Re: [Wikimedia-l] GDPR and Wikimedia content?

[Andre Engels]

On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 11:32 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
> I'm a big fan of the GDPR and why it had to be created. (I'm doing a lot of
> the bureaucratic work on the tech side at the day job and am getting very
> used to thinking of ways something could constitute Personally Identifying
> Information.)
>
> But I'm wondering how we'll approach it for the Wikimedia sites. Not just
> the log data - but the content.
>
> We already have problems with Right To Be Forgotten, and well-cited content
> being removed from the search engines.
>
> What do we have in place to deal with this when - not if - we get GDPR
> requests to remove information about a person from the site?
>
> I don't mean just the letter of the law, in the EU or the US - I mean also,
> how we can handle this *right*. Because there are multiple competing
> legitimate interests here, and the editing communities tend to take a lot
> more care than they're strictly required to by law, because we are here to
> get things right. (This is why our DMCA numbers are ridiculously low for a
> top 10 site, for example.)

In general Wikipedia falls under the journalistic exemption
("publication of ideas, information or opinions"), which means many
rules from the GDPR are dropped. Mostly what remains is just that a
weighing has to be done between the subject's privacy interest and
Wikipedia's own reporting interest. Even the possibility to object to
that decision is dropped in this case, so if, as I assume will happen,
such a request is taken as a reason to re-evaluate that decision, we
are already going beyond the minimum of what the law requires.

-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com

___
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] Fwd: [PRESS] Turkish authorities block Wikipedia

[Andre Engels]

For the BBC article, see http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39754909

On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 8:01 PM, Pharos  wrote:
> The Wikipedia aspect was highlighted on the BBC and other sites in earlier
> stories, before the other events happened.
>
> Thanks,
> Pharos
>
> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
>> Now on the front page of the New York Times website:
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/30/world/europe/turkey-
>> purge-wikipedia-tv-dating-shows.html
>>
>> Wikipedia was mentioned, but not highlighted, by the BBC:
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39759050
>>
>> Pine
>> ___
>> 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, 
> 



-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com

___
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] Fresh data on the gender gap in content

[Andre Engels]

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> 1. The Nepali statistic is simply astonishing! There must be a story
> there.  I'm keen on learning more about this, if anyone can shed light.

I looked, and it seems that a large proportion consists of porn
actresses... See the attached sample, giving an almost-randomly chosen
sample of 11 of the 1400 or so identified people on Nepali Wikipedia.


-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Case for Federation: Should Parts of WMF Be Spun Off?

[Andre Engels]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 8:48 AM, David Emrany  wrote:

> Since the "Mediawiki" trademark was lost to WMF the day you and
> Anthere placed the logo into public domain [1], how can the WMF now
> spin-off this new organization ?.

That's incorrect, putting something in the public domain does not
remove trademark rights. In fact, trademark rights are often on names,
which are almost without exception public domain copyrightwise.

> Am I  correct in assuming the Mediawiki software  can be forked by
> anybody interested along with attribution ?

Attribution only is not enough, it is licensed under GPL, which means
that a fork will also have to be under the same license. The essence
of the license is the same as that of the CC-BY-SA that Wikipedia is
under, the differences mostly have to do with technical points because
of the different way in which computer programs are used compared to
texts or artwork.

-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

[Andre Engels]

The issue is that you are framing all objections to be of the "it's
new, so it's bad" crowd. I'm not even convinced that such a crowd
exists, let alone that it is the mainstream of community is behind it,
as you seem to imply. To be honest, as a member of the community who
had a negative opinion about the first released version of visual
editor, I feel personally insulted by your statements. Which I had to
be, because I know you have done many good things.

And how would you want to "come together and fix it"? Your average
Wikipedia/other project editor does not have the software engineering
skills to just go and repair the Mediawiki code, and even if they did,
they would not have the power to make their repairs go life in short
term (and before I'm misunderstood, I am not complaining about that,
it is entirely logical and doing it differently would probably cause
disasters). They can of course complain, and file bug reports
etcetera, but they have no idea what will happen with them.

I think a big part of the blame lies with Wikimedia's way of working
in this, at least that's what I see in the Imageviewer case. People
see issues, and want them resolved. But some of those issues are so
large that they do not want the product at all *until they are
resolved*. By not only using the user as a beta tester, but also
forcing the product on them in the period between the discovery of the
issues/bugs and the time they are resolved, Wikimedia in my opinion is
instrumental in turning the objections against specific issues into
resistance against the product as a whole.


On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Magnus Manske
 wrote:
> Anthony, it does seem you've missed some of which I wrote in this thread. I
> have no problem with specific criticism where it is deserved, and I do well
> remember that the Visual Editor, in its early incarnation, was not quite up
> to the job.
>
> What I do have a problem with is people fixating on some technical or
> early-lifecycle issues, declaring the entire thing worthless, even
> dangerous, and spreading that view around. This behaviour, I have seen time
> and again, with the Media Viewer, with Wikidata.
>
> It's bad because it's broken - let's come together and fix it.
>
> It's bad because ... well, everyone says it's bad. And new. And Not Made
> Here. THAT is a problem, and not a technological one.
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:39 PM Anthony Cole  wrote:
>
>> Magnus, you've missed the point of the visual editor revolt. A couple of
>> people here have tried to explain that to you, politely. And you're
>> persisting with your idée fixe.
>>
>> There were two parts to the visual editor catastrophe, actually. The
>> product wasn't ready for anyone to use. Not veteran editors. Not newbies.
>> Newbies who used it were less likely to successfully complete an edit. It
>> was broken, and the WMF insisted we had to use it.
>>
>> The second part of the problem was arrogance. Yes, a few editors were
>> unnecessarily rude about the product and the developers. But then most of
>> the developers and tech staff who dealt with the community arrogantly
>> characterised *anyone* who complained about the product as an ignorant,
>> selfish Ludite - and you're persisting with that characterisation now.
>>
>> The WMF under Lila has learned the lessons from that, and they have
>> fostered a much healthier relationship between the developers and the
>> community. You clearly haven't learned all you might have.
>>
>> In fact, reading the arrogant responses from you here and in the concurrent
>> thread titled "How to disseminate free knowledge," and from Denny in
>> earlier threads addressing criticism of WikiData, it seems to me there is
>> still a significant arrogance problem that needs addressing, at least over
>> at WikiData.
>>
>> Some people may approach you arrogantly, maybe even insultingly, about an
>> innovation, and I suppose you might be justified in talking down to them or
>> ridiculing them (though I advise against it.). But if you can't distinguish
>> them from those who approach you with genuine concerns and well-founded
>> criticisms, then no matter how clever you think your technical solutions
>> are, you will soon find you're no more welcome here than those WMF staffers
>> who thought insulting well-meaning critics was a good career move.
>>
>> Denny's contemptuous dismissal of valid criticisms of his project, and your
>> contemptuous dismissal of the valid criticisms of the early visual editor
>> and its launch are both very disappointing.
>>
>> Anthony Cole
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Magnus Manske <
>> magnusman...@googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > The iPhone was a commercial success because it let you do the basic
>> > functions easily and intuitively, and looked shiny at the same time. We
>> do
>> > not charge a price; our "win" comes by people using our product. If we
>> can
>> > present the product in such a way that more people use it, it is a
>> success
>> > for us.
>>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Was the Wikimedia Foundation's removal of membership in 2006 legal?

[Andre Engels]

From the discussion on the creation of Wikimedia I remember that there
definitely was an intention to have members involved in the election
of the board. Apart from the appointed board members, there would be
two community selected members - one chosen by the editing community,
the other by the financial contributing community. However, because
there was no membership yet at the time, the first two community board
members were 'for now' both elected by the editing community. Later,
when it was decided, or when it became clear, that there would not be
paying members, the seat (with the extension of the board, seats) that
had been intended to be filled by the paying members, was changed into
the current chapter-selected board seats.

-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How to fix Commons

[Andre Engels]

On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 5:33 AM, svetlana  wrote:

> MZMcBride wrote:
>> As much as the term is an awful buzzword, Commons could also do with
>> additional gamification, from what I've seen. If we can set up an easy
>> keyword/tagging system, having users help us sort and tag media would be
>> amazing.
>
> We already have such system. It's called categories. If we would like to 
> build a prettier interface for it, I'm all ears (although I wouldn't call it 
> a game).

Gamification here relates to one type of interface, where a user gets
supplied a random example of an issue, and then tries to resolve that,
with a single resolution being just a small task. For an example of
what that looks like in a Wikimedia- context, see the Wikidata game at
https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-game/. A game could for example be
used to re-categorize files in categories that are too general (like
[[Category:People]]), to categorize uncategorized images or to add a
certain type of category to files where for some reason it seems
likely to apply (for example, images that in some way are described as
paintings which have no author-category).


-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

[Andre Engels]

And where do you see what you are writing here? If you really consider
it bullying to say outside Commons that you think something is wrong
with Commons, then the situation is much worse than I thought it would
be. Your analogy is severely flawed in many places, and only functions
to enrage those who happen to not agree with you. In fact, it
describes the behaviour of you and your ilk more than that of your
opponents.

Disgustedly yours,

André Engels


On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Pipo Le Clown  wrote:
> - You must change.
> - Ok, let's discuss this together. Explain what you think is wrong, and how
> we can fix it.
> - No, you must change first.
>
> Commons can change. Policies can evolve. But staying outside the circle and
> throwing mud at those inside will not help them to open and accept you at a
> friend...
>
> This thread is like a bully kicking a child while asking "why don't you
> want to be my friend ?"
>
> Le ven. 12 déc. 2014 à 9:09, John Mark Vandenberg  a
> écrit :
>
>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Gerard Meijssen
>>  wrote:
>> > Hoi,
>> > This problem is not new. It is not as if the Commons community is not
>> aware
>> > of this perception. The perception that there might be a situation where
>> > someone is sued is not necessary shared by lawyers. They have to make a
>> > living as well so they will sue when they are paid to do so.
>> >
>> > When people complain that Commonists go to far in what they do and their
>> > only defence is "you are demotivating me" than that is exactly what needs
>> > to be done. They need to be demotivated to go berserk with their
>> misguided
>> > interpretation of copyright.  When some hotheads leave the building, it
>> > will lower the temperature and we can start to talk.
>> >
>> > Commons is not the only project that serves the whole of our communities.
>> > Wikidata is another. I regularly find images for people that are not
>> moved
>> > to Commons because Commons is not trusted. Now that pisses me off
>> terribly
>> > and it sours my appreciation of Commons. As it is, Commons is not trusted
>> > and not discussing this only puts this discussion further back with even
>> > more ill feelings and even less appreciation for the people who do good
>> > work at Commons. They are ultimately the people who suffer the most.
>>
>> And the same is said and done regarding Wikidata , which client
>> projects are very skeptical about trusting to hold data.  Wikidata
>> also has its own copyright issues.  If Wikipedia data is migrated to
>> Wikidata, and it is determined that Wikidata violations database
>> copyrights (whereas Wikipedia may not have), we have to migrate all
>> the data back.  Exactly the same as Commons.  Yet you've been a
>> proponent of Wikidata ignoring these database copyright issues.
>>
>> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/03/wikipedia-
>> and-impact-factor-of-nature.html
>>
>> Wikidata also has quality control issues that will mean it is going to
>> take a lot of work to clean up the data it contains in order to become
>> reliable. e.g. in the last few days you've created items and labelled
>> them as 'instance of human' , when they are not humans. :/
>>
>> https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q18615764&action=history
>> https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q18601263&action=history
>>
>> Your response when this exact same problem has been discussed several
>> times is, if I can paraphrase, .. you do so many edits that you
>> believe it is someone elses job to fix the small percentage of errors
>> caused by your hyper-productivity.  That works in theory in large
>> wikis, but doesnt work so well when the vast majority of new Wikidata
>> content is added by simplistic bots and humans doing similarly large
>> batches of semi-automated edits.
>>
>> --
>> John Vandenberg
>>
>> ___
>> 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,
>> 
> ___
> 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, 
> 



-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

[Andre Engels]

I don't think those pictures are going to be deleted - there are
plenty of pictures of cars on commons, and I haven't seen a movement
to get them all deleted (I don't spend much time on commons, though,
so I might have missed it). I do think it would be a good thing to
keep them, but fop should not be the argument.

In my opinion, the relevant issue here would be that the copyright
holder is in no way disadvantaged by the creation, copying and
publication of the image. However, it is hard to put that type of
reasoning into a workable criterion.


On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:44 PM, Jane Darnell  wrote:
> Wait, are you saying all those pics are going to be deleted then? There
> must be tens of 1000's out there by now
>
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Andre Engels  wrote:
>
>> No, they do not. The Dutch title of copyright law considering freedom
>> of panorama:
>>
>> "Als inbreuk op het auteursrecht op een werk als bedoeld in artikel
>> 10, eerste lid, onder 6°, of op een werk, betrekkelijk tot de
>> bouwkunde als bedoeld in artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 8°, dat is
>> gemaakt om permanent in openbare plaatsen te worden geplaatst, wordt
>> niet beschouwd de verveelvoudiging of openbaarmaking van afbeeldingen
>> van het werk zoals het zich aldaar bevindt. [...]"
>>
>> Translated, and with the references to article 10 explained:
>> "Not considered an infringement of copyright on [a drawing, painting,
>> building, sculpture, lithography, engraving or other imagery] or a
>> [design, sketch or 3d work] related to architecture, created to be
>> placed in public places permanently, is the copying or publishing of
>> images of the work in the manner that it resides in that place..."
>>
>> Not only is a car not "created to be placed in public places
>> permanently", it also is not in the list of works for which fop holds
>> - insofar as it is a copyrightable work, it is copyrightable under
>> part 11 (applied arts) and not part 6 or 8 of article 10.
>>
>> André
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Jane Darnell  wrote:
>> > Are you kidding? Most of WLM photos in the Netherlands have cars in them
>> -
>> > these all fall under fop
>> >
>> > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:23 PM, geni  wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 11 December 2014 at 18:19, Jane Darnell  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Yup - it is in the Netherlands - yay!
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> Nyet. Netherlands law requires that the work be permanently located in a
>> >> public place. Cars would appear to be too mobile to qualify.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> geni
>> >> ___
>> >> 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
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
>>
>> ___
>> 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
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com

___
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 copyright extremism

[Andre Engels]

No, they do not. The Dutch title of copyright law considering freedom
of panorama:

"Als inbreuk op het auteursrecht op een werk als bedoeld in artikel
10, eerste lid, onder 6°, of op een werk, betrekkelijk tot de
bouwkunde als bedoeld in artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 8°, dat is
gemaakt om permanent in openbare plaatsen te worden geplaatst, wordt
niet beschouwd de verveelvoudiging of openbaarmaking van afbeeldingen
van het werk zoals het zich aldaar bevindt. [...]"

Translated, and with the references to article 10 explained:
"Not considered an infringement of copyright on [a drawing, painting,
building, sculpture, lithography, engraving or other imagery] or a
[design, sketch or 3d work] related to architecture, created to be
placed in public places permanently, is the copying or publishing of
images of the work in the manner that it resides in that place..."

Not only is a car not "created to be placed in public places
permanently", it also is not in the list of works for which fop holds
- insofar as it is a copyrightable work, it is copyrightable under
part 11 (applied arts) and not part 6 or 8 of article 10.

André



On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Jane Darnell  wrote:
> Are you kidding? Most of WLM photos in the Netherlands have cars in them -
> these all fall under fop
>
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:23 PM, geni  wrote:
>
>> On 11 December 2014 at 18:19, Jane Darnell  wrote:
>>
>> > Yup - it is in the Netherlands - yay!
>> >
>> >
>> Nyet. Netherlands law requires that the work be permanently located in a
>> public place. Cars would appear to be too mobile to qualify.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> geni
>> ___
>> 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,
>> 
> ___
> 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, 
> 



-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

[Andre Engels]

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Russavia  wrote:

> To answer the tractor question first. Of course not, there is nothing
> copyrightable in this image.

I see many copyrightable objects in this image. The tractor. The car.
The logo. The boards with demonstration slogans. The clothes. The
gate. Anything that has some kind of creative design is copyrighted.
Which just goes to show "nothing copyrighted" is not a workable way to
set our limits.

-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] is it possible to accept bitcoins without receiving stolen property?

[Andre Engels]

No, that doesn't seem possible. But that's not really different for
any other payment method either. And even if we could get payments
without risking accepting stolen property, I don't think we should.
When choosing between unwittingly accepting tainted money and forcing
people to give up their complete financial privacy, I find the first
option the least morally repugnant one.

Andre Engels

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:49 PM, James Salsman  wrote:
> Given this news about BGP hijacking used to mine hundreds of thousands
> (if not millions) of dollars worth of bitcoins per year, as a
> practical matter concerning donations, is there any way to accept
> bitcoin payments without risking accepting stolen property?
>
> http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/08/bgp_hijacking_cybercriminals_used_internet_architecture_to_mine_bitcoins.html
>
> ___
> 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>



-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com

___
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] Lets delete everything from commons (was The tragedy of Commons)

[Andre Engels]

So you want them to have a letter "You are allowed to use these images that
you are allowed to use" but if the letter says that the reason that they're
allowed to use it is that they are allowed to use it, it is not valid.

Shouldn't we be welcoming free content rather than inventing far out
reasons to think why they maybe in some way are not free and thus delete
them?

Andre Engels



On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Craig Franklin 
wrote:

> Pardon me if this has already been covered, but as I understand it the
> problem is not the legal status of the files in Israel, the problem is with
> the legal status of the files in the United States, where the Israeli
> Government may still have some copyright protections.  So while the
> contents of the letter are nice, they don't address the problem.
>
> It seems to me that rather than insisting that the files are permitted to
> remain, a more fruitful avenue might be to use WMIL's contacts with the
> Israeli Government to licence these images anywhere where copyright might
> still exist under a very free licence like CC-0.  That way even if URAA or
> some future copyright shenanigans places these images back under copyright,
> they're usable by anyone.  This ought to satisfy even the most dogmatic
> Commons admin that the images are indeed free.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
>
> On 22 June 2014 17:30, Itzik Edri  wrote:
>
> > The story continues.
> >
> > WMIL uploaded a letter from the Ministry of Justice, addressed to the
> > Commons Community, which confirm that the government don't have interest
> on
> > this photos. And not surprising, he was deleted from Commoms by the same
> > person who deleted all the photos so far:
> >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ministry_of_Justice%27s_of_Israel_response_to_copyrights_issue.jpg
> >
> > Hard not to feel that the reason to this massive deletions and this kind
> of
> > behavior does not cross the boundaries of URAA enforcement to probably
> more
> > personal views...
> >
> > The original letter can be found on Hebrew Wikipedia:
> >
> >
> https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:%D7%AA%D7%92%D7%95%D7%91%D7%AA_%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%93_%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A4%D7%98%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9F_%D7%96%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%99%D7%95%D7%A6%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D.jpg
> >
> > Itzik
> >
> >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ministry_of_Justice%27s_of_Israel_response_to_copyrights_issue.jpg
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 2:34 AM, Yann Forget  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Some Commons contributors like to ask impossible requirements, and
> > > threaten to delete files if these are not met. We have now a case of
> > > famous pictures from the government of Israel and Israel Defense
> > > Forces.
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#Files_and_pages_that_were_deleted_by_User:Fastily_that_I_am_aware_of_them
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beba_Idelson_Ada_Maimon1952.jpg
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abba_Hushi_1956.jpg
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aharon_Meskin_-_Ben_Gurion_-_Israel_Prize1960.jpg
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Avraham_Shlonsky_1952.jpg
> > >
> > > These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured
> > > pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia. These files have already been
> > > deleted and restored 3 times. When the URAA issue was not convincing
> > > enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication
> > > details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can
> > > understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they
> > > were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition,
> > > publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in
> > > Israel.
> > >
> > > After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a
> > > delete-only account:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Yann
> > > There, more contributors argue on this issue.
> > >
> > > By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these
> > > contributors t

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New Evaluation Report: Wikipedia Education Program

[Andre Engels]

Ccml,bv ..
Op 7 apr. 2014 03:35 schreef "Jaime Anstee"  het
volgende:

> Greetings,
>
> (Please pardon any cross-posting)
>
> The final in our series of the Evaluation Reports (beta), the report on the
> Wikipedia Education Program, is now available on meta:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programs:Evaluation_portal/Library/WEP<
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programs:Evaluation_portal/Library/WLM>
>
> Highlights of the report include:
>
> ==Inputs==
>
> The average Wikipedia Education Program reported cost a total of almost
> $8,000 USD in total, and $275 each week to implement. The average Wikipedia
> Education Program invests a total of $67 US and 3 hours into recruiting
> each new editor participant.
>
>
> ==Participation==
>
> Program leaders reported participation rates ranging from 25 to 2,372, and
> programs lasted from two weeks to 21 months with an average of 37.5 weeks.
>
>
> ==Outputs==
>
> For the seven reported Wikipedia Education Program implementations, almost
> 3,000 different Wikimedia pages were created or improved. The average
> Wikipedia Education Program produces about 120 pages of content each week.
> The average program participant adds just under half a page of content to
> Wikipedia and creates or improves six wiki pages each week.
>
>
> ==Outcomes==
>
> Out of the 3,334 new editor participants in Wikipedia Education Program, 36
> (1.2%) participants were "active" three months after the program ended; 33
> (1.1%) were "active" six months after the programs ended.
>
> Questions are welcome and encouraged on the talk page.
>
> On behalf of the Program Evaluation team,
>
> Jaime
>
>
> --
>
> Jaime Anstee, Ph.D
> Program Evaluation Specialist
> Wikimedia Foundation
> +1.415.839.6885 ext 6869
> 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,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Andre Engels]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Which reminds me – I often think it odd that Wikimedia will fund a
> Wikipedian-in-Residence for some regional tourist attraction (think the
> Welsh Coastal Path project, or the York Museum),
>

Wikipedians-in-Residence are not funded by Wikimedia, but by the
organisation where they are working with.

-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Relationship between Wikimedia and oDesk

[Andre Engels]

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Gryllida  wrote:

> Thought paid editing is prohibited. It could be nice to find ways to
> enforce that.
>

I don't think it's expressly forbidden, 'frowned upon' would be the words
I'd use. Apart from that, I have a feeling this whole thread is a storm in
less than a glass of water. Odesk is a system where people can offer or
take jobs. Wikimedia uses it (though in a somewhat different way). How on
Earth do those two facts imply "Odesk is probably used for paid editing"?

-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the capability to delete usernames compatible with the CCBYSA license?

[Andre Engels]

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Strainu  wrote:


> > Same argument in
> > different wording: None of the creativity that goes into the vandalizing
> > from version A to version B is present in version C. Thus, version C does
> > not fall under the copyright of the vandal. Which means that there is
> also
> > no obligation to honor their licensing restrictions, only those of the
> > authors who are actually partly responsible for the final document.
>
> If we go this way, then none of the authors who added legitimate
> content in the past but had it deleted later should be credited. We
> would need a tool like "git blame" [1] to generate the author list.
>

Not necessary - "need not be credited" does not imply "should not be
credited".


> >
> > Going further, say that someone with an offensive username (or even
> >> just an username unaccepted on wikipedia, such as a company name)
> >> actually makes a valid edit, which is not reverted, but the name is
> >> removed from the history. Is it fine to ignore the license just
> >> because we find some usernames offensive? Shouldn't we instead credit
> >> the user *at least* with a pseudonym?
> >>
> >
> > Is it usual to remove names from history without replacing them with
> > another pseudonym? I know of no such case.
>
> Is this even possible? I only have the rights to do this on ro.wp and
> I see no option to replace the name with a pseudonym. I just select
> "Delete the username or IP address" and add a reason and the history
> shows the text "username deleted" crossed. And on the pdf export, I'm
> positive there is no pseudonym used.
>

I think changing the username has the desired effect, I am not 100% sure
though.

-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the capability to delete usernames compatible with the CCBYSA license?

[Andre Engels]

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Strainu  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Someone brought up an interesting issue: is it moral for the vandals
> to be credited as contributors to articles (especially when exporting
> the article as pdf)? After experimenting a little, it turns out that
> deleting the usernames from the history removes them from the
> contributor list.
>
> While morality is a subjective matter, a more interesting question is:
> is this behavior compatible with the CCBYSA license? Say we have
> version A of a text, vandalised in version B and reverted in revision
> C. Then version C is a work derived from version B, shouldn't it
> credit the full author list of version B?
>

No, the reverted text is derived from A, not from B. That there has been a
version in between at the same place does not matter. Same argument in
different wording: None of the creativity that goes into the vandalizing
from version A to version B is present in version C. Thus, version C does
not fall under the copyright of the vandal. Which means that there is also
no obligation to honor their licensing restrictions, only those of the
authors who are actually partly responsible for the final document.

Going further, say that someone with an offensive username (or even
> just an username unaccepted on wikipedia, such as a company name)
> actually makes a valid edit, which is not reverted, but the name is
> removed from the history. Is it fine to ignore the license just
> because we find some usernames offensive? Shouldn't we instead credit
> the user *at least* with a pseudonym?
>

Is it usual to remove names from history without replacing them with
another pseudonym? I know of no such case.

-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] is wikipedia zero illegal because it violates net neutrality?

[Andre Engels]

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 8:12 AM, rupert THURNER wrote:

> Am 26.08.2013 18:14 schrieb "Andre Engels" :
>
> > Dutch telecommunication law, article 7.4a (the net neutrality article),
> > paragraph 3:
> >
> > "Aanbieders van internettoegangsdiensten stellen de hoogte van tarieven
> > voor internettoegangsdiensten niet afhankelijk van de diensten en
> > toepassingen die via deze diensten worden aangeboden of gebruikt."
> >
> > "Offerers of internet access services do not make the tariffs for
> internet
> > access services dependent on the services and applications that are
> offered
> > or used via these services."
> >
> > If an isp offers Wikipedia for free, and some other internet usage not,
> > then it has a different tariff dependent on the service that is offered.
>
> Andre, this means Wikipedia Zero is illegal in Dutch law, and WMF
> actively promotes illegal deals? The Swiss proposal btw looks the
> same, as well the intention of the German law seems similar.
>

Well, they are not illegal, as they do not fall under Dutch jurisdiction.


> As i see it "illegal" does not mean necessarily "immoral" or "bad
> intention". And of course we (or at least i) are heavily biased
> because we think there is nothing better than Wikipedia, and there is
> nothing better if everybody on this world is able to get it for free.


For me personally, it is a moral question. As specified above, it's not
illegal for the simple reason that it's not been rolled out or planned in
countries with net neutrality laws as far as I know. To me the question is:
Even if it is not illegal, is it a good idea from a moral standpoint? I
don't think WMF has spoken out about net neutrality, but undoubtedly many
people within our movement stand behind it. If the WMF would endorse net
neutrality, and if Wikipedia Zero would break it, then supporting Wikipedia
Zero would be hypocritical. For me personally, the solution is to stand for
a more relaxed definition of net neutrality, where giving an alternative or
better service for specific services is not problematic as long as this
does not adversely affect service for other services. YMMV.

-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
___
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] is wikipedia zero illegal because it violates net neutrality?

[Andre Engels]

Dutch telecommunication law, article 7.4a (the net neutrality article),
paragraph 3:

"Aanbieders van internettoegangsdiensten stellen de hoogte van tarieven
voor internettoegangsdiensten niet afhankelijk van de diensten en
toepassingen die via deze diensten worden aangeboden of gebruikt."

"Offerers of internet access services do not make the tariffs for internet
access services dependent on the services and applications that are offered
or used via these services."

If an isp offers Wikipedia for free, and some other internet usage not,
then it has a different tariff dependent on the service that is offered.



On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Stephen Bain wrote:

> To the best of my knowledge, every jurisdiction that has legislated on net
> neutrality has concentrated on preventing ISPs from blocking, degrading or
> charging extra for particular services; not one of them has a problem with
> providers giving away certain data for free.
>
> S
> On 26 Aug 2013 04:51, "rupert THURNER"  wrote:
>
> > hi,
> >
> > most people know some advantage of wikipedia zero and everybody can
> > look up the advantages by just typing wikipedia zero into some search
> > engine. as i am not sure about the answer and anyway get asked in rare
> > cases what i think of wp:zero i guess it should be best answered on
> > the mailing list:
> >
> > is wikipedia zero illegal in some countries because it violates net
> > neutrality? and if it is illegal or borderline according to, say,
> > netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in
> > countries where the law is less developed? or should wikimedia
> > foundation apply a higher moral standard and just abstain from any
> > activity which might be perceived as illegal somewhere?
> >
> > just for the ones not so sure about net neutrality [1]:
> > Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on
> > the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by
> > user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached
> > equipment, and modes of communication.
> >
> > [1]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
> >
> > rupert.
> >
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
>



-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Question: How do we define lobbying?

[Andre Engels]

On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:

> The problem is that in some European countries lobbying is in a gray zone
> at the limit of "corruption" and it's not legally recognized.
>
> What is important is to define clearly what people means with "lobbying"
> and may be better to change the word.
>

Lobbying is any activity that has the intention of influencing the opinions
of politicians and other influential people on issues. I think a clear (or
at least, at first look clear) between black (corruption-like) and white
(ethic) lobbying would be that white lobbying consists of bringing
information and opinions to politicians and/or the general public, black
lobbying consists of bringing them advantages or promises.

In general, lobbying consists of sending letters, petitions and such to
politicians, parliaments, governments and such, and talking with those
about subjects we are interested in. It's comparable to propaganda
(political advertising), but directed at 'those in power' rather than the
population as a whole.

-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] License issue on GPL and CC-by-sa mix up

[Andre Engels]

On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Mathieu Stumpf
 wrote:

> One of my favorite wikimedia project is the wiktionary, I probably use
> it everyday and I like to contribute on the french chapter here and
> there.
>
> As I'm learning esperanto, I wanted to improve the french wiktionary on
> this topic. My first thought was to begin by gathering a list of
> vocabulary, make a todo page with links and go on.
>
> But I found that there is already a free/libre dictionary out there :
> Reta Vortaro[1]. Morever this dictionary provide definition in several
> languages, so I thought instead of making a word by word contribution
> only for the french chapter, I could add a whole esperanto dictionary to
> several chapters in once. It sounds great doesn't it ?
>
> Unfortunately, this dictionary is under GPL which is a well known free
> license (but a strange choice for a non-software project). So I would
> like to know, can I mix up a GPL content with a CC-by-sa page (in cases
> where such a page already exist), and more generaly can I add GPL
> content into the wiktionary.

No. What you stumbled upon is a well-known (at least to me) problem of
share-alike licences: The only thing they are two-way compatible with
is themselves. Even if one would have a different license with exactly
the same meaning, it would not be possible to move texts from that
license to CC-BY-SA (or GPL or whatever) or vice versa.


-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with "Rape" in title under advertising pressure.

[Andre Engels]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:
> On 26/06/2012 2:02 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
>>
>> Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has been
>> forced to censor a
>> number of pages due to advertiser pressure.
>>
>
> And thus is the wisdom of eschewing advertizement and sponsorship
> highlighted for all too see.  I've always supported the model of yearly
> donation drives to avoid it -- occasionally creepy Jimmy pictures
> notwithstanding -- and this is the reason why.

Wow! Indeed! Someone somewhere bowed for something to advertizers!
Of course, if we would have had advertizing, we would also have bowed
for them after they of course would have had similar demands. Is
Wikipedia also going to remove rape articles if people are saying they
will not donate if we do not? No way. Why can we tell that to donators
and not to advertizers?

-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Any studies on economic impact of community-produced open data?

[Andre Engels]

I'll take another route (although probably just as meaningless as most
others). The normal way of generating money over the net is through
advertisements. How much would Wikipedia make in advertisements, would
they use them? Using a conservative price of 0,5 cents per pageview,
and using the data from
http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportRequests.htm I
get that just the value of having Wikipedia for one month equates 1
billion dollars (American style billions).


-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Any studies on economic impact of community-produced open data?

[Andre Engels]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Thomas Dalton  wrote:
> On 4 June 2012 13:57, David Gerard  wrote:
>> AIUI, weekdays office hours are our peak access period, and Wikipedia
>> generally isn't blocked in offices the way Facebook, etc. often are.
>> This suggests it's good for *something* economically.
>
> It's good for lowering the productivity of offices! I occasionally
> look things up on Wikipedia at work that are actually about my work,
> but usually it's to settle a debate that has nothing at all to do with
> work.

Even then it could be good for productivity, by decreasing the amount
of time you and your colleagues spend over looking up who is right in
their debate (although probably that gained time will be used for more
debates, so the net effect on productivity will be close to zero).

-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Breivik: My Biggest Influence Was Wikipedia

[Andre Engels]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Svip  wrote:
> On 18 April 2012 10:53, Mike  Dupont  wrote:
>
>> this just in, scary.
>>
>> Breivik: My Biggest Influence Was Wikipedia
>> http://www.businessinsider.com/norwegian-terrorist-anders-breivik-my-biggest-influence-was-wikipedia-2012-4#ixzz1sN3LZci6
>
> Maybe he read the articles during vandalism?

Nah, he probably just read neutral information from Wikipedia - and
then consumed that with a lot of confirmation bias. It's a fact of
life - Wikipedia makes information more easily available for everyone,
also for those who use it for bad.

-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l