Re: [Wikimedia-l] Keeping historical documents related to Wikimedia

[Nicholas Moreau]

Hi,

As someone working in the world of municipal archives, I would suggest the
open-source software Archivematica,

https://www.artefactual.com/

As per this interview on the Library of Congress blog:

http://blogs.loc.gov/thesignal/2012/10/archivematica-and-the-open-source-mindset-for-digital-preservation-systems/

"Archivematica is a software system that is designed to maintain
standards-based, long-term access to collections of digital objects. It
processes digital objects from ingest to access in compliance with the
ISO-OAIS functional model. It uses a micro-services approach to invoke a
number of integrated open-source tools that perform granular processing
tasks such as virus checking, checksum verification, file format
conversions, etc. Users monitor and control the processing workflows via a
web-based dashboard. There is a brief screencast at archivematica.org that
demonstrates this functionality."

A bit more technical info:

https://wiki.archivematica.org/Overview

The software is used by UNESCO, the UN Archives, NATO Archives, Library and
Archives Canada, MoMA, and many others:

https://www.artefactual.com/clients/

Regards,
Nick
___
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Re: [Wikimedia-l] Keeping historical documents related to Wikimedia

[MZMcBride]

Yann Forget wrote:
>That completely defeats the point.
>Anyone can keep a copy locally, but 1. the file isn't available publicly,
>2. nobody really knows where it is available (Google won't say X has a
>copy), 3. if the local storage is damaged, the file is lost.
>
>So I am asking the WMF to have a place to keep such files publicly.

It's kind of amusing to read a discussion about preserving historical
documents where the author's name includes the word "forget." :-)

The problem here is a lot more social than technical. We already have two
places that users can upload and manage files: commons.wikimedia.org and
meta.wikimedia.org. There's no technical reason that either of these
places can't be used, as far as I know. The issue is that some people on
these wikis insist that all content be completely free.

Depending on the size of the files you want to store and how much you care
about presentation, metadata, etc., there are some more obscure places we
could stick the files basically indefinitely. We could put them in a Git
repository on gerrit.wikimedia.org or maybe github.com, we could stick
them in Phabricator at phabricator.wikimedia.org, we could put them on
wikimediafoundation.org, we could put them in a user directory on
people.wikimedia.org, we could stick them on a server like
dumps.wikimedia.org or wikitech.wikimedia.org. Hell, we could even find an
obscure Wiktionary or Wikiquote project with reasonable local admins and
just stash the files away there. We have plenty of servers and tools at
our disposal. If you create a Phabricator Maniphest task with a list of
your hard and soft requirements, particularly the amount of storage space
you expect to need, we can probably find you a place to stick these files
away from the people so intent on deleting them.

MZMcBride



___
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] Keeping historical documents related to Wikimedia

[Yann Forget]

Hi,

2017-01-12 1:41 GMT+01:00 Newyorkbrad :

> If it is decided not to host these materials on a wiki, whether for
> copyright or any other reasons, then someone (either in the Office or
> a volunteer) should be designated to retain a copy privately.  That
> way, he or she will be able to upload it later if the copyright status
> or policy changes in the future, or to make it available offline for
> research use or consultation by historians or other researchers who
> could make good use of it.
>

That completely defeats the point.
Anyone can keep a copy locally, but 1. the file isn't available publicly,
2. nobody really knows where it is available (Google won't say X has a
copy), 3. if the local storage is damaged, the file is lost.

So I am asking the WMF to have a place to keep such files publicly.

Regards,

Yann

>
> Newyorkbrad/IBM
>
> On 1/11/17, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
> > Thank you for bringing this up, Yann. Some relevant context is that Meta
> > Wiki users considered permitting such files on Meta Wiki a year and a
> half
> > ago, and decided not to. The electorate was not very big (14 votes,
> total),
> > but it was carefully considered, with compelling arguments made on both
> > sides.[1]
> >
> > In my opinion, the best outcome would be that Meta Wiki should have an
> > Exemption Doctrine Policy (the board's name for a project's local policy
> > that would permit copyrighted files under specific circumstances)[2] I
> > think the Meta Wiki decision should be revisited and considered in more
> > depth, with more participation, and probably reversed (with some careful
> > work on defining the proper circumstances for an exemption).
> >
> > But of course, that's not an easy task. I have no ready answer, but am
> > interested to see what ideas others have.
> > -Pete
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >
> > [1]
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Babel;
> diff=prev=13362698#General_discussion_on_allowing_or_rejecting_fair_
> use_at_Meta
> > [2] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Yann Forget  wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I would like to get more opinions about what to do with files such as
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Education_and_WGIG.pdf
> >>
> >> This is a draft from a United Nations conference which mentions
> Wikipedia
> >> (the first and only AFAIK), and as such, an important historical
> document.
> >>
> >> It doesn't have a formal license, but there is no real copyright issue.
> >>
> >> Where and how should we keep such files?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Yann Forget
> >> ___
> >> 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,
> >> 
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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] Keeping historical documents related to Wikimedia

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,

For me it is not clear at all that how a long term road map will be of
benefit. Quite to the contrary. I am afraid it will solidify what the WMF
does and remove any benefits of the ability to adapt to changes due to new
points of view. I do understand the need to plan, I understand that
development does not happen in a vacuum and that it is important to be
transparent about objectives.

The question is who such a road map has to be transparent for. Given that I
am and have been active and care deeply for what we aim to achieve, I
consider that I have a need to know because it helps me to plan what I work
on. It helps me when I understand what future technology enables and it is
why I have for instance worked on adding Wikidata items for Commons Creator
templates.

My point is that exactly because of involvement, having some grasp where we
are moving gives relevance to a continued expansion of the understanding
how we are to achieve "the sharing of the sum of all knowledge".

When people with no involvement ask for a long term commitment with vague
notions of "community involvement" I fail to understand how this will be of
benefit. What it is that they aim to achieve and why is  this involvement
asked. My biggest worry is that it will ossify what we do and will make us
even less agile and potentially less relevant. Never mind possible any good
intentions we should not commit too far in the future.

Thanks,

   GerardM
___
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] Keeping historical documents related to Wikimedia

[geni]

On 12 January 2017 at 22:20, Rogol Domedonfors  wrote:
> Fæ, Surely no grant-giving body would even talk to the Foundation if it
> could not show them a plan for the medium to long term.

Umm are we looking at a different set of grant funded projects here
because I've seen quite a few burn out over far shorter periods.

In any case for online stuff we still live in a world where 5 years is
long term and the foundation would have to quite spectacularly screw
up not to last that long. Beyond that they can point to the licenses
and database dumps. The software is open source the content is under a
free license. Even if Wikipedia isn't around the software and content
will be. Degrees of survival out to 10 years are fairly easy to
guarantee without special planning. Beyond that things always get a
bit speculative and long nowish.



-- 
geni

___
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] Keeping historical documents related to Wikimedia

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Dear J. and Gerard

Firstly, whether or not I have edited a Wikipedia article is not
particularly relevant to the proposition that the Foundation and the
Community would work together better on planning the future of technical
products if the Foundation would publish its roadmap to the Community.  I
think it's clear that they would, that the roadmap clearly exists and that
the publication would take time time and effort for a signficiant mutual
benefit.  Do you disagree with any of that?  Perhaps you think improved
collaboration between Foundation and Community is a trivial (popcorn)
matter?  Do you think that collaboration would or would not help to build a
quality encyclopaedia?

Secondly, the answer to J.'s specific but irrelevant question is Yes.  I
wrote about 70 articles in the period 2012-2014, when for various reasons I
ceased to do so and abandoned my account.

Thirdly, my motivation here is, and always has been, to do what I can to
advance the mission by pointing out simple, easy and effective ways in
which everyone can work better together to do so.  I think that we, the
Foundation and the Community, are not doing that as well as we could.

"Rogol"

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 6:54 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> You are not answering the question. You are only producing arguments that
> may be meaningful to you but they do not explain why you are interested and
> what you do to affect what you aim to achieve.
>
> IMHO it is important for the WMF to concentrate on what it is that we do.
> Make it more relevant in every possible way. When you ask for overarching
> vision, I want the WMF to explain why Wikisource does not get its
> audience?  I want us to engage more in bringing quality to Wikipedia and it
> is not theoretical what I propose I have challenged anyone to refute my
> arguments about associating red links and wiki links with Wikidata items
> and how it will improve quality.
>
> My point is; I want substance. I want us to concentrate on the things that
> help us to "share in the sum of all knowledge". For me your demands take
> time and more importantly energy away from the real questions. We should
> start with "share in the sum of our available knowledge" because this is
> achievable and we do not really consider it.
>
> I refer to your user page when I say that you are not involved. So you make
> no difference but demand attention. We have better things to do things that
> do not get done either. Please let us concentrate on what we can do to make
> a meaningful effort and let us consider the issues as we know them.
>
> Seriously better quality to Wikipedia requires a small change that nobody
> needs to see, that people can opt in to and the people that do will improve
> the quality in all Wikipedias. Again, I challenge anyone to show where my
> arguments fail reality.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 13 January 2017 at 23:34, Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
>
> > Gerard,
> >
> > It isn't personal to me at all, of course.  I'm not asking for privileged
> > access to these plans or my own personal personal copy.  I am requesting
> > that the Foundation publish their medium to long term technical planning,
> > the technical roadmap if you will, to the community so that the community
> > can discuss and help to develop them.  It seems to me that this is the
> only
> > way that the Foundation and the Community can move forward effectively.
> In
> > the absence of this sort of joined-up thinking we will continue to get
> such
> > disfunctional episodes as MediaViewer and Gather.
> >
> > I asked the Executive Director for "a clear concise and measurable set of
> > obectives around the areas of Visual Editor, Wikitext, Parsoid, Flow,
> > Workflow and Discovery" back on the 24 June 2016.  On the 5 January this
> > year, Katherine stated that that sort of discussion "isn't the most
> > effective use of my time".  I find that regrettable, but it is of course
> > her decision.
> >
> > I cannot believe that the Foundation does not have some sort of roadmap
> of
> > the sort I have been requesting, and indeed, frankly if the Foundation
> went
> > to a grant-making body and admitted that there was nothing of the kind to
> > show them, they would be laughed at.  Since that isn't happening, the
> > Foundation have shared their planning with donors.  So why not share it
> > with the Community?  What could the downside possibly be?
> >
> > "Rogol"
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 6:38 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Rogol,
> > > When I check out your profile, you are retired. Maybe you do not know
> any
> > > more but the WMF has been pretty consistent in the way that it operates
> > > over the years. So in details things change and arguably it could be
> > > different for all kinds of reasons. But as the WMF is not actively
> going
> > > for grants it would not surprise me that it is exact the consistency 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Keeping historical documents related to Wikimedia

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
You are not answering the question. You are only producing arguments that
may be meaningful to you but they do not explain why you are interested and
what you do to affect what you aim to achieve.

IMHO it is important for the WMF to concentrate on what it is that we do.
Make it more relevant in every possible way. When you ask for overarching
vision, I want the WMF to explain why Wikisource does not get its
audience?  I want us to engage more in bringing quality to Wikipedia and it
is not theoretical what I propose I have challenged anyone to refute my
arguments about associating red links and wiki links with Wikidata items
and how it will improve quality.

My point is; I want substance. I want us to concentrate on the things that
help us to "share in the sum of all knowledge". For me your demands take
time and more importantly energy away from the real questions. We should
start with "share in the sum of our available knowledge" because this is
achievable and we do not really consider it.

I refer to your user page when I say that you are not involved. So you make
no difference but demand attention. We have better things to do things that
do not get done either. Please let us concentrate on what we can do to make
a meaningful effort and let us consider the issues as we know them.

Seriously better quality to Wikipedia requires a small change that nobody
needs to see, that people can opt in to and the people that do will improve
the quality in all Wikipedias. Again, I challenge anyone to show where my
arguments fail reality.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 13 January 2017 at 23:34, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Gerard,
>
> It isn't personal to me at all, of course.  I'm not asking for privileged
> access to these plans or my own personal personal copy.  I am requesting
> that the Foundation publish their medium to long term technical planning,
> the technical roadmap if you will, to the community so that the community
> can discuss and help to develop them.  It seems to me that this is the only
> way that the Foundation and the Community can move forward effectively.  In
> the absence of this sort of joined-up thinking we will continue to get such
> disfunctional episodes as MediaViewer and Gather.
>
> I asked the Executive Director for "a clear concise and measurable set of
> obectives around the areas of Visual Editor, Wikitext, Parsoid, Flow,
> Workflow and Discovery" back on the 24 June 2016.  On the 5 January this
> year, Katherine stated that that sort of discussion "isn't the most
> effective use of my time".  I find that regrettable, but it is of course
> her decision.
>
> I cannot believe that the Foundation does not have some sort of roadmap of
> the sort I have been requesting, and indeed, frankly if the Foundation went
> to a grant-making body and admitted that there was nothing of the kind to
> show them, they would be laughed at.  Since that isn't happening, the
> Foundation have shared their planning with donors.  So why not share it
> with the Community?  What could the downside possibly be?
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 6:38 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Dear Rogol,
> > When I check out your profile, you are retired. Maybe you do not know any
> > more but the WMF has been pretty consistent in the way that it operates
> > over the years. So in details things change and arguably it could be
> > different for all kinds of reasons. But as the WMF is not actively going
> > for grants it would not surprise me that it is exact the consistency in
> its
> > actions that gives grant-giving bodies the assurances that they need.
> >
> > The question to you is what is it to you. Why are you not satisfied with
> > your answers and where would satisfactory answers lead us to? My problem
> > with the WMF and its community that is that it is stuck too much in
> things
> > we could improve upon. I am actively engaged in getting towards a vision
> > that I share in mailing lists and on my blog.
> >
> > What is your vision, what is it that you want?
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> > On 12 January 2017 at 23:20, Rogol Domedonfors 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Fæ, Surely no grant-giving body would even talk to the Foundation if it
> > > could not show them a plan for the medium to long term.  For some
> reason,
> > > the Foundation is consistently unwilling to share this plan with the
> > > Community (its biggest donor in terms both of money and surplus value).
> > I
> > > wonder why that would be?
> > >
> > > "Rogol"
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Fæ  wrote:
> > >
> > > > No need, it's on webarchive:
> > > > http://web.archive.org/web/20170112103412/https://upload.
> > > > wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/d/dd/Education_and_WGIG.pdf
> > > >
> > > > Unlike Wikimedia projects, Webarchive has a long term plan that one
> > > > would expect of a digital archive, so it's a much safer space for
> > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Keeping historical documents related to Wikimedia

[J.]

"Rogol",
Have you ever edited a Wikipedia article?[1] We are here to build a quality
encyclopedia, not make popcorn!
Wayne
[1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/guc/?user=Rogol+Domedonfors

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Gerard,
>
> (big snip)
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 6:38 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Dear Rogol,
> > When I check out your profile, you are retired.
>
(big snip)
___
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] Keeping historical documents related to Wikimedia

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Gerard,

It isn't personal to me at all, of course.  I'm not asking for privileged
access to these plans or my own personal personal copy.  I am requesting
that the Foundation publish their medium to long term technical planning,
the technical roadmap if you will, to the community so that the community
can discuss and help to develop them.  It seems to me that this is the only
way that the Foundation and the Community can move forward effectively.  In
the absence of this sort of joined-up thinking we will continue to get such
disfunctional episodes as MediaViewer and Gather.

I asked the Executive Director for "a clear concise and measurable set of
obectives around the areas of Visual Editor, Wikitext, Parsoid, Flow,
Workflow and Discovery" back on the 24 June 2016.  On the 5 January this
year, Katherine stated that that sort of discussion "isn't the most
effective use of my time".  I find that regrettable, but it is of course
her decision.

I cannot believe that the Foundation does not have some sort of roadmap of
the sort I have been requesting, and indeed, frankly if the Foundation went
to a grant-making body and admitted that there was nothing of the kind to
show them, they would be laughed at.  Since that isn't happening, the
Foundation have shared their planning with donors.  So why not share it
with the Community?  What could the downside possibly be?

"Rogol"

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 6:38 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Dear Rogol,
> When I check out your profile, you are retired. Maybe you do not know any
> more but the WMF has been pretty consistent in the way that it operates
> over the years. So in details things change and arguably it could be
> different for all kinds of reasons. But as the WMF is not actively going
> for grants it would not surprise me that it is exact the consistency in its
> actions that gives grant-giving bodies the assurances that they need.
>
> The question to you is what is it to you. Why are you not satisfied with
> your answers and where would satisfactory answers lead us to? My problem
> with the WMF and its community that is that it is stuck too much in things
> we could improve upon. I am actively engaged in getting towards a vision
> that I share in mailing lists and on my blog.
>
> What is your vision, what is it that you want?
> Thanks,
>
>
> On 12 January 2017 at 23:20, Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
>
> > Fæ, Surely no grant-giving body would even talk to the Foundation if it
> > could not show them a plan for the medium to long term.  For some reason,
> > the Foundation is consistently unwilling to share this plan with the
> > Community (its biggest donor in terms both of money and surplus value).
> I
> > wonder why that would be?
> >
> > "Rogol"
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Fæ  wrote:
> >
> > > No need, it's on webarchive:
> > > http://web.archive.org/web/20170112103412/https://upload.
> > > wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/d/dd/Education_and_WGIG.pdf
> > >
> > > Unlike Wikimedia projects, Webarchive has a long term plan that one
> > > would expect of a digital archive, so it's a much safer space for
> > > historical documents.
> > >
> > > I stopped asking about an equivalent realistic Wikimedia 100 year plan
> > > a couple of years back. The $100m endowment thingy controlled by Jimmy
> > > does not have this as a goal either, as far as I can tell.
> > >
> > > Fae
> > >
> > > On 12 January 2017 at 00:41, Newyorkbrad 
> wrote:
> > > > If it is decided not to host these materials on a wiki, whether for
> > > > copyright or any other reasons, then someone (either in the Office or
> > > > a volunteer) should be designated to retain a copy privately.  That
> > > > way, he or she will be able to upload it later if the copyright
> status
> > > > or policy changes in the future, or to make it available offline for
> > > > research use or consultation by historians or other researchers who
> > > > could make good use of it.
> > > >
> > > > Newyorkbrad/IBM
> > > >
> > > > On 1/11/17, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
> > > >> Thank you for bringing this up, Yann. Some relevant context is that
> > Meta
> > > >> Wiki users considered permitting such files on Meta Wiki a year and
> a
> > > half
> > > >> ago, and decided not to. The electorate was not very big (14 votes,
> > > total),
> > > >> but it was carefully considered, with compelling arguments made on
> > both
> > > >> sides.[1]
> > > >>
> > > >> In my opinion, the best outcome would be that Meta Wiki should have
> an
> > > >> Exemption Doctrine Policy (the board's name for a project's local
> > policy
> > > >> that would permit copyrighted files under specific
> circumstances)[2] I
> > > >> think the Meta Wiki decision should be revisited and considered in
> > more
> > > >> depth, with more participation, and probably reversed (with some
> > careful
> > > >> work on defining the proper circumstances for 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Keeping historical documents related to Wikimedia

[Gerard Meijssen]

Dear Rogol,
When I check out your profile, you are retired. Maybe you do not know any
more but the WMF has been pretty consistent in the way that it operates
over the years. So in details things change and arguably it could be
different for all kinds of reasons. But as the WMF is not actively going
for grants it would not surprise me that it is exact the consistency in its
actions that gives grant-giving bodies the assurances that they need.

The question to you is what is it to you. Why are you not satisfied with
your answers and where would satisfactory answers lead us to? My problem
with the WMF and its community that is that it is stuck too much in things
we could improve upon. I am actively engaged in getting towards a vision
that I share in mailing lists and on my blog.

What is your vision, what is it that you want?
Thanks,


On 12 January 2017 at 23:20, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Fæ, Surely no grant-giving body would even talk to the Foundation if it
> could not show them a plan for the medium to long term.  For some reason,
> the Foundation is consistently unwilling to share this plan with the
> Community (its biggest donor in terms both of money and surplus value).  I
> wonder why that would be?
>
> "Rogol"
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > No need, it's on webarchive:
> > http://web.archive.org/web/20170112103412/https://upload.
> > wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/d/dd/Education_and_WGIG.pdf
> >
> > Unlike Wikimedia projects, Webarchive has a long term plan that one
> > would expect of a digital archive, so it's a much safer space for
> > historical documents.
> >
> > I stopped asking about an equivalent realistic Wikimedia 100 year plan
> > a couple of years back. The $100m endowment thingy controlled by Jimmy
> > does not have this as a goal either, as far as I can tell.
> >
> > Fae
> >
> > On 12 January 2017 at 00:41, Newyorkbrad  wrote:
> > > If it is decided not to host these materials on a wiki, whether for
> > > copyright or any other reasons, then someone (either in the Office or
> > > a volunteer) should be designated to retain a copy privately.  That
> > > way, he or she will be able to upload it later if the copyright status
> > > or policy changes in the future, or to make it available offline for
> > > research use or consultation by historians or other researchers who
> > > could make good use of it.
> > >
> > > Newyorkbrad/IBM
> > >
> > > On 1/11/17, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
> > >> Thank you for bringing this up, Yann. Some relevant context is that
> Meta
> > >> Wiki users considered permitting such files on Meta Wiki a year and a
> > half
> > >> ago, and decided not to. The electorate was not very big (14 votes,
> > total),
> > >> but it was carefully considered, with compelling arguments made on
> both
> > >> sides.[1]
> > >>
> > >> In my opinion, the best outcome would be that Meta Wiki should have an
> > >> Exemption Doctrine Policy (the board's name for a project's local
> policy
> > >> that would permit copyrighted files under specific circumstances)[2] I
> > >> think the Meta Wiki decision should be revisited and considered in
> more
> > >> depth, with more participation, and probably reversed (with some
> careful
> > >> work on defining the proper circumstances for an exemption).
> > >>
> > >> But of course, that's not an easy task. I have no ready answer, but am
> > >> interested to see what ideas others have.
> > >> -Pete
> > >> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > >>
> > >> [1]
> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Babel;
> > diff=prev=13362698#General_discussion_on_
> allowing_or_rejecting_fair_
> > use_at_Meta
> > >> [2] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Yann Forget 
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> I would like to get more opinions about what to do with files such as
> > >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Education_and_WGIG.pdf
> > >>>
> > >>> This is a draft from a United Nations conference which mentions
> > Wikipedia
> > >>> (the first and only AFAIK), and as such, an important historical
> > document.
> > >>>
> > >>> It doesn't have a formal license, but there is no real copyright
> issue.
> > >>>
> > >>> Where and how should we keep such files?
> > >>>
> > >>> Regards,
> > >>>
> > >>> Yann Forget
> >
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Keeping historical documents related to Wikimedia

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Fæ, Surely no grant-giving body would even talk to the Foundation if it
could not show them a plan for the medium to long term.  For some reason,
the Foundation is consistently unwilling to share this plan with the
Community (its biggest donor in terms both of money and surplus value).  I
wonder why that would be?

"Rogol"


On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Fæ  wrote:

> No need, it's on webarchive:
> http://web.archive.org/web/20170112103412/https://upload.
> wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/d/dd/Education_and_WGIG.pdf
>
> Unlike Wikimedia projects, Webarchive has a long term plan that one
> would expect of a digital archive, so it's a much safer space for
> historical documents.
>
> I stopped asking about an equivalent realistic Wikimedia 100 year plan
> a couple of years back. The $100m endowment thingy controlled by Jimmy
> does not have this as a goal either, as far as I can tell.
>
> Fae
>
> On 12 January 2017 at 00:41, Newyorkbrad  wrote:
> > If it is decided not to host these materials on a wiki, whether for
> > copyright or any other reasons, then someone (either in the Office or
> > a volunteer) should be designated to retain a copy privately.  That
> > way, he or she will be able to upload it later if the copyright status
> > or policy changes in the future, or to make it available offline for
> > research use or consultation by historians or other researchers who
> > could make good use of it.
> >
> > Newyorkbrad/IBM
> >
> > On 1/11/17, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
> >> Thank you for bringing this up, Yann. Some relevant context is that Meta
> >> Wiki users considered permitting such files on Meta Wiki a year and a
> half
> >> ago, and decided not to. The electorate was not very big (14 votes,
> total),
> >> but it was carefully considered, with compelling arguments made on both
> >> sides.[1]
> >>
> >> In my opinion, the best outcome would be that Meta Wiki should have an
> >> Exemption Doctrine Policy (the board's name for a project's local policy
> >> that would permit copyrighted files under specific circumstances)[2] I
> >> think the Meta Wiki decision should be revisited and considered in more
> >> depth, with more participation, and probably reversed (with some careful
> >> work on defining the proper circumstances for an exemption).
> >>
> >> But of course, that's not an easy task. I have no ready answer, but am
> >> interested to see what ideas others have.
> >> -Pete
> >> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >>
> >> [1]
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Babel;
> diff=prev=13362698#General_discussion_on_allowing_or_rejecting_fair_
> use_at_Meta
> >> [2] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Yann Forget  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I would like to get more opinions about what to do with files such as
> >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Education_and_WGIG.pdf
> >>>
> >>> This is a draft from a United Nations conference which mentions
> Wikipedia
> >>> (the first and only AFAIK), and as such, an important historical
> document.
> >>>
> >>> It doesn't have a formal license, but there is no real copyright issue.
> >>>
> >>> Where and how should we keep such files?
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Yann Forget
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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] Keeping historical documents related to Wikimedia

[Fæ]

No need, it's on webarchive:
http://web.archive.org/web/20170112103412/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/d/dd/Education_and_WGIG.pdf

Unlike Wikimedia projects, Webarchive has a long term plan that one
would expect of a digital archive, so it's a much safer space for
historical documents.

I stopped asking about an equivalent realistic Wikimedia 100 year plan
a couple of years back. The $100m endowment thingy controlled by Jimmy
does not have this as a goal either, as far as I can tell.

Fae

On 12 January 2017 at 00:41, Newyorkbrad  wrote:
> If it is decided not to host these materials on a wiki, whether for
> copyright or any other reasons, then someone (either in the Office or
> a volunteer) should be designated to retain a copy privately.  That
> way, he or she will be able to upload it later if the copyright status
> or policy changes in the future, or to make it available offline for
> research use or consultation by historians or other researchers who
> could make good use of it.
>
> Newyorkbrad/IBM
>
> On 1/11/17, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
>> Thank you for bringing this up, Yann. Some relevant context is that Meta
>> Wiki users considered permitting such files on Meta Wiki a year and a half
>> ago, and decided not to. The electorate was not very big (14 votes, total),
>> but it was carefully considered, with compelling arguments made on both
>> sides.[1]
>>
>> In my opinion, the best outcome would be that Meta Wiki should have an
>> Exemption Doctrine Policy (the board's name for a project's local policy
>> that would permit copyrighted files under specific circumstances)[2] I
>> think the Meta Wiki decision should be revisited and considered in more
>> depth, with more participation, and probably reversed (with some careful
>> work on defining the proper circumstances for an exemption).
>>
>> But of course, that's not an easy task. I have no ready answer, but am
>> interested to see what ideas others have.
>> -Pete
>> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>>
>> [1]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Babel=prev=13362698#General_discussion_on_allowing_or_rejecting_fair_use_at_Meta
>> [2] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Yann Forget  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I would like to get more opinions about what to do with files such as
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Education_and_WGIG.pdf
>>>
>>> This is a draft from a United Nations conference which mentions Wikipedia
>>> (the first and only AFAIK), and as such, an important historical document.
>>>
>>> It doesn't have a formal license, but there is no real copyright issue.
>>>
>>> Where and how should we keep such files?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Yann Forget

___
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] Keeping historical documents related to Wikimedia

[Newyorkbrad]

If it is decided not to host these materials on a wiki, whether for
copyright or any other reasons, then someone (either in the Office or
a volunteer) should be designated to retain a copy privately.  That
way, he or she will be able to upload it later if the copyright status
or policy changes in the future, or to make it available offline for
research use or consultation by historians or other researchers who
could make good use of it.

Newyorkbrad/IBM

On 1/11/17, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
> Thank you for bringing this up, Yann. Some relevant context is that Meta
> Wiki users considered permitting such files on Meta Wiki a year and a half
> ago, and decided not to. The electorate was not very big (14 votes, total),
> but it was carefully considered, with compelling arguments made on both
> sides.[1]
>
> In my opinion, the best outcome would be that Meta Wiki should have an
> Exemption Doctrine Policy (the board's name for a project's local policy
> that would permit copyrighted files under specific circumstances)[2] I
> think the Meta Wiki decision should be revisited and considered in more
> depth, with more participation, and probably reversed (with some careful
> work on defining the proper circumstances for an exemption).
>
> But of course, that's not an easy task. I have no ready answer, but am
> interested to see what ideas others have.
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Babel=prev=13362698#General_discussion_on_allowing_or_rejecting_fair_use_at_Meta
> [2] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Yann Forget  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to get more opinions about what to do with files such as
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Education_and_WGIG.pdf
>>
>> This is a draft from a United Nations conference which mentions Wikipedia
>> (the first and only AFAIK), and as such, an important historical document.
>>
>> It doesn't have a formal license, but there is no real copyright issue.
>>
>> Where and how should we keep such files?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Yann Forget
>> ___
>> 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,
>> 
> ___
> 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,
> 

___
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] Keeping historical documents related to Wikimedia

[Pete Forsyth]

Thank you for bringing this up, Yann. Some relevant context is that Meta
Wiki users considered permitting such files on Meta Wiki a year and a half
ago, and decided not to. The electorate was not very big (14 votes, total),
but it was carefully considered, with compelling arguments made on both
sides.[1]

In my opinion, the best outcome would be that Meta Wiki should have an
Exemption Doctrine Policy (the board's name for a project's local policy
that would permit copyrighted files under specific circumstances)[2] I
think the Meta Wiki decision should be revisited and considered in more
depth, with more participation, and probably reversed (with some careful
work on defining the proper circumstances for an exemption).

But of course, that's not an easy task. I have no ready answer, but am
interested to see what ideas others have.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Babel=prev=13362698#General_discussion_on_allowing_or_rejecting_fair_use_at_Meta
[2] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Yann Forget  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I would like to get more opinions about what to do with files such as
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Education_and_WGIG.pdf
>
> This is a draft from a United Nations conference which mentions Wikipedia
> (the first and only AFAIK), and as such, an important historical document.
>
> It doesn't have a formal license, but there is no real copyright issue.
>
> Where and how should we keep such files?
>
> Regards,
>
> Yann Forget
> ___
> 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,
> 
___
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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Keeping historical documents related to Wikimedia

[Yann Forget]

Hi,

I would like to get more opinions about what to do with files such as
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Education_and_WGIG.pdf

This is a draft from a United Nations conference which mentions Wikipedia
(the first and only AFAIK), and as such, an important historical document.

It doesn't have a formal license, but there is no real copyright issue.

Where and how should we keep such files?

Regards,

Yann Forget
___
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,