Re: [Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view
I have posted 4 sentences, kind of a draft of a draft of a draft. It is very overwhelming for me to draft text with near-legal precision on my own. -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote: I'd say be bold and start drafting. Many people respond to a flawed (or at least improvable) text more readily than they do to an open invitation to contribute. I, for one, share your perception that NPOV is a problem on some (perhaps most) Wikipedias, and think it'd be a good idea to bolster NPOV with a Board resolution. Not because it would instantly solve the problem, of course, but I see its value in supporting those editors who'd fight to uphold NPOV. A. On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 2:26 PM, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com wrote: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Legal_and_Community_Advocacy#Draft_of_text_for_a_binding_Neutral_Point_of_View_WMF_policy I started above text to draft a text for the board to review. -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 5:56 PM, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com wrote: A talk page on meta wont be noticed by much which is why perhaps this is the better location for the discussion. It is not like I am proposing a meta policy. -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: I am not disputing how settled it is but I don't think meta sufficiently achieves expressing how settled this core value really is. As you stated it would be more of a restatement and re-emphasis of what already is a core value. -- 㠨㠂る白㠄猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) Yes, good idea, needs to be done. Please notify the board of directors... Fred That was snippy... Editing a major meta policy page must be done with considerable caution, starting by making suggestions on its talk page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neutral_point_of_view There is some, rather limited, discussion in section 3. Fred ___ 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 -- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 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] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view
Indeed larger wikis have vibrant local communities that uphold NPOV for the most part. Such wikis would not be affected by such a board resolution too much as they essentially upload NPOV anyways. Smaller developing wikis on the other hand sometimes have people who even want to create policies that ban the notion of NPOV. We even had attempts of religious rules dictate content on ace.wikipedia for example. I would recommend against translating en.wikipedia's NPOV policy for such wikis as it is too complicated for a smaller wiki. Over time the wiki would develop the policy using such a board resolution as a guideline. -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 2:48 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote: ... I, for one, share your perception that NPOV is a problem on some (perhaps most) Wikipedias, asaf, could you please elaborate a little bit what you mean by this? do you not share the experience that the editors were able to come up with reasonable and well thought out rules they follow, since wikipedia exists? and many of the rules were discussed. and most of them discussed again? isn't this one of the cores which made wikipedia so successful? rupert. ___ 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] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Legal_and_Community_Advocacy#Draft_of_text_for_a_binding_Neutral_Point_of_View_WMF_policy I started above text to draft a text for the board to review. -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 5:56 PM, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.comwrote: A talk page on meta wont be noticed by much which is why perhaps this is the better location for the discussion. It is not like I am proposing a meta policy. -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.netwrote: I am not disputing how settled it is but I don't think meta sufficiently achieves expressing how settled this core value really is. As you stated it would be more of a restatement and re-emphasis of what already is a core value. -- 㠨㠂る白㠄猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) Yes, good idea, needs to be done. Please notify the board of directors... Fred That was snippy... Editing a major meta policy page must be done with considerable caution, starting by making suggestions on its talk page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neutral_point_of_view There is some, rather limited, discussion in section 3. Fred ___ 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] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view
For data oriented projects such as Wikidata, Wikisource, Commons I think NPOV still applies as we shouldn't censor data just because our POV has issues with it. Consider this in the context of - Mohammed image controversy for Commons (how they aren't deleted) - Bible versions for Wikisource (how we don't only present the correct version) - (Although a new project) Interwiki links for Wikidata (how we don't exclude languages) Of course not being censored is not the same thing as being neutral but if censored, neutrality is further away. -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 5:57 AM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.comwrote: On 9/16/2013 7:33 PM, Risker wrote: I am not certain that neutral point of view applies to all Wikimedia projects. Wikiversity programs may deliberately examine one aspect of a subject while ignoring others, for example. It is difficult to apply the concept of neutrality to images and other media, some of which is explicitly non-neutral (see the Jyllands-Posten Muhammed images). I am not sure that neutral point of view applies to Wiktionary at all. Once the topic unit is selected (an article title in Wikipedia, a word in Wiktionary, or a destination in Wikivoyage, for example), I think a concept of neutrality within that topic is not actually that difficult. Whether we require it everywhere is a policy choice, but it is certainly possible. Maintaining the design of a Wikiversity program need not be different in kind from avoiding off-topic digressions in a Wikipedia article. Obviously it makes sense to adapt our understanding of neutrality to the mission of each project. I believe our projects have generally tried conscientiously to maintain that spirit in a way that suits their context. But although it may superficially appear non-neutral to enforce criteria and boundaries for topic units, I think the answer to that lies in the ambition to universality of our projects. If by simply defining a topic we deviate from neutrality, the way to restore it is by covering all topics. When dealing with source material, as with Wikimedia Commons or Wikisource, then neutrality may be a concept one step removed from the mission of the project. Faithful reproduction may be closer to what we are really looking for. However, neutrality is still a value worth considering in terms of the overall collection of source material, and certainly in how that material gets presented and contextualized in our other projects. --Michael Snow __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.orgwikimedia-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
[Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view
Hi all, I realize Resolution:Biographies of living people[1] implies this but I fail to see any resolution that establishes neutral point of view as one of our non-negotiable values. I think there is merit in having an over-arching resolution on a Neutral Point of View policy. I also feel Resolution:Biographies of living people suffers from the absence of such a definition of what exactly neutral point of view supposed to mean. [1]: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) ___ 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] : Copyright of deep space objects (DSOs) outside of the solar system
I am not arguing that we should declare all deep space objects to be in PD. I am proposing that we pursue congress pass a law to grant the needed legal basis as I feel this should be public property. I am open to alternative suggestions mind you. Point is place and time does not matter as the object would look the same. You cannot take the photo of a DSO (Deep Space Object) from a different angle as long as you remain inside the solar system - even then the perspective for objects beyond our own galaxy would require a trip to another galaxy. A couple of amateur observatories would not be able to produce images that can rival Hubble which is in orbit. Atmosphere causes problems even with AI based adaptive telescopes. It is like taking a photograph underwater. Anyone using Hubble or another telescope in orbit would snap an identical shot of the object since perspective will always be the same (since the atmosphere effect is not present). It takes light time to get to earth. For objects beyond our galaxy, Andromeda is the closest and is 2.5 million light years away. In other words by the time we snap a picture, our picture of Andromeda is already 2.5 million years old (not considering relativistic effects). -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 2:44 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 September 2012 07:24, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I am not seeking legal advice. I am asking the pursuit of the issue. I am not a US citizen so I do not have a congress person to contact. The laws governing copyright can be amended to address the issue of deep space objects (DSO). I do not expect a result next week, I merely want the issue to enter into an agenda of some sort. If the Foundation is going to take the lead, this probably would only be possible through a board decision. In such a case I want to work with people to come up with such a draft proposal to the board. I realize this is an unusual request but there seems to be a lack of clarity on this issue[1]. Argument is that copyright can be an issue since not every organization observing or assisting NASA's observations are PD-USgov compatible. We may be forced to permanently delete all deep space objects as a result. I'd like to provide a short technical explanation why copyright of deep space objects or DSOs (objects outside of the solar system) are meaningless. For ordinary photographs copyright is determined by factors such as lighting, perspective, exposure and other such settings that creates a different image of the same object. You can distinguish the difference between a daylight photo and an evening photo. With deep space objects however, even the stellar parallax[2] has a very small value. The closest object outside of the solar system is 4.24 light years (268,136 AU's) away. The semi-major axis of earth is about 1AUs. The difference in perspective is like looking at a 2cm (width of a nickel) wide object 5.3km (3.29 miles) away and the perspective difference is switching left eye to the right eye. We lack scientific instruments to even detect a stellar parallax for objects much further. In other words our perspective of the nearest star and beyond is more or less constant and the objects themselves look the same for hundreds of years. So any photo of a deep space object I or someone else takes from the solar system will look identical regardless of when and where on earth I take it within multiple lifetimes. Not so. The results from the Atacama Desert are going to be far clearer than the results from say Snowdonia. That is before we consider the issues of different filters, exposure times and instruments. If you claim was true we could just team up with a couple of amateur observetories (one in each hemisphere) and retake all the deep sky images (which might not be an entirely bad thing anyway). -- geni ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] : Copyright of deep space objects (DSOs) outside of the solar system
Hi, I am not seeking legal advice. I am asking the pursuit of the issue. I am not a US citizen so I do not have a congress person to contact. The laws governing copyright can be amended to address the issue of deep space objects (DSO). I do not expect a result next week, I merely want the issue to enter into an agenda of some sort. If the Foundation is going to take the lead, this probably would only be possible through a board decision. In such a case I want to work with people to come up with such a draft proposal to the board. I realize this is an unusual request but there seems to be a lack of clarity on this issue[1]. Argument is that copyright can be an issue since not every organization observing or assisting NASA's observations are PD-USgov compatible. We may be forced to permanently delete all deep space objects as a result. I'd like to provide a short technical explanation why copyright of deep space objects or DSOs (objects outside of the solar system) are meaningless. For ordinary photographs copyright is determined by factors such as lighting, perspective, exposure and other such settings that creates a different image of the same object. You can distinguish the difference between a daylight photo and an evening photo. With deep space objects however, even the stellar parallax[2] has a very small value. The closest object outside of the solar system is 4.24 light years (268,136 AU's) away. The semi-major axis of earth is about 1AUs. The difference in perspective is like looking at a 2cm (width of a nickel) wide object 5.3km (3.29 miles) away and the perspective difference is switching left eye to the right eye. We lack scientific instruments to even detect a stellar parallax for objects much further. In other words our perspective of the nearest star and beyond is more or less constant and the objects themselves look the same for hundreds of years. So any photo of a deep space object I or someone else takes from the solar system will look identical regardless of when and where on earth I take it within multiple lifetimes. I think this can bring legal precedent for us to either disregard any copyright claim or at least pursue lawmakers in congress to amend the copyright law to make an exception in the law. People who worked with congress such as Neil Degrasse Tyson could be consulted to this end. Also international treaties[3] can be consulted to this end as copyrighting photos of deep space objects could be interpreted as an unfair exploitation of resources. I realize this reads like something out of Star Trek but this is growing to be quite a problem as we see more and more weird copyright claims even when dealing with NASA which traditionally had a PD-USgov mentality. NASA regularly contracts its more recent projects and to be fair we do not know how NASA contracts these projects which could potentially lead to legitimate copyright claims in the future. [1]: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Potential_deletion_of_all_deep_space_objects [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_law#International_treaties -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] [Commons-POTY-l] 10th anniversary of Wikimedia Commons
So we will have a full-scale military parade celebrating commons in Brazil?
Nice!
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Mateus Nobre mateusfno...@gmail.com wrote:
Hahaha, right in the Brazilian independence day ;P
I am thinking in something really big.
Something like ''Wikimedia Commons, showing the world with free media''.
And, the best Common's images of all times, in a global scope (like, each
one of every nice place of our planet).
Good luck. {{support}}
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:46 PM, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com
wrote:
The voting could be carried out with the global event. Vote eligibility
could be participating in the events for example.
Of course not every country will have an event so not sure if this
approach
is a good one.
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
2012/4/18 Tadija Mileti? atnimn...@hotmail.com
Hmm, and maybe something where we can invite more people to
Wikipedia?
Billboards with :
Join decade of knowledge. Participate! Write new article!
Or something similar. I am also against POT-DEC, poor thing for big
global
event such as this.
--WhiteWriter
*From:* Gnangarra gnanga...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 18, 2012 9:45 AM
*To:* Wikimedia Commons Discussion List common...@lists.wikimedia.org
*Cc:* smole...@eunet.rs ; Wikimedia Mailing List
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
*Subject:* Re: [Commons-l] [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-POTY-l] 10th
anniversary of Wikimedia Commons
Why not a world wide Wikitakes or a Photowalk day that way everyone
everywhere can participate in it, no need for big off Commons
organisation
2012/4/18 とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com
I do not think we want to select POT-DEC (lets not call it POTD which
is
something else :) ) from older POTYs since we don't have a large
number
to
choose from. Also, it would be very boring to re-nominate the same
winner
again. If anything existing POTY winners perhaps should be
disqualified
for
this reason.
I am not too sure about the procedure would be best to be honest. I
hope
this discussion would determine that very aspect. :)
US GLAM is appealing but we do want something global. Certainly US
GLAM
partnerships should be part of it but they should not be all of it.
WikiLoves Monuments was a good precursor to this kind of activity.
Perhaps
a kind of lessons learned assessment may be useful while working on
this.
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 07:31, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs
wrote:
2012/4/17 とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com:
We already have POTY as an annual event so perhaps a decade
event could
be something interesting to consider.
The obvious: select POTD from all the POTYs :)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
Commons-l mailing list
common...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
--
GN.
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com
--
___
Commons-l mailing list
common...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
___
Commons-l mailing list
common...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
--
_
*M*ateus*N*obre
Free knowledge, free software, free culture, open data.
*Freedom, acessibility, autonomy, openess, independence, transparency.
That's our way.*
*And yours?*
+55 (84) 8896 - 1628
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
