Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright workflows - research (Was: Re: Foundation management of volunteers)

[Yann Forget]

Yes, that would be very welcome by all contributors reviewing images.

Regards,
Yann

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019, 22:29 James Heilman,  wrote:

> So Yann should we as a community just build something as a proof of
> concept? If we are talking less than 250 USD per month, I am sure we can
> scrounge up the money for a trial 6 month trial.
>
> James
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 2:59 AM Yann Forget  wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Yes, James' pricing doesn't match the actual cost.
> > We do not need to check all images uploaded to Commons, only the
> suspicious
> > ones (small images without EXIF data).
> > If we check 2,000 images a day (more than enough IMO), that would cost
> $7 a
> > day, so $210 a month.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Yann
> >
> >
> > Le mar. 18 juin 2019 à 01:11, James Salsman  a
> écrit :
> >
> > > Google has been offering reverse image search as part of their vision
> > API:
> > >
> > > https://cloud.google.com/vision/docs/internet-detection
> > >
> > > The pricing is $3.50 per 1,000 queries for up to 5,000,000 queries per
> > > month:
> > >
> > > https://cloud.google.com/vision/pricing
> > >
> > > Above that quantity "Contact Google for more information":
> > >
> > > https://cloud.google.com/contact/
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:23 AM James Forrester
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 06:28, Yann Forget  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > It has been suggested many times to ask Google for an access to
> their
> > > API
> > > > > for searching images,
> > > > > so that we could have a bot tagging copyright violations (no free
> > > access
> > > > > for automated search).
> > > > > That would the single best improvement in Wikimedia Commons
> workflow
> > > for
> > > > > years.
> > > > > And it would benefit all Wikipedia projects, big or small.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yann,
> > > >
> > > > As you should remember, we asked Google for API access to their
> reverse
> > > > image search system, years ago (maybe 2013?). They said that there
> > isn't
> > > > such an API any more (they killed it off in ~2012, I think), and that
> > > they
> > > > wouldn't make a custom one for us. The only commercial alternative we
> > > found
> > > > at the time would have cost us approximately US$3m a month at upload
> > > > frequency for Commons then, and when contacted said they wouldn't do
> > any
> > > > discounts for Wikimedia. Obviously, this is far too much for the
> > > > Foundation's budget (it would be even more now), and an inappropriate
> > way
> > > > to spend donor funds. Providing the service in-house would involve
> > > building
> > > > a search index of the entire Internet's (generally non-free) images
> and
> > > > media, which would cost a fortune and is totally incompatible with
> the
> > > > mission of the movement. This was relayed out to Commons volunteers
> at
> > > the
> > > > time, I'm pretty sure.
> > > >
> > > > Obviously Google might have changed their mind, though it seems
> > > unlikely. I
> > > > imagine that Google engineers and product owners don't follow this
> > list,
> > > so
> > > > it's unlikely that they will re-create the API without being asked
> > > directly.
> > > >
> > > > J.
> > > > --
> > > > *James D. Forrester* (he/him  or they/themself
> > > > )
> > > > Wikimedia Foundation 
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordination Team
> > https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
> > +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
>
>
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Statement of Wikimedia Taiwan to the Foundation and the global Wikimedia Movement communities

[Samuel Klein]

Ahh so. Thank you for thinking about this and sharing the results of your
deliberation.  SJ

On Tue., Jun. 18, 2019, 10:36 a.m. Ted Chien,  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Regarding to the recent Hong Kong Extradition Bill, Wikimedia Taiwan has
> issued the following statement, please have a read.
>
> ***
>
> Wikimedia Taiwan requests the attention of Wikimedia Foundation and global
> communities of Wikimedia movement to the Hong Kong Extradition Bill related
> issues and to draft out related policy accordingly.
>
> To our knowledge, the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
> recently has made a legal amendment about extradition to Taiwan, China,
> Macau, etc. Nevertheless, the draft of the amendment creates distrust from
> local residents and international stakeholders. After the major scale of
> protest, Hong Kong SAR Government announced the bill will be suspended for
> the moment.
>
> Wikimedia Taiwan has no comment regarding the internal affairs of Hong
> Kong. However, Hong Kong is a common transit location for the Wikimedia
> community members from Taiwan to attend international events. In 2015, the
> staffs of an independent bookstore in Causeway Bay, Hong Kong, were
> disappeared. That incident and the intent of the current amendment cause us
> as a Wikimedia chapter is worrying about the safety risk while traveling
> abroad.
>
> Therefore, we have three requests:
>
>1. To Wikimedia Foundation’s legal and safety department, please stay
>tuned regarding this incident, and co-op with Hong Kong User Group and
>Wikimedia Taiwan to provide possible support on legal and strategic
> issues
>in order to ease the risk concern for the Wikimedia volunteers who
>contribute in the region.
>2. Even though the legal concern is relieved temporarily, we still would
>like to ask for any Wikimedia organizations hosting an international
> event
>while making the travel arrangements to avoid arranging the Taiwanese
>participants to travel by airlines owned by China or Hong Kong, nor
> making
>the transit at Hong Kong or any other airports within China.
>3. The ongoing discussion about Wikimedia movement strategy should
>include evaluation about the possible influence of illiberal democratic
>regime’s threat to free knowledge. These regimes may bring damage such
> as
>legal intimidation, violent threat, and monopoly of ideology. From the
>recent experience of Chinese Wikipedia, we cannot anticipate openness
> and
>inclusion could passively defend from these kinds of sabotage. Instead,
> it
>needs a more powerful strategy and action to respond on.
>
>
>- This statement is open for all Wikimedia volunteers from Taiwan to
>cosign as individual or communities in the following link:
>
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Taiwan/Declaration/The_statement_of_Wikimedia_Taiwan_regarding_the_Extradition_bill_of_Hong_Kong
>
> This statement is also announced on our Facebook fan page:
>
>
> https://www.facebook.com/wikimedia.tw/photos/a.593864927316487/2171318986237732/
>
> On behave of Wikimedia Taiwan
> --
>
> Regards,
> Ted Chien
> Member of Supervisory Board, Wikimedia Taiwan
> --
> Think Different, Do Smarter, Work for Joy!
> --
> About Me: http://about.me/htchien
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

[Samuel Klein]

Nice work.  It will take time, but keep it up.

On Thu., Jun. 6, 2019, 10:05 p.m. Thomas Shafee, 
wrote:

> Some more notes, responses and thoughts on the topics raised above!
>
> *Impact and reach*
> I fully agree that impact factor is of primary importance to many
> researchers. However, many grants that fund research also have started
> looking for evidence that researchers are making genuine efforts in public
> outreach. Example: A researcher spends 30 years on one of the most
> important livestock parasites, publishing review articles read by 100-1000
> people, yet the Wikipedia page is only 2 sentences long
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teladorsagia_circumcincta=860605498
> >.
> Their grant reviewers, potential students, farmers, politicians, and
> journalists read the WP page which gives a false impression of obscurity to
> the topic. Then they publish a review article with a WikiJournal which is
> dual-published as a citable version for their cv and copied into WP to show
> they they are trying hard to keep the general public informed
> (*10.15347/wjs/2019.004
> *).
>
> *Citing WikiJournals in Wikipedia*
> I see the COI point of view. On the other hand, the best cure for coi is
> transparency and I think the publishing of peer reviews that go along with
> papers. Overall, I think WP use of WikiJournals articles as sources
> (e.g. *10.15347/wjm/2017.005
> *) would remain independent and a
> matter for WP:RS discussion once the journals are accredited. However, one
> perennial problem in WP has notable topics lacking citable sources (e.g.
> first nations history / neglected tropical diseases / women historical
> figures). If a wikipedian were able to do the research into an aspect of
> that topic to a level that it meets rigorous scholarly standards and passes
> external peer review, then that may a be a reasonable way of minting a
> valuable new citable source. Again, that'd be up for the community to
> decide as the project progresses.
>
> *Indexing*
> We have started the practice of drafting indexing applications publicly
> <
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_of_Medicine#SCOPUS_reapplication
> >
> for greater transparency (unique as far as I know).
>
> *Comparison to peer review within Wikipedia*
> WP essentially does post-publication editorial review (rather than peer
> review). External peer review by WikiJournals and internal PR/GA/FA review
> by wp editors perform complementary (not competing) roles. Many FA articles
> are definitely up to academic standards - and indeed their performance
> through peer review proves just that as an additional quality-assurance
> mechanism. That is not universally true (e.g. the review of GA article
> Surface
> tension
> <
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:WikiJournal_Preprints/Surface_tension
> >
> includes
> "in some instances the ideas are incorrect ... It will confuse rather then
> enlighten readers new to the field"). FA has unique aspects that external
> academic peer review lacks (e.g. a sharper focus on readability, and
> formatting, spot-chacking of references).
>
> All the best,
> Thomas
>
> On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 23:37, Vi to  wrote:
>
> > Il giorno mer 5 giu 2019 alle ore 12:00 John Erling Blad <
> jeb...@gmail.com
> > >
> > ha scritto:
> >
> > > > > One reason; reach.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > In academia reach -per se- is not a big deal, while impact is.
> > >
> > > Reach leads to impact. You can't get impact without reach, but reach
> > > in non-scientific communities does not necessarily turn into reach in
> > > scientific communities.
> > >
> >
> > Apart from the hype I wouldn't releate reach and scientific impact. Most
> of
> > research community is forced to seek for impact, bibliometric indicators
> > and abiding by the publish or perish principle.
> >
> >
> > > There are nothing that blocks Wikipedia from doing peer review. (It
> > > has implicit peer review.) What you propose for WikiJournal is to make
> > > peer review a policy. That does not in itself turn articles into good
> > > research.
> >
> >
> > I disagree with this, Wikipedia doesn't make original research by
> > definition.
> > I concur we have something similar to peer review, though ours is less
> > "autorithy-centered".
> >
> > Vito
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright workflows - research (Was: Re: Foundation management of volunteers)

[James Heilman]

So Yann should we as a community just build something as a proof of
concept? If we are talking less than 250 USD per month, I am sure we can
scrounge up the money for a trial 6 month trial.

James

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 2:59 AM Yann Forget  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Yes, James' pricing doesn't match the actual cost.
> We do not need to check all images uploaded to Commons, only the suspicious
> ones (small images without EXIF data).
> If we check 2,000 images a day (more than enough IMO), that would cost $7 a
> day, so $210 a month.
>
> Regards,
> Yann
>
>
> Le mar. 18 juin 2019 à 01:11, James Salsman  a écrit :
>
> > Google has been offering reverse image search as part of their vision
> API:
> >
> > https://cloud.google.com/vision/docs/internet-detection
> >
> > The pricing is $3.50 per 1,000 queries for up to 5,000,000 queries per
> > month:
> >
> > https://cloud.google.com/vision/pricing
> >
> > Above that quantity "Contact Google for more information":
> >
> > https://cloud.google.com/contact/
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:23 AM James Forrester
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 06:28, Yann Forget  wrote:
> > >
> > > > It has been suggested many times to ask Google for an access to their
> > API
> > > > for searching images,
> > > > so that we could have a bot tagging copyright violations (no free
> > access
> > > > for automated search).
> > > > That would the single best improvement in Wikimedia Commons workflow
> > for
> > > > years.
> > > > And it would benefit all Wikipedia projects, big or small.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yann,
> > >
> > > As you should remember, we asked Google for API access to their reverse
> > > image search system, years ago (maybe 2013?). They said that there
> isn't
> > > such an API any more (they killed it off in ~2012, I think), and that
> > they
> > > wouldn't make a custom one for us. The only commercial alternative we
> > found
> > > at the time would have cost us approximately US$3m a month at upload
> > > frequency for Commons then, and when contacted said they wouldn't do
> any
> > > discounts for Wikimedia. Obviously, this is far too much for the
> > > Foundation's budget (it would be even more now), and an inappropriate
> way
> > > to spend donor funds. Providing the service in-house would involve
> > building
> > > a search index of the entire Internet's (generally non-free) images and
> > > media, which would cost a fortune and is totally incompatible with the
> > > mission of the movement. This was relayed out to Commons volunteers at
> > the
> > > time, I'm pretty sure.
> > >
> > > Obviously Google might have changed their mind, though it seems
> > unlikely. I
> > > imagine that Google engineers and product owners don't follow this
> list,
> > so
> > > it's unlikely that they will re-create the API without being asked
> > directly.
> > >
> > > J.
> > > --
> > > *James D. Forrester* (he/him  or they/themself
> > > )
> > > Wikimedia Foundation 
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
>
>
>
> --
> Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordination Team
> https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
> +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Statement of Wikimedia Taiwan to the Foundation and the global Wikimedia Movement communities

[Ted Chien]

Hi all,

Regarding to the recent Hong Kong Extradition Bill, Wikimedia Taiwan has
issued the following statement, please have a read.

***

Wikimedia Taiwan requests the attention of Wikimedia Foundation and global
communities of Wikimedia movement to the Hong Kong Extradition Bill related
issues and to draft out related policy accordingly.

To our knowledge, the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
recently has made a legal amendment about extradition to Taiwan, China,
Macau, etc. Nevertheless, the draft of the amendment creates distrust from
local residents and international stakeholders. After the major scale of
protest, Hong Kong SAR Government announced the bill will be suspended for
the moment.

Wikimedia Taiwan has no comment regarding the internal affairs of Hong
Kong. However, Hong Kong is a common transit location for the Wikimedia
community members from Taiwan to attend international events. In 2015, the
staffs of an independent bookstore in Causeway Bay, Hong Kong, were
disappeared. That incident and the intent of the current amendment cause us
as a Wikimedia chapter is worrying about the safety risk while traveling
abroad.

Therefore, we have three requests:

   1. To Wikimedia Foundation’s legal and safety department, please stay
   tuned regarding this incident, and co-op with Hong Kong User Group and
   Wikimedia Taiwan to provide possible support on legal and strategic issues
   in order to ease the risk concern for the Wikimedia volunteers who
   contribute in the region.
   2. Even though the legal concern is relieved temporarily, we still would
   like to ask for any Wikimedia organizations hosting an international event
   while making the travel arrangements to avoid arranging the Taiwanese
   participants to travel by airlines owned by China or Hong Kong, nor making
   the transit at Hong Kong or any other airports within China.
   3. The ongoing discussion about Wikimedia movement strategy should
   include evaluation about the possible influence of illiberal democratic
   regime’s threat to free knowledge. These regimes may bring damage such as
   legal intimidation, violent threat, and monopoly of ideology. From the
   recent experience of Chinese Wikipedia, we cannot anticipate openness and
   inclusion could passively defend from these kinds of sabotage. Instead, it
   needs a more powerful strategy and action to respond on.


   - This statement is open for all Wikimedia volunteers from Taiwan to
   cosign as individual or communities in the following link:


https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Taiwan/Declaration/The_statement_of_Wikimedia_Taiwan_regarding_the_Extradition_bill_of_Hong_Kong

This statement is also announced on our Facebook fan page:

https://www.facebook.com/wikimedia.tw/photos/a.593864927316487/2171318986237732/

On behave of Wikimedia Taiwan
-- 

Regards,
Ted Chien
Member of Supervisory Board, Wikimedia Taiwan
--
Think Different, Do Smarter, Work for Joy!
--
About Me: http://about.me/htchien
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

[Martijn Hoekstra]

No.

What I'm saying is this: setting meeting the reliable sources policy of
wikipedia as a condition for success, or not meeting that policy as
evidence of failure is ridiculous.

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019, 14:29 Mister Thrapostibongles <
thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Martin, Dennis
>
> The tenor of your arguments appears to be that Wikipedia is in fact
> reliable, because it uses reliable sources, but that it pretends not to be
> because it's too hard to prevent people writing article based on other
> articles.  This is not in accord with the facts.  As I pointed out, and as
> Foundation research has shown, millions -- literally millions, and when I
> say "literally" I literally mean "literally" -- of articles, about one in
> five, are not founded on reliable sources, and some thousands of those,
> being biographies of living people, should have been instantly deleted.  So
> we cannot rely on any of those millions of articles, by your own
> reasoning.  The reason why Wikipedia deems itself unreliable is that it is
> an open wiki, and all such sources are forbidden, because anyone can write
> anything on them: "Content from websites whose content is largely
> user-generated
> is also generally unacceptable."  Wikipedia is cited in the policy as
> merely another example of such unreliable sources.
>
> The way forward, however unpalatable this may be to people who would like
> to believe that this is somehow silly or sophistry, is to look the facts in
> the face and accept that some form of editorial policy, content workflow
> management and supervision of the volunteer effort is necessary to make
> Wikipedia what aspires to be, but is not currently, namely an
> encyclopaedia.
>
> Thrapostibongles
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:06 PM Martijn Hoekstra <
> martijnhoeks...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Wikipedia itself can never be more reliable than the sources it cites. If
> > it's allowed to cite itself, then there is no "bottom" to lean on, and
> its
> > quality would quickly drop.
> >
> > That you conclude from that that wikipedia is unreliable and therefore
> > failed is IMO such a silly proposition, that I dont know whether you
> > seriously think this, in which case we should probably take this off
> list,
> > or that you're engaging in sophistry and using arguments you don't think
> > are reasonable in the first place.
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019, 19:56 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Dennis,
> > >
> > > I started this thread to discuss both conduct and content policies on
> > > Wikipedia, and indeed how the two interact.  Wikipedia is a project to
> > > build an encyclopaedia.  By its own criteria, encyclopaedias are
> reliable
> > > sources and Wikipedia is not a reliable source; hence by its own
> > criteria,
> > > Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia.  That is, it is currently in a state
> > of
> > > failure with respect to its own mission.
> > >
> > > One of the reasons for that state of failure is indeed the failure to
> > > provide a collegial working atmosphere.
> > >
> > > Thrapostibongles
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 2:19 PM Dennis During 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "One (and not the most important) pieces of evidence for Wikipedia
> > being
> > > in
> > > > a failed state is precisely that
> > > > it does not, by the community's own admission, constitute a reliable
> > > source
> > > > "
> > > >
> > > > You have made this argument more than once. That might be a piece of
> > > > evidence seems both wrong and not relevant to the sense in which
> people
> > > > here as saying WP has failed, which is as a welcoming, "safe"
> > environment
> > > > for contributors and would-be contributors.
> > > >
> > > > It is good policy to make sure that contributors reach out to other
> > > > sources, even when one believes that Wikipedia is as reliable as the
> > > > average tertiary source we allow as a reference. It prevents us from
> > > > relying exclusively on what can easily turn out to be a very narrow
> set
> > > of
> > > > points of view.  Does/did the Encyclopedia Britanica cite other EB
> > > articles
> > > > as references rather than include them as "see alsos"?
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:27 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Vito
> > > > >
> > > > > This rather tends to support my point.  One (and not the most
> > > important)
> > > > > pieces of evidence for Wikipedia being in a failed state is
> precisely
> > > > that
> > > > > it does not , by the community's own admission, constitute a
> reliable
> > > > > source:whereas "Reputable tertiary sources
> > > > > , such as
> > > > > introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and
> encyclopedias,
> > > may
> > > > > be cited".  So Wikipedia fails in its aim of being an encyclopaedia
> > on
> > > > one
> > > > > of the most important tests one could imagine, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

[Vi to]

I've never seen a self-citing encyclopedia.

Given its open editing structure it would be so easy to game the system by
creating a series of cross-references. In short forbidding citing Wikipedia
on Wikipedia avoids such short-circuits.

No text is 100% accurate, Wikipedia relies upon the bet that by widening
the editorial community accuracy will asymptotically converge. Traditional
textbooks, scholarly articles, any different knowledge aggregation system
is characterized by a different funding premise.

In my opinion the "no autocitation" principle is a direct consequence of
our fundamental principles, therefore a self-citing Wikipedia is possible,
but it wouldn't longer be Wikipedia.

Vito

Il giorno lun 17 giu 2019 alle ore 19:55 Mister Thrapostibongles <
thrapostibong...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> Dennis,
>
> I started this thread to discuss both conduct and content policies on
> Wikipedia, and indeed how the two interact.  Wikipedia is a project to
> build an encyclopaedia.  By its own criteria, encyclopaedias are reliable
> sources and Wikipedia is not a reliable source; hence by its own criteria,
> Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia.  That is, it is currently in a state of
> failure with respect to its own mission.
>
> One of the reasons for that state of failure is indeed the failure to
> provide a collegial working atmosphere.
>
> Thrapostibongles
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 2:19 PM Dennis During  wrote:
>
> > "One (and not the most important) pieces of evidence for Wikipedia being
> in
> > a failed state is precisely that
> > it does not, by the community's own admission, constitute a reliable
> source
> > "
> >
> > You have made this argument more than once. That might be a piece of
> > evidence seems both wrong and not relevant to the sense in which people
> > here as saying WP has failed, which is as a welcoming, "safe" environment
> > for contributors and would-be contributors.
> >
> > It is good policy to make sure that contributors reach out to other
> > sources, even when one believes that Wikipedia is as reliable as the
> > average tertiary source we allow as a reference. It prevents us from
> > relying exclusively on what can easily turn out to be a very narrow set
> of
> > points of view.  Does/did the Encyclopedia Britanica cite other EB
> articles
> > as references rather than include them as "see alsos"?
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:27 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Vito
> > >
> > > This rather tends to support my point.  One (and not the most
> important)
> > > pieces of evidence for Wikipedia being in a failed state is precisely
> > that
> > > it does not , by the community's own admission, constitute a reliable
> > > source:whereas "Reputable tertiary sources
> > > , such as
> > > introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias,
> may
> > > be cited".  So Wikipedia fails in its aim of being an encyclopaedia on
> > one
> > > of the most important tests one could imagine, namely reliability.
> And a
> > > reason for that is its lack of effective content management policies
> and
> > > mechanisms to put them into effect (in the old days we called that
> being
> > an
> > > editor, but that word on Wikipedia now is more or less a redundant
> > synonym
> > > for contributor).
> > >
> > > Now suppose that Wikipedia had effective editorial policies and
> processes
> > > that allowed it to assume the status of a reliable source, just like
> the
> > > encyclopaedia it aims to be.  You say that even in that situation, it
> > would
> > > be easy to manipulate.  On that assumption, how much easier it must be
> to
> > > "trick" it today when it has no such effective policies and processes
> in
> > > place!
> > >
> > > Thrapostibongles
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Dennis C. During
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

[Mister Thrapostibongles]

Martin, Dennis

The tenor of your arguments appears to be that Wikipedia is in fact
reliable, because it uses reliable sources, but that it pretends not to be
because it's too hard to prevent people writing article based on other
articles.  This is not in accord with the facts.  As I pointed out, and as
Foundation research has shown, millions -- literally millions, and when I
say "literally" I literally mean "literally" -- of articles, about one in
five, are not founded on reliable sources, and some thousands of those,
being biographies of living people, should have been instantly deleted.  So
we cannot rely on any of those millions of articles, by your own
reasoning.  The reason why Wikipedia deems itself unreliable is that it is
an open wiki, and all such sources are forbidden, because anyone can write
anything on them: "Content from websites whose content is largely
user-generated
is also generally unacceptable."  Wikipedia is cited in the policy as
merely another example of such unreliable sources.

The way forward, however unpalatable this may be to people who would like
to believe that this is somehow silly or sophistry, is to look the facts in
the face and accept that some form of editorial policy, content workflow
management and supervision of the volunteer effort is necessary to make
Wikipedia what aspires to be, but is not currently, namely an encyclopaedia.

Thrapostibongles

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:06 PM Martijn Hoekstra 
wrote:

> Wikipedia itself can never be more reliable than the sources it cites. If
> it's allowed to cite itself, then there is no "bottom" to lean on, and its
> quality would quickly drop.
>
> That you conclude from that that wikipedia is unreliable and therefore
> failed is IMO such a silly proposition, that I dont know whether you
> seriously think this, in which case we should probably take this off list,
> or that you're engaging in sophistry and using arguments you don't think
> are reasonable in the first place.
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019, 19:56 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dennis,
> >
> > I started this thread to discuss both conduct and content policies on
> > Wikipedia, and indeed how the two interact.  Wikipedia is a project to
> > build an encyclopaedia.  By its own criteria, encyclopaedias are reliable
> > sources and Wikipedia is not a reliable source; hence by its own
> criteria,
> > Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia.  That is, it is currently in a state
> of
> > failure with respect to its own mission.
> >
> > One of the reasons for that state of failure is indeed the failure to
> > provide a collegial working atmosphere.
> >
> > Thrapostibongles
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 2:19 PM Dennis During 
> wrote:
> >
> > > "One (and not the most important) pieces of evidence for Wikipedia
> being
> > in
> > > a failed state is precisely that
> > > it does not, by the community's own admission, constitute a reliable
> > source
> > > "
> > >
> > > You have made this argument more than once. That might be a piece of
> > > evidence seems both wrong and not relevant to the sense in which people
> > > here as saying WP has failed, which is as a welcoming, "safe"
> environment
> > > for contributors and would-be contributors.
> > >
> > > It is good policy to make sure that contributors reach out to other
> > > sources, even when one believes that Wikipedia is as reliable as the
> > > average tertiary source we allow as a reference. It prevents us from
> > > relying exclusively on what can easily turn out to be a very narrow set
> > of
> > > points of view.  Does/did the Encyclopedia Britanica cite other EB
> > articles
> > > as references rather than include them as "see alsos"?
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:27 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Vito
> > > >
> > > > This rather tends to support my point.  One (and not the most
> > important)
> > > > pieces of evidence for Wikipedia being in a failed state is precisely
> > > that
> > > > it does not , by the community's own admission, constitute a reliable
> > > > source:whereas "Reputable tertiary sources
> > > > , such as
> > > > introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias,
> > may
> > > > be cited".  So Wikipedia fails in its aim of being an encyclopaedia
> on
> > > one
> > > > of the most important tests one could imagine, namely reliability.
> > And a
> > > > reason for that is its lack of effective content management policies
> > and
> > > > mechanisms to put them into effect (in the old days we called that
> > being
> > > an
> > > > editor, but that word on Wikipedia now is more or less a redundant
> > > synonym
> > > > for contributor).
> > > >
> > > > Now suppose that Wikipedia had effective editorial policies and
> > processes
> > > > that allowed it to assume the status of a reliable source, just like
> > the
> > > > encyclopaedia 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Trust & Safety (was: New board for...)

[Ciell Wikipedia]

Hi Lodewijk,

You say:


*"My main takeaway from this discussion would be that it's good if there is
a neutral review option for actions by the T team (or the WMF in
general), such as an ombudsperson."*

I think this is a very good idea, last Saturday we talked about an internal
audit for this, same idea I think.
I know of several instances where the T team had to act/ was asked to
act, and reviewing procedures from time to time should be a normal  in a
healthy organisation.

Vriendelijke groet,
Ciell


Op di 18 jun. 2019 om 03:02 schreef effe iets anders <
effeietsand...@gmail.com>:

> (forking the discussion to allow a focus on more general line, rather than
> the specifics of who wrote what, why and when)
> My main takeaway from this discussion would be that it's good if there is a
> neutral review option for actions by the T team (or the WMF in general),
> such as an ombudsperson.
>
> A detailed discussion or evaluation of specific sanctions by the Trust and
> Safety team is not the kind of conversation to have publicly - I think most
> people agree on this. In conversations like this, there is always at least
> one party less comfortable to discuss the matter in public (or even discuss
> it at all, indeed).
>
> At the same time, if actions are so severe, it's good if there is
> opportunity to have a review of the actions taken by a third party, to
> confirm to the person against who sanctions have been laid (or complainants
> in case no sanctions were laid), that appropriate processes were followed.
>
> (This is perhaps stating the obvious - and I should acknowledge that I
> don't know enough about WMF processes today to know for sure whether this
> has maybe already even been implemented in the WMF structures a long time
> ago. I do get the impression though that if this is the case, not everyone
> is familiar with this option.)
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:40 PM Isaac Olatunde 
> wrote:
>
> > 
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019, 3:48 PM Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:
> >
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright issues

[Asaf Bartov]

(Doc James is too modest to give himself credit, so it falls to me to point
out that the tool was his own idea; I witnessed the birth of it at
Wikimania 2014, when I connected him to Eran, who implemented the first
version of the tool before the end of the conference.)

  A.

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 2:27 AM James Heilman  wrote:

> Clarifying one small bit, the "copypatrol" tool was initially developed by
> Eran (a Wikimedia volunteer from Israel). It was than further developed by
> the Wikimedia Foundation. Agree that it is a great success, not only with
> respect to the final result but with respect to it being a successful
> collaborative project between the foundation and the community.
>
> James
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 10:36 AM Yaroslav Blanter 
> wrote:
>
> > Actually, I am afraid, for CCI at some point we will have to remove all
> > added text by bot. I do not see any other scalable solution.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 5:36 PM Stephen Philbrick <
> > stephen.w.philbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I have seen a couple comments on copyright issues in the last couple
> days
> > > so I thought I'd share some information that I think may be not
> > well-known
> > > by everyone.
> > >
> > > Very roughly, copyright issues (text) can be viewed in three
> categories:
> > > 1. Addition of copyrighted material to articles in years past, not yet
> > > removed (one-off)
> > > 2. Same as above, except by a serial violator
> > > 3. Close to real-time edits which may include copyrighted material
> > >
> > > The reason for distinguishing these three categories is that our
> approach
> > > and success rates are very different.
> > >
> > > In case 1, an editor identifies what they believe to be a copyright
> issue
> > > in an existing article. They can report it to
> > Wikipedia:Copyright_problems.
> > > In the case of a single issue or a very small handful of issues, those
> > > items are identified and taken care of by volunteers. (I think this
> > aspect
> > > is handled adequately — I used to be active there but haven't been
> > > recently)
> > >
> > > The second case arises when a potential violation is identified. An
> > > examination of the editors contributions reveals many examples
> (typically
> > > five or more). If this occurs, it is referred to Wikipedia:Contributor
> > > copyright investigations. A CCI is opened, and the intent is to examine
> > > every single edit by that editor. This aspect is extremely backlogged.
> > I've
> > > spent many hours working on CCI's, but it isn't easy, it isn't
> rewarding,
> > > and it is discouraging because I think the backlog is increasing rather
> > > than decreasing. (This isn't due to newly created copyright issues but
> > > newly found ones.)
> > >
> > > The third case is handled by Copy Patrol, a  foundation created tool
> that
> > > examines all new edits in close to real time and generates a report,
> > which
> > > is handled by volunteers.
> > >
> > > I want to emphasize this third aspect for multiple reasons. I think it
> is
> > > one of the least known tools. Some of the prior emails on the subject
> > leave
> > > the impression that the authors are unaware of the existence of this
> > tool.
> > > On the one hand, it works very well, as almost all of the several
> hundred
> > > reports each week are reviewed, most within 24 hours.
> > >
> > > Good news:
> > > * Copy Patrol is working, so my guess is that the growth in true
> > copyright
> > > issues is close to nonexistent.
> > >
> > > Bad news:
> > > * Copy Patrol is adequately staffed but just barely. One editor is
> > > responsible for the handling of far more than half of all of these
> > reports
> > > (major kudos to Diannaa), but that much reliance on a single volunteer
> is
> > > not good for the long-term health of the project.
> > >
> > > * The copy patrol tool is pretty good, and was being improved for a
> > while,
> > > but I've identified some desirable improvements and my sense is that
> > it's a
> > > very back burner project in terms of additional enhancements.
> > >
> > > * CCI clearance is going to take many years
> > >
> > > Phil (Sphilbrick)
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright workflows - research (Was: Re: Foundation management of volunteers)

[Yann Forget]

Hi,

Yes, James' pricing doesn't match the actual cost.
We do not need to check all images uploaded to Commons, only the suspicious
ones (small images without EXIF data).
If we check 2,000 images a day (more than enough IMO), that would cost $7 a
day, so $210 a month.

Regards,
Yann


Le mar. 18 juin 2019 à 01:11, James Salsman  a écrit :

> Google has been offering reverse image search as part of their vision API:
>
> https://cloud.google.com/vision/docs/internet-detection
>
> The pricing is $3.50 per 1,000 queries for up to 5,000,000 queries per
> month:
>
> https://cloud.google.com/vision/pricing
>
> Above that quantity "Contact Google for more information":
>
> https://cloud.google.com/contact/
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:23 AM James Forrester
>  wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 06:28, Yann Forget  wrote:
> >
> > > It has been suggested many times to ask Google for an access to their
> API
> > > for searching images,
> > > so that we could have a bot tagging copyright violations (no free
> access
> > > for automated search).
> > > That would the single best improvement in Wikimedia Commons workflow
> for
> > > years.
> > > And it would benefit all Wikipedia projects, big or small.
> > >
> >
> > Yann,
> >
> > As you should remember, we asked Google for API access to their reverse
> > image search system, years ago (maybe 2013?). They said that there isn't
> > such an API any more (they killed it off in ~2012, I think), and that
> they
> > wouldn't make a custom one for us. The only commercial alternative we
> found
> > at the time would have cost us approximately US$3m a month at upload
> > frequency for Commons then, and when contacted said they wouldn't do any
> > discounts for Wikimedia. Obviously, this is far too much for the
> > Foundation's budget (it would be even more now), and an inappropriate way
> > to spend donor funds. Providing the service in-house would involve
> building
> > a search index of the entire Internet's (generally non-free) images and
> > media, which would cost a fortune and is totally incompatible with the
> > mission of the movement. This was relayed out to Commons volunteers at
> the
> > time, I'm pretty sure.
> >
> > Obviously Google might have changed their mind, though it seems
> unlikely. I
> > imagine that Google engineers and product owners don't follow this list,
> so
> > it's unlikely that they will re-create the API without being asked
> directly.
> >
> > J.
> > --
> > *James D. Forrester* (he/him  or they/themself
> > )
> > Wikimedia Foundation 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



-- 
Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordination Team
https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
+91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,