Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Jonatan Svensson Glad]

Most likely since tickets can be discussed in detail on the wiki amongst 
agents, and therefore a protective silence on the entire wiki has been put in 
place.

For the other questions (such as how to remove another user as an agent), OTRS 
admins are not really admins as in the normal wiki-way, but more like "rulers 
of OTRS". Their word is law (kinda). So, to change any of this, they (or WMF 
staffers) would need to do it.

--
Jonatan
___
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] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Jonatan Svensson Glad]

At the bottom of https://otrs-wiki.wikimedia.org/ you can see that there is a 
link called "Confidentiality notice” 
<https://otrs-wiki.wikimedia.org/wiki/Project:General_disclaimer>. What is 
stated in that confidentiality notice is also confidential, since it is located 
on the wiki. But https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/L45 is the actual agreement 
singed by OTRS agents to gain access ot he OTRS software and the wiki.

It is also stated in the footer of https://otrs-wiki.wikimedia.org/: "Please be 
aware that this is a private wiki, so content should not be shared externally.”

--
Jonatan Svensson Glad
Josve05a
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Jonatan Svensson Glad]

Some quick non-answer (better knows as !answers):

1. what are OTRS' rules and policies?
I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents 
sign. <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/L45> Any and all information on the 
OTRS wiki is private. OTRS wiki is used as a private workspace restricted to 
Wikimedia Foundation staff, chapter representatives, and Volunteer Response 
Team members, and is is strictly confidential.

2. where are those rules and policies documented, and why are they not public?
All rules and policies not stored on a local wiki (Commons, enwp, etc.) or Meta 
are stored on the OTRS wiki <http://otrs-wiki.wikimedia.org>. Why, if any rules 
or policies posted on OTRS wiki, are not public, I’m unable to answer this due 
to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign.

3. where are those rules and policies discussed and decided?
If not discussed publicly on a local wiki (Commons, enwp, etc.) or Meta, they 
can be discussed on e.g. the Café on the OTRS wiki 
<http://otrs-wiki.wikimedia.org> or on the mailing list. Or, I guess, by 
”decree" by WMF.

4. what is the process for getting those rules and policies changed (or 
reworded for clarity)?
I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents 
sign.

5. how is OTRS overseen, and who by?
OTRS has 9 ”OTRS admins” 
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS#OTRS_administrators>. I believe OTRS 
falls under the Communications committee’s purview, and perhaps T&S.

6. what is the approval process for an individual to become an OTRS agent?
Please see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/Volunteering.

7. what is the process for the community to remove an individual’s OTRS 
permissions, if they fail to uphold or abide by policy?
I do not know the answer to this question.

8. if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the process for 
reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions (including contacting 
and apologising to their correspondents)?
I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents 
sign.

9. which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent, or remove their 
permissions?
OTRS admins <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS#OTRS_administrators>.

10. how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?
I do not know the answer to this question.


Jonatan Svensson Glad
Josve05a
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Using non-free elements vs our values (Apple Maps vs Wikipedia iOS app)

[Jonatan Svensson Glad]

> If the nonfree content is presented as an integral part of the interface, 
> such as inline with the article, that's a problem.

It is an "integral part of the interface", so mcu so, it is it's own "thing" in 
the app, and not part of "in articles". See screenshot (which I can't upload to 
Commons) here: https://snag.gy/5RpbXZ.jpg It does not just "pull up" Apple 
Maps, but incorporates in it to the app itself.


Jonatan
___
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] Using non-free elements vs our values (Apple Maps vs Wikipedia iOS app)

[Jonatan Svensson Glad]

Hello everyone,


I'm not one who usually writes on these lists, but since it seems like a good 
way to get others opinions (and ince I've already formed my own), I thought it 
was a good way to see what others had to say and think.


The mobile team for the iOS app (who are all awesome!)  has recently released 
(in beta) a version of the app which incorporates Apple Maps a one of it's main 
feature, to find articles nearby.


"The Wikipedia iOS app has released a beta version (5.4.0 1081) which uses 
Apple maps as its map data source. This is not an easy decision and has already 
sparked some discussion of whether this is acceptable given our project's 
values."


These maps are not free (non-libre) and is in my strong opinion against our 
values. We only create and publish things which are freely licensed (with fair 
use imagery being the only exception, after a board resolution regarding EDP's).


Some reasons why this was done can be read here: 
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Apps/Team/iOS/Maps_service


I was asked if we could use non-free elements as long as we said it was 
non-free and you may not be allowed to re-ue it, and I responded with "If we 
can't find enough editors for Wikipedia, would it ever be alright if we copied 
text from Britannica, as long as we said it was from Britannica, and that 
reusers can not use it" i.e. just because we can't make something, doesn't mean 
we should use something else (non-free thing) to reach our 'wants', if it 
causes us to  loose what is... 'us'.


I'm seeking imput and opinions from you all whether this i allowed or not our 
according to values, which states:


"An essential part of the Wikimedia Foundation's mission is encouraging the 
development of free-content educational resources that may be created, used, 
and reused by the entire human community. We believe that this mission requires 
thriving open formats and open standards on the web to allow the creation of 
content not subject to restrictions on creation, use, and reuse.

At the creation level, we want to provide the editing community with 
freely-licensed tools for participation and collaboration. Our community should 
also have the freedom to fork thanks to freely available dumps.

The community will in turn create a body of knowledge which can be distributed 
freely throughout the world, viewable or playable by free software tools."
___
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] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Jonatan Svensson Glad]

Also, the MediaViewer offers HTML and plain text attribution, if you press the 
right icons.

Jonatan Svensson Glad
Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons

> On 7 Mar 2017, at 13:01, "wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org" 
>  wrote:
> 
> Re: a second commons,prevent cease and desist business

___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

[Wikimedia-l] FindArticles.com died in 2012

[Jonatan Svensson Glad]

The website findarticles died in 2012 causing over 20 000 articles to have dead 
links on them. A few of them was backed up on Wayback, but their robot.txt 
changed so all those archives were deleted as well. So either articles have a 
dead link showing as 200 (which findlinks.com does) or they are claiming to be 
archived while they are not.
Read more in my blog post about this: 
https://jonatanglad.wordpress.com/2015/06/29/findarticles-com/
Can we use a bot to remove all instances of this link, or should we go through 
them all manually? Can we use bots such as CItation bot (which is currently 
blocked) to find doi's and other links to replace these links with? Ideas 
people! Barely any of these links are tagged as dead, and can't by Checklinks 
(unless done manually) since they show as 200.
/Josve05a




















Jonatan
Svensson Glad

President of SSU Tyresö and Editor on
Wikipedia




  |
gladjona...@outlook.com




 






















All views and opinions expressed in this email message are
the personal opinions of the author and do not represent
those of any organization which might be related to this message. No liability 
can be held for any
damages, however caused, to any recipients of this message.




  
___
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] FW: To revdel (RD1) or not to revdel. That is a question....

[Jonatan Svensson Glad]

From: gladjona...@outlook.com
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: To revdel (RD1) or not to revdel. That is a question
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 23:38:16 +0200




I have had some discussions w/ users on IRC about the need to revdel/legal 
obligation to revdel copyvios.
If it had copyvios in it but has since been edited and rewritten, and no longer 
can be deleted per G12, nor revdeled per RD1 (since then it would ruin 
attribution, if the user had actually written something themself).
How should the example below be revdeled handled?
Example:Revision 1. mixed copyvio and own words by user X.Revision 2. Fixed 
typos by User Y.Revision 3. User Z rewrote the coied tex, left user X own words.

How should this be revdeled, and how should this be atributed? (sorry for my 
bad English)

  
___
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,