggested that he might, sometimes, be kind of snarky. Kevin Gorman On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Pierre-Selim pierre-se...@huard.infowrote: How about you shut your mouth and stop insulting volunteer from other projects that you just don't know. Really that would spare a lot of time to everyone here on this mailing list. 2014-05-13 21:39 GMT+02:00 Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com: Pete: there's not really any point in making this thread a laundry list of times that admins and crats on commons fucked up vs times they didn't fuck up. There are plenty of historical decisions on Commons that I agree wholeheartedly with. There have even been cases where I advanced arguments in deletion nominations that I honestly didn't expect to be accepted that were, including one instance where someone who initially voted keep took the time to go ahead and read the laws of the country the photograph was taken in w/r/t identifiable people and changed his vote. Instances like that are absolutely commendable, but they're also far from universal. Admins and crats on commons have also historically made a large number of decisions that fly in the face of WMF board resolutions, often repeatedly. Commons doesn't speak with a unified voice, but people with advanced userrights on Commons do speak with a louder voice than the rest of the community, in that they have the ostensible authority to actually carry out their actions. A project where people with advanced userrights fairly regularly make decisions that fly in the face of WMF board resolutions and are not censured by their peers is a project with problems. David: I haven't seen anyone assert that the image in question isn't a violation of the principle of least astonishment. I've seen several people suggest the image was acceptable for other reasons. If you can articulate a reasonable (i.e., not full of snark and one that indicates you've read at least most of the ongoing discussion) argument that putting the image in question on Commons frontpage (and the frontpage of numerous other projects in the process,) is not a violation of the principle of least astonishment, I'd love to hear it. Especially if you craft your argument to recognize the fact that the image was both displayed on projects that didn't speak any of the languages it was captioned in, and given that most Wikimedia viewers can't actually play our video formats. I guess you could argue that the resolution only says that the board supports the POLA rather than requires it, but that's a rather weak argument for putting a grainy black and white stack of dead corpses linking to a video many can't play that's only captioned in a handful of langauges on the frontpage of a project that serves projects in 287 different languages. Kevin Gorman On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:14 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 May 2014 05:04, Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com wrote: No, Russavia: I'm not suggesting that Commons' policies should mirror those of ENWP. I'm suggesting that Commons should have a process in place that ensures that it follows the clearly established resolutions of the WMF board, which I would remind you *do* trump local policy. This particular incident failed to do so, and it's not the first time that such a thing has occurred on Commons. See, there you're asserting that this is a slam-dunk violation, and it's really clear just from this thread that it really isn't. Your personal feelings are not the determinant of Wikimedia comment, and won't become so through repetition. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
I don't think it's a secret that I've also been active on the Wikipediocracy forums. I've seen some rough stuff over there, and I've even started a thread lecturing them on the nature of their discourse: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13t=4527 That said, I haven't seen anyone on Wikipediocracy treat another person in their forums like this yet. My point is that no matter what our views on Wikipedia, parts of the WP community, and individuals within that community, everyone benefits from each participant in the discussion holding themselves to high standards of personal respect and everyone loses when disagreement turns to insult. Forums with these kinds of comments are not taken as seriously as more civil forums, and anyone who chooses to express themselves this way should think about how it impacts everyone else in the group. There. I'm done lecturing now. :) ,Wil On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Pierre-Selim pierre-se...@huard.info wrote: How about you shut your mouth and stop insulting volunteer from other projects that you just don't know. Really that would spare a lot of time to everyone here on this mailing list. 2014-05-13 21:39 GMT+02:00 Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com: Pete: there's not really any point in making this thread a laundry list of times that admins and crats on commons fucked up vs times they didn't fuck up. There are plenty of historical decisions on Commons that I agree wholeheartedly with. There have even been cases where I advanced arguments in deletion nominations that I honestly didn't expect to be accepted that were, including one instance where someone who initially voted keep took the time to go ahead and read the laws of the country the photograph was taken in w/r/t identifiable people and changed his vote. Instances like that are absolutely commendable, but they're also far from universal. Admins and crats on commons have also historically made a large number of decisions that fly in the face of WMF board resolutions, often repeatedly. Commons doesn't speak with a unified voice, but people with advanced userrights on Commons do speak with a louder voice than the rest of the community, in that they have the ostensible authority to actually carry out their actions. A project where people with advanced userrights fairly regularly make decisions that fly in the face of WMF board resolutions and are not censured by their peers is a project with problems. David: I haven't seen anyone assert that the image in question isn't a violation of the principle of least astonishment. I've seen several people suggest the image was acceptable for other reasons. If you can articulate a reasonable (i.e., not full of snark and one that indicates you've read at least most of the ongoing discussion) argument that putting the image in question on Commons frontpage (and the frontpage of numerous other projects in the process,) is not a violation of the principle of least astonishment, I'd love to hear it. Especially if you craft your argument to recognize the fact that the image was both displayed on projects that didn't speak any of the languages it was captioned in, and given that most Wikimedia viewers can't actually play our video formats. I guess you could argue that the resolution only says that the board supports the POLA rather than requires it, but that's a rather weak argument for putting a grainy black and white stack of dead corpses linking to a video many can't play that's only captioned in a handful of langauges on the frontpage of a project that serves projects in 287 different languages. Kevin Gorman On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:14 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 May 2014 05:04, Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com wrote: No, Russavia: I'm not suggesting that Commons' policies should mirror those of ENWP. I'm suggesting that Commons should have a process in place that ensures that it follows the clearly established resolutions of the WMF board, which I would remind you *do* trump local policy. This particular incident failed to do so, and it's not the first time that such a thing has occurred on Commons. See, there you're asserting that this is a slam-dunk violation, and it's really clear just from this thread that it really isn't. Your personal feelings are not the determinant of Wikimedia comment, and won't become so through repetition. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: Admins and crats on commons have also historically made a large number of decisions that fly in the face of WMF board resolutions, often repeatedly. David Gerard's point is ringing very true here: you will not make this assertion more true merely by repeating it. Examples, please -- or else please drop it. Example 1: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images_(6th_nomination) Clear violation (no evidence of model consent, photographer made clear the models wanted them off Commons). Took six attempts over several years to delete, despite a board member personally voting Delete in one or two prior nominations. Example 2: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Category:Sexual_penetrative_use_of_cucumbers Again, review the prior deletion discussions where these were kept. Models shown full-face, recognisable, no evidence whatsoever of model consent, geo-tagged to a precise street address. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
Hi, As have been brought up by Risker earlier in this conversation, Common's MOTD on that day was transcluded to the mainpages of projects that do not use one of the five languages in which context for the video was provided. 1/ Which projects? A GlobalUsage on the current MOTD (as well as the one from yesterday and the one from tomorrow) seems to indicate that no Wikimedia projects transclude the MOTD. 2/ Assuming they exist, do these projects *also* use the actual thumbtime hardcoded for its display as MOTD on Wikimedia Commons? -- Jean-Frédéric ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com wrote: a sizable majority of people who use Wikimedia projects are literally incapable of actually playing the video in question. Kevin -- it's neither a majority, much less a sizable majority, of readers who are incapable of viewing videos. There are of course some platforms that don't permit the viewing of free video formats, and that is of course a cause for legitimate concern. But there's nothing to be (legitimately) gained by overstating it. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Example 1: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images_(6th_nomination) Clear violation (no evidence of model consent, photographer made clear the models wanted them off Commons). Took six attempts over several years to delete, despite a board member personally voting Delete in one or two prior nominations. Example 2: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Category:Sexual_penetrative_use_of_cucumbers Again, review the prior deletion discussions where these were kept. Models shown full-face, recognisable, no evidence whatsoever of model consent, geo-tagged to a precise street address. So you've provided two examples where you agree that the correct decision was ultimately made, and where that decision has stood (in one case) for a year, and (in the other) for two years without being challenged or reversed. Your examples don't match what I was asking for (and there are plenty of examples like that out there, so I'm surprised you've brought these ones forward). Your point is like saying that the entire US court system is broken, on the basis that some decisions in trial courts have historically been overturned by the more careful analysis of the Supreme Court. You're underscoring the *healthy* (if maybe inefficient) functioning of Commons, not the opposite. But, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about some good decisions, so I'll give your strange nominations the benefit of the doubt and come up with 10 examples of clearly good decisions. Unfortunately I don't have time to dig into it right now, but I should be able to get to it in the next 12-24 hours. I'll post to a page on Commons, and publish a link here. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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] FDC related announcements: Letter of Intent, Selection of New Members, FDC Advisory Group Review
Dear members of the Wikimedia community, I’d like to share a few upcoming milestones with you. The deadline for the Letter of Intent for the next round of proposals in 2014-2015 Round 1 is June 1, 2014. The Letter of Intent[1] is the first step required for eligible Wikimedia organizations[2] to submit an annual plan grant proposal to the FDC. The Letter of Intent is a simple letter that indicates interest in applying for funds in the upcoming round. It is non-binding, but is a required first step. The one exception to this deadline will be for any current applicants in the current 2013-2014 Round 2 cycle: if any current applicants choose to submit a proposal in Round 1 as a result of the decision in the current round, they will have an extension through July 8 to declare this intent. In July 2014, four new members of the Wikimedia community will be appointed to the Funds Dissemination Committee by the WMF Board of Trustees. In 2013, two members were elected by the community to join the inaugural seven members, bringing the total to nine members. This year, four current members will be replaced by four new members who will be appointed by the WMF. These four newly appointed members will join current members Cristian Consonni (CristianCantoro), Dariusz Jemielniak (Pundit), Ali Haidar Khan (Tonmoy), Delphine Menard (notafish), and Sydney Poore (FloNight). We will be sending out more information shortly about how and where you can express interest in joining the committee. You can read more about the committee’s roles, requirements, and expectations on Meta[3] . In 2015, five new members of the FDC will be elected by the community. Finally, the Funds Dissemination Advisory Group[4] will be meeting at the end of May to review the first two years of the FDC process. As per the FDC framework,[5] they will be advising WMF’s Executive Director on whether to proceed with this grantmaking program and what improvements to make to the process. As always, if you have questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me and my colleagues at fdcsupp...@wikimedia.org. Warmly, Anasuya [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/Sample_letter_of_intent [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/Eligibility_criteria [3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee [4] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/FDC_Advisory_Group [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC -- *Anasuya SenguptaSenior Director of GrantmakingWikimedia 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! Support Wikimedia https://donate.wikimedia.org/ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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] Wiki Loves Earth - Brasil - Data/statistics tool
Hello guys, Since that is our first participation in an international photo contest, we discussed locally about ways to have more information about what is working well, the results and the real impact on commons of all our efforts around Wiki Loves Earth here in Brasil. So, the Brazilian User Group studied and specified a tool, developed by Danilo (Danilo.mac on pt.wiki and member of the user group as well) to read database information and generate a complete report about the Wiki Loves Earth, including all participating countries listed on commons. The tool is hosted on the server wmflabs.org under the URL http://tools.wmflabs.org/ptwikis/WLE Through this tool you can have a general idea of what is going on: number of photos uploaded, photos used on wikis, number of uploaders(with complete list and registration date by country) and the percentage of many information, including uploaders registered in May 2014 during the contest. I guess that tool can help each country to define metrics to evaluate local efforts/results and can be useful for other local contests as well. That's our first time organizing this kind of project and we are learning a lot, until now we received more than 1.000 photos with 94% of uploaders registered in May 2014(200 new users for the Wikimedia Commons in 13 days). Now we are planning a bot to provide guidance and keep in touch with that new users after the contest ends. Best regards! Rodrigo Padula WLE Brazil - Coordinator Wikimedia Community User Group Brasil Education Program Coordinator - Ação Educativa / Brazilian Catalyst Program +55 21 99326-0558 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.comwrote: Admins and crats on commons have also historically made a large number of decisions that fly in the face of WMF board resolutions, often repeatedly. David Gerard's point is ringing very true here: you will not make this assertion more true merely by repeating it. Examples, please -- or else please drop it. Example 1: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images_(6th_nomination) Clear violation (no evidence of model consent, photographer made clear the models wanted them off Commons). Took six attempts over several years to delete, despite a board member personally voting Delete in one or two prior nominations. Example 2: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Category:Sexual_penetrative_use_of_cucumbers Again, review the prior deletion discussions where these were kept. Models shown full-face, recognisable, no evidence whatsoever of model consent, geo-tagged to a precise street address. So you've provided two examples where you agree that the correct decision was ultimately made, and where that decision has stood (in one case) for a year, and (in the other) for two years without being challenged or reversed. Your examples don't match what I was asking for (and there are plenty of examples like that out there, so I'm surprised you've brought these ones forward). What more do you want, mate? You asked for examples of historical decisions that flew in the face of the board resolution. Yes, after these cases received a lot of attention on the mailing lists, people (including some of the same people who had previously decided Keep) did indeed, with remarkable unanimity, come to the conclusion that these files should be deleted. This was after the closing admin in one of these cases had threatened, after the thirteenth Keep closure (well after the board resolution was published), that if he were to see another nomination, I will probably just revert it and protect the page. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
