Re: [Foundation-l] WMF seeking to sub-lease office space?
2009/9/6 Thomas Dalton :
> 2009/9/6 Geoffrey Plourde :
>> The plan may have been mentioned ages ago, but a press release about the
>> move would have eliminated the opportunity for trolling.
>
> Why would the press be interested in the WMF putting the offices they
> are about to move out of on the market? The move itself will be
> newsworthy and I'm sure there will be a press release about it, but it
> hasn't happened yet. A plan to move isn't worthy of a press release -
> it would only cover a single sentence ("The WMF has more staff than it
> has room for desks, so it is planning to move to new, larger
> offices.").
I'm sure signpost would be interested. It usually is. Press release is
probably the wrong term though.
--
geni
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] WMF seeking to sub-lease office space?
2009/9/6 Gerard Meijssen : > Hoi, > It is not my business what they care to write about ... what I ment is that > it is not a publication that is read by all our projects. At that Wikizine > would be a better choice. :) > Thanks. > GerardM The signpost has versions in 19 languages. I think that can be said to provide a reasonable level of coverage. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] WMF seeking to sub-lease office space?
2009/9/6 Gerard Meijssen : > Hoi, > As there is no "signpost" in Dutch, it may be one reason why I did not > notice that there are links to other publications. I checked out the one in > German and it is not a translation of the en.wp Signpost. Consequently the > assertion that there are 19 versions is suspect and my point stands. > Thanks, > GerardM If you want to get seriously formal there are signpost or signpost like publications in 19 languages on wikipedia which means that informing them is likely to result in significantly wider information distribution among the wikimedia than "wikizine". -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Charity Navigator rates WMF
2009/10/10 Michael Peel : > > On 10 Oct 2009, at 00:41, Samuel Klein wrote: > >> In my experience, high-school teachers were 90/10 anti Wikipedia 3 >> years ago, and are slightly in favor of it today. This sort of thing >> would be a fascinating survey to run year after year. > > Does the WMF commission surveys like this? It would seem a natural > thing to do - there are third party organizations that are capable of > performing this sort of survey in a statistically unbiased way. > > (Am I correct in thinking that the only surveys done to date are > those held on-wiki, and possibly that done by third parties such as > ComScore without the request of Wikimedia?) > > Mike The complexity is that in certain groups being anti-wikipedia is a requirement for fitting in. A statement that you take knowledge seriously. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Charity Navigator rates WMF
2009/10/10 Michael Peel : > I'm sorry; I can understand those sentences separately, but not when > they are combined. Wikipedia is a way to take knowledge (and the > spread of knowledge) seriously. That's why I'm here. > > I would hope that being anti-wikipedia (or anti-knowledge) is not a > requirement for high-school teachers. > > Mike Depends on the school. By being anti-wikipedia you make a statement that you insist on a certain quality in your sources. You could view it as a form of snobbery "Wikipedia may seem okey to the peons but we know better". -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Charity Navigator rates WMF
2009/10/10 Marc Riddell : > Geni, it is not "anti-wikipedia" to recognize and understand the difference > between information and knowledge. That enitrely depends on context. In the context of the sentence the where I used the term the two are synonyms. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Charity Navigator rates WMF
2009/10/10 Marc Riddell : > Geni, in true scholarship, "information" and "knowledge" are not synonymous. > > Marc Entirely depends on the context. Sometimes they are sometimes not. In the context I was useing the term they are (doesn't really scan otherwise). -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Office move completed
2009/10/27 Erik Moeller : > Blog post by Jay is now up: > http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/10/27/wikimedia-finds-a-new-home/ > > First photos here: > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Foundation_149_New_Montgomery > > More pics will come with time for those who can't get enough of seeing > office environments. ;-) So who's idea was it to model it after Terry Gilliam's Brazil? -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Recent firing?
2009/10/30 Erik Moeller : > We don't comment on personnel rumors and speculation and will make > announcements when and where appropriate. So yes then. Erik this is the wikimedia community you are dealing with. All those wikipedians are not only rather good at finding things out but tend to raise rumors and speculation to a science. Announcements when and where appropriate isn't really working out to well (or did you really mean for the information on your office move to drip out like that?). Announce early announce often. Won't have that much impact on the rate of information flow and means that you face fewer problems of other people getting to put their spin on the information first. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Recent firing?
2009/10/30 Nathan : > Why would you even ask that question, let alone expect an answer? Nothing wrong with taking the direct approach. It's also a fairly effective way of letting the foundation know they have a potential issue. >Last > I checked, no Wikimedian also carried the title of "majority > shareholder" or anything close. You're not entitled to sordid details > of personnel management. Zee relevance being? >Try to remember that the Wikimedia Foundation > is a business, and needs to operate with more professionalism than > "announce everything announce often." It's an approach that can be quite professional depending on what you are doing. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Recent firing?
2009/10/31 Jimmy Wales : > I agree with Lodewijk completely. One of the best reasons for this is > simple human dignity. People come and go from jobs all the time, it is > neither a scandal, nor a shame. Public speculation about such stuff is > offensive and embarassing. > > Yes, to community-facing positions. Yes, to high-level positions. > Those things are relevant public information and can and should be > discussed. > > But not every job is like that, nor should it be. And the reason for speculation is that people first found out by rumor rather than foundation announcement. Basic communication management. Get stuff out before someone else can put their spin on it. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Recent firing?
2009/10/31 Sebastian Moleski : > I have to disagree. The reason for the speculation is not the rumor. The > reason for the speculation is a misguided sense that there's some sort of > absolute right to know about these things. Something of a strawman. No one suggesting the foundation should have made a statement has suggested that it is due to some right to know. Wikipedians do have an absolute right to be interested in things. They are also rather good at finding things out. In such an environment the rational approach is to make an announcement early to head of the rumor mill. > Jimmy's right: it makes sense > that board or upper level management positions are discussed among the > project community (although I would not consider this list to be a useful > forum of community discussion). It does not, however, make sense that this > principle be applied to someone responsible for office IT. The community can and will discuss whatever it likes. Ranging from the copyright status of File:L O Schoolhouse Brochure Cover.jpg (probably PD due to failure to renew) to who should be on the board. Somewhere in between you have debates back room foundation personnel. Now either you can have these debates based on rumor and gossip in a situation where you have people out there looking to spread malicious gossip or you can have them based on foundation announcements. > I don't know what the reasons were for why this particular employment is > scheduled to end. And there's no reason that I or anyone other than those > directly involved with it internally to the foundation should know. It's a > simple case of none-of-your-business. None-of-your-business? Please we are talking about wikipedians. That's not really a concept that has wide recognition. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Minors and sexual explicit stuff
2009/11/16 private musings : > I should add that if folk are interested in the english wikipedia, and have > any ideas / comments etc. in this area, I kicked this off here; > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_Protection > > cheers, > > Peter, > PM. > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Brian J Mingus > wrote: > >> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 6:04 PM, private musings > >wrote: >> >> > Hi all, >> > >> > On Wikipedia Review, 'tarantino' pointed out that on WMF projects, >> > self-identified minors (in this case User:Juliancolton) are involved in >> > routine maintenance stuff around sexually explicit images reasonably >> > describable as porn (one example is 'Masturbating Amy.jpg'). >> > >> > >> > >> http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27358&st=0&p=204846&#entry204846 >> > >> > I think this is wrong on a number of levels - and I'd like to see better >> > governance from the foundation in this area - I really feel that we need >> to >> > talk about some child protection measures in some way - they're overdue. >> > >> > I'd really like to see the advisory board take a look at this issue - is >> > there a formal way of suggesting or requesting their thoughts, or could I >> > just ask here for a board member or community member with the advisory >> > board's ear to raise this with them. >> > >> > best, >> > >> > Peter, >> > PM. >> > >> >> Wikipedia is not porn. >> >> 29 posts left. >> ___ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Minors and sexual explicit stuff
2009/11/16 private musings : > I should add that if folk are interested in the english wikipedia, and have > any ideas / comments etc. in this area, I kicked this off here; > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_Protection > > cheers, > > Peter, > PM. Already been addressed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Youth_protection In practice defacto policy is that we remove personal information posted by younger users. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Minors and sexual explicit stuff
2009/11/17 Anthony : > On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:04 AM, David Moran > wrote: >> It is correspondingly true that there are many people who would more >> comfortably use, or let their children use, regular brick and mortar >> libraries if they could be sure that certain material had been removed from >> the building. But typically libraries do not cater to people who ask that >> offensive books be removed, and I don't see any reason why Wikipedia is >> different. > > I'm not sure what your library is like, but the situation at my > library is much more controlled than the one at Wikipedia. Yes, > there's offensive material in it, and some of the offensive material > is in places where children have access, but it's nothing even > remotely approaching what's found in Wikipedia - in terms of how > graphic the material is, in terms of how easily accessible it is to > minors, in terms of the chances of encountering it accidentally, and > in terms of the use of children to decide whether or not to keep it. You never flicked through the photography or modern art section. Sure my library didn't have any of Robert Mapplethorpe's work but it had some fairly explicit stuff. That said I think the winner in that sense was one of the art books my school held. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Minors and sexual explicit stuff
2009/11/18 private musings : > Ray, > > you seem to me to be essentially discussing the 'users' perspective on > wikipedia - whilst it's my view that the foundation, and the projects could > (and should) do more to allow things like descriptive image filtering for > users (I think it would drive participation in places like schools, and > librairies) I'm also interested in discussing the perspective of > 'participant' in the project. Given how disruptive "think of the children" can be mere interest is not a valid reason for getting involved with this area. > I think there are important duty of care issues for whomever is responsible > for children's involvement in projects like wikipedia, That would be their parents. >and I don't believe > the foundation, and projects, should simply pass the buck of responsibility > upstream to the parent. What you believe isn't relevant. The responsibility is with the parents not us. >Encyclopedia's are rightly exciting and interesting > to children, and I think it's just reality that large numbers of > participants are minors (wiki's fun, right! :-) - we really should at least > talk about whether or not these participants are protected / treated / > advised appropriately. Per current US law yes. If the law changes we can reconsider our activities. > for example, it would be my advice to a minor that it's inappropriate for > them to join this (not safe for work discussion) about whether or not to > include 'hardcore photos' in the oral sex article ( > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oral_sex#Hardcore_photos ) Please provide a list of your qualifications to provide such advice. > > There are important ethical issues here (maybe legal ones too, I don't know) > - I've tried to reach out to Volunteering Australia ( > http://www.volunteeringaustralia.org/html/s01_home/home.asp ) who I hope may > be able to offer some advice about good practice in working with volunteer > kids etc. Wikipedia does not answer to Australian law. Please provide a transcript of what you have said. >but I think this might be able to go much further much quicker on > a foundation level. > > I'd like to see some concrete progress (a report, some ideas, anything > really!) related to ensuring appropriate and adequate measures are in place > to protect child participants in foundation projects. They are. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Fan History joining the WMF family
ion amongst foundation projects can be a > selling point for outreach in that area. If needing to point to a similar > female dominated group doing similar work, the Organization for > Transformative Works can be cited. Looks good but I'm not sure how well slapping a female dominated group onto the side of the WMF projects would address the overall issue. > * Our scope allows for more esoteric information that could not be included > in Wikipedia, Wikiversity or Wikinews that would still help work towards a > greater good. > * The WMF Foundation supports quality resources that anyone can > edit. Fan History is primarily a cultural historical anthropology project > dedicated to documenting the history of fandom. > * People have tried to do such research on Wikipedia in the > past but it frequently gets deleted because of the lack of research, it is > original research or it isn’t notable. In terms of popular culture studies, > Fan History provides a place to do that. Hmm. Uncontrolled original research is a bit outside our range of experience so hard to predict. > * Fan History being part of the Foundation would allow closer relationships > with the science fiction community, the academic community and others with a > vested interest in the topic. I think we already have such relationships >* We’re already being used as an academic source in some places > because the research we do on the wiki is not being done by anyone else. > With more attention and increased awareness, this can be increased. That > attention and use should reflect back on other WMF projects to justify those > sources as credible. > * Fan History can be used as leverage to develop relationships > with programs like the Popular Culture studies work done at USC and MIT. The main barrier so far though has seemed to be lack of manpower and any clear purpose in doing so. > * This would be a big step towards getting professional > historians and cultural anthropologists to using Wikipedia related projects > more. Some would like such a platform to do their own work and are hesitant > to do it on more commercial sites like Wikia. The project would not be that wikipedia related though. > > * Fan History’s preservation work would foster good will, improve > credibility of WMF projects, generate additional press and help WMF in > creating good relationships with other organizations. We don't need additional press and an original research based project is kinda risky in terms of trying to improve credibility. >* We are doing important preservation work related to sites that > are closing like Geocities and have identified other sites at risk like > Tripod and Angelfire where we need to start working. Most of the work being > done preservation wise focuses on just saving the raw content, not > screencapping and putting this work into its historical context. There is > no competition in that context. Other than in certain narrow areas this is the case yes. > > * Our preservation work would help improve credibility, as we become more of > a primary source resource. It is easier to cite that work in ways that > people cannot cite Wikipedia. >* The Internet Archive and other projects received a lot > positive press because of their preservation efforts. >* Preservation efforts open up opportunities to work with > university programs, and other non-profits that have a vested interest in > saving that information. I'd need to see some slightly more solid evidence of this. > *What Fan History needs from WMF:* > > * Improved back end support. > * Help increasing our base audience of contributors. > * Financial security. > * The continued ability to work towards our objectives. Money and people. Well we've made worse spending decisions. > > *What Fan History offers beyond good fit:* > > * Policies that have been tested to work inside the larger community that > meet different standards. > * Scalable policies that have been tested so there should not be huge > problems coming on board. What are your techniques for dealing with say Korean nationalism? > * An all female admin staff at the onset. > > * Few copyright problems. While we have some copyrighted images, we could > dump almost all and not lose anything substantive. I've addressed this. Although your "dump almost all and not lose anything substantive" claim is not consistent with your talk of useing geocities screenshots. Incerdently what you think the copyright status of say: http://www.fanhistory.com/wiki/File:Our_Stories_1241229337347.png is? > * A huge scope. We cover over 37,000 fan communities representing > television, movies, music, video games, anime, manga, actors, theater, > radio, science fiction, cartoons, comics and sports. > Indeed. Still if it wasn't for the software issues a union with TVTropes would make a lot more sense. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Follow up: Fan History joining the WMF family
2009/11/29 Laura Hale : > As for where Fan History's proposal to join WMF stands now, we're not sure. > The mailing list conversation died. Strategy wiki's only commentary has > been regarding getting us off the blacklist for Foundation projects. > > Sincerely, > Laura Hale I think it's time to stop messing you around. I'm not part of the foundation and I can't speak for it however: 1)at this point you basically have to assume the answer is no. The only people who could okay you joining are Sue Gardner or a direct board vote. Neither Sue nor the board have shown much interest and you are unlikely to get enough community backing to make them do so. 2)Even if it did happen "staffers getting some form of compensation" is right out. The WMF has far less than 1 employee per wiki. 3)Timelines. The general rule with regards to wikimedia projects is that if something doesn't happen fast it probably won't happen and if it does it will take years. As for alternative partnerships Tvtropes are by far the most obvious (large community,shared interests) but dealing with the software issues would be quite a trick. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia and Environment
2009/12/12 Teofilo : > How about moving the servers (5) from Florida to a cold country > (Alaska, Canada, Finland, Russia) so that they can be used to heat > offices or homes ? It might not be unrealistic as one may read such > things as "the solution was to provide nearby homes with our waste > heat" (6). > Alaska has seriously expensive construction systems and the others listed have unacceptable legal systems. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] advertising craigslist
I see we have taken to advertising craigslist. Would anyone care to explain why? -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist
2009/12/15 Erik Moeller : > Just as a bit of general background for this thread: > > The Craig Newmark banner is currently running at 20% on the English > Wikipedia. It's a pilot to see how our audience responds to > endorsements and testimonials by third parties. (So far, it is doing > reasonably well, but not fantastically so; we will likely move on to > different messages soon.) We're not running a large endorsement > campaign this year, but we wanted to at least get some data on a > banner of this type to help us determine whether we want to run more > such messages in the future. > > We approached Craig and asked him whether he would help us with this, > and he generously agreed. We chose Craig because he represents, to > many people, a philosophy of the web that is comparable to ours. In > spite of huge web traffic, Craigslist is run with a staff of 32 and > carries no ads, and Craig founded a non-profit organization, the > Craigslist Foundation, to support other non-profits. (CraigsList > itself is a for-profit.) We're pleased that Craig has joined our > Advisory Board, and we're happy he agreed to this endorsement. That > said, any kind of personal endorsement can certainly polarize. I'm aware of Craigslist's PR image there is no need to repeat it. If you wanted to test endorsements there is no shortage of worthies who could provide one without needing an advert for their website appearing on several million page views. Heck if all else failed you could have dug out those UNESCO contacts we've picked up. You are helping Craigslist carry out classic Edward Bernays propaganda/PR and they are not even having to pay you. I mean yes I'm quite impressed that Craigslist managed to pull that one off but there was no need you you to make it so easy for them. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist
2009/12/15 Nathan : > Personally, I'm glad the Foundation doesn't have the reflexively > absolutist anti-capitalist stance that some on this list would like > them to have. Happy to see an endorsement from Craig Newmark. Now, if > it were Tiger Woods... > > Nathan Who on this list do you think thinks the foundation should have that attitude? -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist
2009/12/15 David Gerard : > 2009/12/15 Mark Williamson : > >> If that's true, I am even more against this... what does that say about us? > > > Didn't we have this discussion around Virgin Unite? > > >http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/UnNews:Wikimedia_Foundation_to_introduce_paid_editing > To an extent. Of course Virgin Unite has since been used in regular Virgin adverts which further strengthens the case of those that opposed it. > Craig Newmark's on the WMF advisory board. Craigslist is already > famous. I really think it's pushing us forward, not the other way > around. Craig Newmark has around 300K google results. Jimbo is at half a million. Craigslist is at about 65 million wikipedia is at about 300 million. For groups that almost entirely exist online that's a fair solid way of showing which is more significant. In terms of using fame to push us forwards about the only web company owners who might be able to do that would be Mark Zuckerberg and google's co-founders. And no they wouldn't be a good idea either. Craigslist has some PR problems at the moment what with all the scams and the various law enforcement agencies objecting to some of their personal ads. Associating with a project with some of the most titanium hardened community driven altruism credentials on the web is a valid strategy for trying to return to the image they like to maintain. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist
2009/12/15 Michael Snow : > That's a strangely limited notion of who has the capability to help - > only people who are quantitatively more famous than us? For a project > that's built around lots and lots of individual contributions (whether > we're talking content, finances, or publicity), none of them especially > huge in the overall scheme of things, it seems completely backwards to > suggest that such things are useless if they don't dwarf what has > already been achieved. The argument was that it was his fame that was helpful and that it rose to the level that we should overlook the obvious problem. If you wish to take my comments out of that context I can't stop you but you are attacking a strawman. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist
2009/12/15 Anthony : > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:47 AM, geni wrote: > >> Craig Newmark has around 300K google results. Jimbo is at half a >> million. >> > > Yizhao Lang has about 1,000. But I guess you didn't mention the company he > works for. The horror. With Yizhao Lang it was what they were saying rather than the person who said it that was significant. In addition there is no evidence that when Yizhao Lang made the comment in question he knew it was featured so prominently. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist
2009/12/15 Delphine Ménard :
> Just so I understand your argument. Were Jimmy Wales to lend his name
> and good will to support a cause {insert here name of noble cause you
> believe in}, I suppose you would summarize his help as "oh, he's
> trying to get his company to get a better image"? Wait, I'm probably
> starting a troll here. Replace Jimmy Wales with "whatever known
> person" you can think of.
>
> Did it ever occur to you that real people _aren't_ the company they
> founded/bought/are taking care of?
The text of the advert:
"Craig of Craigslist urges you to support Wikipedia. Why?"
In that context the separation between person and company is rather weak.
> And whether it is Craig Newmark, the Dalai Lama, the Pope or my
> neighbours, if their "supporting" a good cause actually works and
> money comes in and awareness rises, frankly, I say "go ahead" and
> "thanks for all your help".
>
So you are okey with adverts on wikipedia as long as they are ah
""supporting" a good cause"? Third parties supporting wikipedia is one
thing. At the cost of advertsing their company on one in five page
views of wikipedia? No that is quite another.
--
geni
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist
2009/12/15 Philippe Beaudette : > > > On Dec 15, 2009, at 11:55 AM, geni wrote: > >> So you are okey with adverts on wikipedia as long as they are ah >> ""supporting" a good cause"? > > > Noun > advertisement (plural advertisements) > (marketing) A commercial solicitation designed to sell some commodity, > service or similar. > > I really don't see how a banner asking someone to give US money is an > advertisement, Geni. > > Philippe > Not everything can be fully described through a dictionary definition. The activity falls well within what is described in wikipedia's article on the subject. I supose if you really want to get technical it's propaganda so if it helps you answer the question: So you are okey with third party propaganda on wikipedia as long as they are ah ""supporting" a good cause"? -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist
2009/12/16 Liam Wyatt : > On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Andre Engels wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Thomas Dalton >> wrote: >> > We've advertised third party for-profits in the past with prominent >> > matched donations notices before (albeit controversially). This isn't >> > that different. >> >> As you say, that one was controversial and this one isn't that >> different. Then it should not surprise you that this one is >> controversial too, should it? Or do people lose the right to complain >> against something if it happens the second time? >> >> >> -- >> André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com > > > At what point is something "controversial"? As far as I can remember there > hasn't been a single decision in the history of Wikimedia that has received > universal support. Some people will complain no matter what happens. When > you're the person doing the complaining it is your POV that the issue is > "controversial", whereas when you're the one who isn't complaining then it > is your POV that the issue is NOT "controversial" and the complainers are > just overreacting. > > There is no objective criteria to define controversy. Furthermore, if there > is one place in the Wikimedia world where people complain the loudest, > longest and for most obscure reasons - it's here on foundatio.nl So, whilst > I'm not ignoring the fact that Geni et. al. genuinely feel that this was a > bad decision on behalf of the fundraising team, I do not believe that this > particular issue warrants the term "controversy". It is something that some > people dislike but most people are either indifferent to it or see it > favourably. Your concerns have been raised, elaborated and debated. I don't > think there's anything more that can be said about this particular issue > other than to reiterate already voiced points. > > -Liam [[witty lama]] > > wittylama.com/blog > Peace, love & metadata There is one point left. We can't measure the change in traffic to Craigslist but we can measure this: http://stats.grok.se/en/200912/Craigslist -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist
2009/12/18 David Gerard : > 2009/12/17 Thomas Dalton : > >> I agree with Bod - most people I know will have heard of Craigslist, >> but I don't know anyone that has used it. We know about it because it >> is mentioned quite often on TV imported from the US. However, despite >> everyone having heard of Craigslist, it seems Britons aren't inspired >> to donate by its founder telling them to. While the Craig Appeal >> banner was being shown 20% of the time, Wikimedia UK saw a 20% drop in >> fundraising income compared to the WMF (I look at the ratios of our >> income to the WMF's, which usually cancels out any changes due to the >> different banners). There is plenty of variation day to day, but 20% >> is a bigger change that is usual. > > > Local celebrities for next time. "Simon Cowell says: Donate to > Wikipedia or I'll put out *two* X-Factor singles for Christmas. I warn > you." > Eh second choice perhaps. From within the UK we couldn't really miss the chance to ask Sandy Nairne Director of the National Portrait Gallery. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sex-related content improvement
2010/1/14 Jiří Hofman : > Just go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_intercourse . You will see > there is no really high quality image of human sexual intercourse. File:Housefly mating.jpg is a featured image. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
2010/1/17 private musings : > Here's another concerning aspect of management of explicit media on WMF; > It's been asserted that images of a 16 year old girl masturbating have been > uploaded to commons; Whats that got to do with management? Any service that allows user uploads of images is going to get hit by such uploads from time to time. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Great news! Google gives Wikimedia USD 2 million
On 17 February 2010 17:18, David Gerard wrote: > On 17 February 2010 14:44, Domas Mituzas wrote: > >>> The question is, how do we thank the company that has everything? > >> We can thank them by providing better content to everyone. That is both what >> they and us want. > > > Indeed. Note, by the way, I believe we've previously received money > from Microsoft Bing. (Who heavily link and I think mirror Wikipedia > content in their results.) > > > - d. No in the results. Bing Reference is a wikipedia mirror though. Microsoft also link to wikipedia articles on multimap. Their representative use that to defend themselves against the that modern navigation technology was making people pay less attention to their surroundings. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [Wikipedia-l] Please HELP save Wikipedia history ! (urgent)
On 20 February 2010 00:23, Chad wrote: > I know the actual logos are trademarked, but the proposals aren't. If > these are creations by Wikimedians, then hopefully they are under a > free license. They should be uploaded to Commons and organized, if > so! > > -Chad For the most part no. They were deliberately ot released so the the copyright could be transferred to the foundation. Some have since been released when they found other uses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Example.jpg for example) but most have not been. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [Wikipedia-l] Please HELP save Wikipedia history ! (urgent)
On 20 February 2010 05:54, The Cunctator wrote: > Yes. This is idiotic. The logo contest followed the same rules as all other > submissions to Wikipedia -- they were submitted under the GFDL. Evidence? -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [Wikipedia-l] Please HELP save Wikipedia history ! (urgent)
On 20 February 2010 19:14, Tomasz Ganicz wrote: > 2010/2/20 geni : >> On 20 February 2010 05:54, The Cunctator wrote: >>> Yes. This is idiotic. The logo contest followed the same rules as all other >>> submissions to Wikipedia -- they were submitted under the GFDL. >> >> Evidence? >> -- > > Evidence of what? At the beginning on all Wikipedias as well as meta > there were no license templates at all. It was just assumed that all > original content is under GNU FDL - both text and pictures. The idea > of license templates for media files was created to provide > possibility to use pictures on other free licenses and those which are > public domain. Following the copyright paranoia in such the manner you > could ask if there is any evidence that articles in Wikipedia are > legally under GNU FDL / CC-BY-SA. Do we have any evidence that users > agreed for the license conditions? How many of them read the > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use ? And how many of > those who read Terms of Use followed the links to the licenses legal > code or at least general explanation of their practical consequences ? > In case of text content it is simply assumed with no evidence at all > that editors agreed. Moreover even if the uploader to Commons chooses > the license in upload form do we check if he/she knows and understand > its conditions? So, it is all assumed with no evidence at all. > Strange? The logo contest was specificaly non standard with copyrights not being released so that the logo copyright could be held exclusively by the foundation. The various wikimedia logos (except the mediawiki one) are not under a free license. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Brion Vibber delete mo. as promised ! Please wake up
On 21 February 2010 21:07, Svip wrote: > So I think the answer to your question is; Nobody cares. I think you meant few in the western world care. Which is probably true the number of people who can find Transnistria on a map is limited. However the fact is that describing the Romanian in the Cyrillic alphabet as Moldovan is perpetuating a soviet cultural myth that created during Stalin's day. The continuing issue of the activities of the Operational Group of Russian Forces in Moldova means it's not just a theoretical issue either, Over 2000 people died in the war in the early 90s. But perhaps you are right. No one cares. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [Wikipedia-l] Please HELP save Wikipedia history ! (urgent)
On 21 February 2010 11:15, Chad wrote: > On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 5:33 AM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote: >> >> Legal decision should be taken out from project's communities >> "jurisdiction" and given into hands of professional lawyers or at >> least people who had copyright law practical training. >> > > While I don't agree that we need to take this away from the community > and hand it to a team of lawyers, I must say that the "practical training" > caught my eye. > > Would it be possible for the Foundation to get Mike--and other people > who actually know what they're talking about--to get a "guide to > handling copyright questions" together? It would probably help a lot of > people who are unclear on some points, as well as help remove some > grey areas (like the scenario that brought us here now). This may be a > terrible idea, but I'm just throwing it out there. > > -Chad Not really. Mike is a US lawyer. I'm not sure how much it would cost to get enough lawyers to put together say: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama but I doubt it would be practical. Commons does have a number of help pages: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Problematic_sources and en of course has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [Wikipedia-l] Please HELP save Wikipedia history ! (urgent)
On 21 February 2010 10:30, Tomasz Ganicz wrote: > 2010/2/21 Ray Saintonge : >> Anthony wrote: >>> Tomasz Ganicz wrote: >>> >>>> Do we agree with the idea, that at that >>>> time everything uploaded was under GNU FDL or not >>> Definitely not. You were supposed to release uploads under the GFDL, *if >>> you were the copyright owner*, but not everything that was uploaded was >>> under GFDL. > > But in case of those uploads the copyright owners (authors of the > logos) uploaded them personally. The funny part of that story is that > it means that current Wikimedia logo seems to be under GFDL :-) Nope. Nothing in the upload form on meta at that point mentioned the GFDL. So not GFDL. The GFDL-presumed templated that people seem to be using was killed off on en back in early 2009. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [Wikipedia-l] Please HELP save Wikipedia history ! (urgent)
On 21 February 2010 10:33, Tomasz Ganicz wrote: > 2010/2/21 Ray Saintonge : >> Tomasz Ganicz wrote: >>> 2010/2/20 Ray Saintonge: >>> >>>> Probabilistic arguments are difficult to establish when the majority >>>> still believes in legal certainty in the same way that it believes in God. >>>> >>> I am not quite sure what you wanted to say :-) Anyway - this cited >>> sentence is for me a nice expression of "0 tolerance" copyright >>> paranoia definition. In fact, most attorneys say usually to their >>> clients that there is nothing like legal certainty as long as the >>> court verdict is known and being innocent does not give you 100% >>> probability that you won't be sentenced as guilty. Everyone can be a >>> suspect of committing a crime and it is just a matter of probability >>> that vast majority of people are not taken to jail. This is just >>> because the number of beds in jails is limited :-) >>> >>> >> My apologies if my analogy wasn't clear. Many people tend to treat the >> Bible as the word of God that must be valid in all circumstances, >> choosing to ignore any ridiculous results that that may produce. >> Similarly, people unfamiliar with law also tend toward a strict >> interpretation of statute without regard to any other influences, or >> without any understanding of the body of judicial interpretation that >> surrounds those statutes. >> > > Yes.. This is typical adminship POV on Wikimedia Commons nowadays and > it spreads to many other Wikimedia projects including meta, as more > and more Wikimedia projects decides to transfer all of their files to > Commons. Legal decision should be taken out from project's communities > "jurisdiction" and given into hands of professional lawyers or at > least people who had copyright law practical training. Otherwise > things are based on current flows of moods of amorphous communities, > which is quite often unpredictable and has very little in common with > real legal problems, or it is even sometimes based on false over > interpretation of law imposed by copyright paranoia guerillas. On > Commons it is so easy to start deletion process and vast majority of > cases are not analyzed by anyone who has a real, practical knowledge > about copyright law. Just add copyvio template and with around 6-7 > hours your picture is deleted. Not so. For example this lot still exist although pretty much everything in the category is a copyvio. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Murals_in_Derry Not even UK Freedom of panorama is that broad. It's actualy quite a bit of work to kill of all but the most obvious copyvios. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [Wikipedia-l] Please HELP save Wikipedia history ! (urgent)
On 20 February 2010 23:01, Tomasz Ganicz wrote: > 2010/2/20 Thomas Dalton : >> On 20 February 2010 22:49, Tomasz Ganicz wrote: >>> Evidence? :-) Is there any formal document of Wikimedia Foundation >>> Board of Trustees which says, that logo candidates are a special case >>> for copyright issues or it is just your assumption? >> >> Why would it be a board document? Surely it would just have been said >> on the pages about the contest. >> > > Yes.. I could buy the idea. Unfortunatelly it had not been said on the > contest page :-) The contest page does not say anything about legal > copyright issues. See: > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/International_logo_contest > > So, let's follow copyright paranoia for a while. What is the finall > copyright paranoia conclusion? Do we agree with the idea, that at that > time everything uploaded was under GNU FDL or not? looking at the oldest version of the upload page it probably wasn't: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Uploadtext&oldid=22573 -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sue Gardner, Erik Möller , Wi lliam Pietri: Where is FlaggedRevisions?
On 28 February 2010 23:26, MZMcBride wrote: > It's a simple question: what the fuck is the hold-up for FlaggedRevisions on > the English Wikipedia? > > Thanks, > > MZMcBride > z...@mzmcbride.com Technically I think since about Feb 4th the answer is that Danese Cooper hasn't made it happen. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] �lliam Pietri: Where is Flagge dRevisions?
On 1 March 2010 04:18, Aphaia wrote: > Not a sarcasm, but I would like to point out SUL, single user login > took years to implement to the project wikis, and we even called once > it "Godot". FlaggedRevs implementation also - it took years to > realize. Months are relatively shorter, and I hope you guys could wait > for in a less pain. Rather more that months but that's beside the point. SUL was being worked on by guys who we knew were doing other stuff and that other stuff was stuff we could see. FlaggedRevs not so much. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texas Instruments signing key controversy
On 3 March 2010 14:11, Techman224 wrote: > Unfortunately, the WMF got involved the moment when they removed the keys, > also the DMCA notice (or any other notice) > is given to the person or organization that runs the website. It is not given > to the user who posted the content as they can't > remove content after it has been published. Since the WMF got the notice, it > is their responsibility to file a counternotice or not. > Nope. Foundation can't post a counter notice. It can reject the DMCA notice but since this isn't a legal fight that impacts any of it's interests it has no reason to do. The initial poster can of course file a counter notice but that wouldn't actualy force the WMF to restore the content since we are free to keep it deleted under the "we've had enough of being spammed in random web campaigns" clause. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texas Instruments signing key controversy
On 3 March 2010 03:32, wrote: > > But Dan your reply allows any illegitimate claim of copyright infringement > to be acted upon as an office action. > > It's possible that we could say that the office cannot know whether a claim > is legitimate or not, but if the office is informed through a reliable source > that a claim is illegitimate and they have taken action, are they obligated > to refuse the positive action they've taken? > > That's the issue. > > W. J. The problem you hit there is that the only truly reliable source is the US supreme court. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texas Instruments signing key controversy
On 4 March 2010 19:41, wrote: > Which means of course that a person could claim copyright to the very > technology underlying Wikipedia, and demand the entire project be taken down. > In fact a different mentally ill person could make this claim every month > and force the project offline. > > That's the world you're advocating? No responsibility on the part of the > office to even make the slightest attempt to verify the claim? > > > W.J. > Copyright doesn't work like that. However it is already established that there are a number of core areas where the foundation is prepared to get involved in legal fights. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. for example. The legal status of mediawiki is another where I expect it would. Some calculator of little note? It would appear not. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texas Instruments signing key controversy
On 6 March 2010 01:51, wrote: > > That's extreme. We already use reliable sources in the project. The key is > "reasonable" >effort, not Herculean effort, not absurd effort, just a > reasonable effort. Outside some rather narrow areas copyright law tends not to care about reasonable effort. On this issue any reliable source bellow the level of the supreme court (well appeals courts may also be relevant) that states that the claim is invalid is not in fact reliable. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Hello Wikipedia
On 7 March 2010 17:35, oscar wrote: > On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Tyler wrote: > >> I heard that you have the biggest encyclopedia in the world. Is it true >> that there are no other English encyclopedias with about 3,000,000 articles? >> And what are the top 7 MediaWiki wikis as far ar number of articles? >> >> ___ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > > please take a look at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias > > i'd be happy to hear of any larger encyclopedia if you know of any? > > very best, > oscar > Hudong is larger but is Chinese not English. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is fun
On 8 March 2010 00:14, Tyler wrote: > That's not what I asked. I said, in 2001, Wikipedia was founded, right? The > earliest edit in >edit history is 2002. What was the home page in 2001 then? > Nope oldest edit is 2001: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:UuU&oldid=291430 -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Banners to increase editors
On 18 March 2010 14:15, Nicholas Moreau wrote: > Is this technically possible? Is this within the boundaries of taste > (ie not being creepy)? > > Nick Technically possible but completely undesirable. People frequently make the choice to use wikipedia in a non native language and hitting them with more rubbish in the banner space is not a useful addition. Instead the foundation needs to develop better self control over it's use of central notices. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikiversity
On 18 March 2010 17:16, Cormac Lawler wrote: > On 18 March 2010 16:33, Erik Moeller wrote: > >> 2010/3/18 Anthony : >> > For what it's worth, I think it's probably a good idea to shut down >> > Wikiversity. Wikiversity hasn't to my knowledge achieved anything of >> note. >> >> To be fair, I don't think that's equally true for all language >> editions. The German Wikiversity, from what I can see, seems to be >> slowly but productively doing what the project was designed to do: >> producing learning materials. > > > > Wikiversity was set up to do *two* things: produce learning materials, and > support learning/research activities and communities. The second question > was always more vaguely defined, but was always the more interesting > question for me. English Wikiversity's problems stem from an uncertainty > about what a legitimate learning/research activity would be, and a > consequent uncertainty in Wikiversity's scope as a project. Dealing with the > question of what someone is free to learn in Wikiversity is the useful > course of action to take here; rather than talk of closing the project. > Unfortunately, due to imminent submission of my thesis, I have no time to > give this for the next two weeks, but will get back to the discussion > thereafter. > > Cormac Well we could put in place a mechanism for creating open access journals then tell those in the open source community involved in the dwm mess to use it. Heh or start the journal of [citation needed] aka stuff wikipedians know but haven't been able to find a source for. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's authority (on "global bans")
On 25 March 2010 02:51, Tim Starling wrote: > Gregory Kohs wrote: >> Point of clarification... does Jimmy Wales have the authority to >> impose a "global ban" on a user? > > Yes, Jimmy has always had such rights, and he continues to enjoy broad > community support. > > -- Tim Starling No he doesn't. However he didn't actually impose a global ban in this case but it is unlikely there are any significant wikimedia projects that would not block the individual in question on sight. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's authority (on "global bans")
On 25 March 2010 20:33, George Herbert wrote: > Both the "yes he does" and "no he doesn't" sides are asserting and > assuming rather than reporting a known quantity. > > There has been no organized or widespread attempt to either ask Jimmy > to give it up or to take it away. I can name a number of individuals > who assert that should happen, but there's no poll, no project, no > policy proposal to do so. > > We simply don't know what the community actually feels about it, in > part because Jimmy uses the power so sparingly that very very few > people ever encounter it firsthand. Well there isn't really any mechanism to carry out a global ban the various languages don't talk to each other enough for that. A more realistic say english language project ban would be entirely dependent on how the various communities of admins felt about the individual in question. Certainly it has been shown that at the present time there is no project that considers Jimbo's word to be final. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works
On 1 April 2010 19:30, Aude wrote: > Although deriving geocoordinates from google maps for wikipedia (under > us law) is okay, I would prefer not doing so and use osm, NASA > worldwind and other public domain or open licensed sources. (gps okay > too, though that gets into other questions). But the deed is done in > regards to coordinates and I see enough consensus among wikipedians > about facts not being copyrightable, so I'm not so interested in > debating that > Except it doesn't stop at geocoordinates. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Formula_One_circuits_maps Is for the most part directly traced from various google earth satellite pics. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works
On 2 April 2010 08:15, Samuel Klein wrote: > Someone on the OSM threads commented that they make an effort to be > 'whiter than white' when it comes to observing all possible legal > nuances. And it occurs to me that OSM at its heart is much more > deeply concerned with reuse and guaranteeing zero hassles for reusers > than Wikimedia currently is. It varies. Geographical data is a particularly weak area for wikipedia. > [can you name a significant published > work that draws heavily from a Wikimedia project, other than those > produced by Wikipedians that consist entirely of an edited selection > of Wikipedia articles?] Encyclopedia Britannica uses a lot of commons images these days. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works
On 3 April 2010 01:06, Samuel Klein wrote: > ... and as of last summer they claimed the money they spend to > validate the 'freeness' of those images is similar to what they would > normally pay a stock company, but decreasing over time. Lying. They still have no idea who I am yet I know they use at least one of my images. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [slightly OT] how to make a nice(r) copyright law for Europe...
On 28 April 2010 18:06, Mathias Schindler wrote: > http://www.copyrightcode.eu/ > > The European Copyright Code is the result of the Wittem Project that > was established in 2002 as a collaboration between copyright scholars > across the European Union concerned with the future development of > European copyright law. The project has its roots in an International > Network Program run by three Dutch universities (Radboud University of > Nijmegen, University of Amsterdam and Leiden University), and > sponsored by the government-funded Dutch ITeR Program. > And it shows. It's as if someone took all the worst elements of Napoleonic code style copyright and turned them up to 11. I mean it starts badly at (1) where it tries to define what a work is. I'm pretty sure we have courts for such matters. It does so rather badly although (3) fixes some of the more glaring issues. (2)h defines "Collections, compilations and databases." being subject to copyright which is bad but the general idea of trying to define what types of media should be protected by copyright has been shown to be flawed by advancing technology. Art. 1.2 – Excluded works basicaly translates as the government can destroy your copyright. Art. 2.2 – Moral rights (1) The author of the work has the moral rights. (2) Moral rights cannot be assigned. Bad Art. 3.4 – Right of integrity (1) The right of integrity is the right to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification, or other derogatory action in relation to the work, which would be prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the author. Bad Art. 3.5 – Consent The author can consent[28]not to exercise his moral rights.[29]Such consent must be limited in scope zee "Such consent must be limited in scope" is problematical -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] MMORPG and Wikimedia
On 6 May 2010 17:55, Milos Rancic wrote: > On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 6:49 PM, Nathan wrote: >> I'm not sure I'm correctly understanding what you've written, but >> supporting open source games seems to be outside the normal scope of >> the WMF. > > This is not about games, but about virtual reality and platform for > spreading free knowledge. Doubtful. Why a few turn based and real time strategy have historically spread information MMORPGs have not. Freeciv might be a better target if you want to try that. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] MMORPG and Wikimedia
On 6 May 2010 19:00, Milos Rancic wrote: > On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 7:40 PM, geni wrote: >> Doubtful. Why a few turn based and real time strategy have >> historically spread information MMORPGs have not. Freeciv might be a >> better target if you want to try that. > > The point is that this is an engine for virtual reality, while it is > MMORPG, too. And unlike Second Life, the platform is free software > which anyone would be able to install. Integrating Wikimedia projects > into this framework should be priority as in five to ten years, this > will be the most dominant form of using Internet. No it won't be. The limited impact of second life and the like shows that attempts at VR worlds are sub optimal ways of accessing web materials for most people. It's a lot quicker to type wikipedia.org or type wiki into google than it is to work out where in the VR world you have to walk to to find the library. Much the same can be shown with microsoft bob. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] MMORPG and Wikimedia
On 7 May 2010 03:17, Dan Rosenthal wrote: > The obvious example that comes to mind is the 3D virtual world physics as a > tool for disseminating knowledge. For instance, I was looking up various > model Porsche race cars the other day on Wikipedia. No amount of text can > truly describe the intangible differences in control between driving a > Porsche and a Ferrari. If one could go into a virtual world and drive a > virtual representation of one, we've filled a knowledge gap. > > Don't get hung up on the fact that this (used) to be a game, but rather view > it as an open source 3D virtual world environment that can scale to an > extremely large number of simultaneous users. It's a framework, which can be > evolved over time -- that's something we should at least be keeping an eye on > and encouraging, while exploring what ways we can integrate our content. > > -Dan 3D objects could already be supported as .blend files although we don't at this point. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions
On 7 May 2010 21:56, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > There is a board message about this that is completely in line with what > Jimmy mentioned. When you consider that because of many of those images that > should have remained private the whole Wikmedia domain has been blogged, we > really have to consider how we deal with this issue. > > The first priority is what our aim is for our WMF projects, the brinkmanship > with a shit load of inappropriate content is hurting what we stand for. Is > preventing us from furthering our aims. This is what is at issue. > Thanks, > GerardM > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaannounce-l/2010-May/08.html > Given the statement would require the deletion of 99% of userpages I think it is best ignored. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Statement on appropriate educational content
On 7 May 2010 20:30, Michael Snow wrote: > Having said that, the Wikimedia projects are intended to be educational > in nature, and there is no place in the projects for material that has > no educational or informational value. Err the user namespace? the project namespace? >In saying this, we don't intend > to create new policy, but rather to reaffirm and support policy that > already exists. We encourage Wikimedia editors to scrutinize potentially > offensive materials with the goal of assessing their educational or > informational value, and to remove them from the projects if there is no > such value. Given the overwelming majority of projects have no such policy the statement would appear to be flawed. For example what policy would you suggests applies on be.wikipedia ? -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Statement on appropriate educational content
On 7 May 2010 22:27, Michael Snow wrote: > Is there some particular reason for using that as an example? Only in that it's the one I'm aware of from old BLP debates. The statement makes exactly the same error as was being made then. Making a statement supposedly about all projects when really at most it is only coherent with regards to a handful of them. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On 8 May 2010 17:21, Mike Godwin wrote: > I believe you misunderstand both what Jimmy was trying to do, and what the > consequences of it are. I could elaborate on this, and will be happy to do > so privately, but as I said, I think focusing on Jimmy means missing an > opportunity to do something constructive. There isn't one. Oh if you wait about 6 months when things calm down a bit there might be an opportunity but if you look at previous such attempts when someone has just tried the brute force approach is never a good time. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On 8 May 2010 17:27, Sydney Poore wrote: > > I fully endorse every aspect of Mike Godwin's comment. > > The Boards statement makes it clear that their view is that Community > discussion is needed to find long term solutions to the issue. And that "not > censored" should not be used to halt discussions about the way to manage > content. It hasn't been. With previous attempts "you are being a [[WP:DICK]] go away" (okey generally with less explicit phrasing) has been used to halt the discussion. Not censored or otherwise /is/ the discussion. > The clean up project initiated by Jimmy on Commons has brought much needed > attention to a long standing problem. Useful attention is a subset of attention. We've not got much of that subset right now. >Now is the time for the Community to > focus on cleaning up Commons and writing a sensible policy about managing > sexual content. The community doesn't answer to you. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A Board member's perspective
On 9 May 2010 01:09, David Gerard wrote: > On 9 May 2010 01:04, Noein wrote: >> On 08/05/2010 20:52, Stuart West wrote: > >>> (1) There were some bad actors at work (e.g. hardcore pornography >>> distributors taking advantage of our open culture to get free anonymous >>> hosting). (2) As a community (including the Board), we debated the issue >>> too long and failed to drive closure and implement. (3) There are complex >>> issues around _some_ of the content that is in a gray area and those >>> complexities distracted us from dealing with the clearer cut cases. > >> In order to help us understand better the situation, can you refer >> concrete examples of 1 and a link to the discussion mentioned in 2? > > > Indeed. (1) is a definite [citation needed]. > > > - d. > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Toyslove_sybian_in_action_kobe_lee.OGG in particular the last 20 seconds. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
On 10 May 2010 19:18, David Gerard wrote: > Create a tool (e.g. a JavaScript gadget) that allows a logged-in user > to block images from Commons or local categories they don't want to > see images from. Then it's each individual's discretion as to what > they want not to see, and uses the existing category systems. Popular > unpopular categories can be offered as a package. Adblock already exists and can be used to provide exactly the feature set you describe. I'm not aware of any wikipedia image blocklists being produced for it. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Funny news from Poland
2010/5/13 Tomasz Ganicz : > As you maybe now, after the sudden death of Lech Kaczynski (jn airjet > crash in Smolens) we have now fast presidential election. One of the > most serious candidates Bronisław Komorowski was cached with printed > copy of Wikipedia article about > > "Rada Bezpieczeństwa Narodowego" > > http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rada_Bezpiecze%C5%84stwa_Narodowego > > a presidential advisory board for national security :-) > > Journalist from Poland just started commenting if we really need a > president who's main source of knowledge about national security > comes form Wikipedia :-). > > http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/2169210,11,wikipedia_nowym_doradca_komorowskiego,item.html > > > -- > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ > http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/en/TomaszGanicz.html > Given the simply staggering coverage of millitry issues on various wikimedia projects I can think of worse places to start. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google open sources VP8 -> WebM
On 19 May 2010 22:21, Jon Davis wrote: > No, the real question is: Is it _actually_ free? > > Read the OVA page about VP8 ( > http://openvideoalliance.org/2010/05/google-frees-vp8-codec-for-html5-the-webm-project/?l=en). > Specifically "What's the catch?". In short, MPEG-LA group claims > that > their patents cover all modern video codecs. > > So, hey, if Google can fight them off - great. Until then... wait and see? > They claim the same about theora. They've had years to actually show this and have singularly failed to do so. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Strategic Planning Office Hours
On 1 June 2010 01:49, Philippe Beaudette wrote: > > Hi Everyone - > > Our next strategic planning office hours will be: 20:00-21:00 UTC, > Tuesday, 1 May. Local timezones can be checked > athttp://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?year=2010&month=6&day=1&hour=20&min=0&sec=0&p1=0 > > As always, you can access the chat by going to > https://webchat.freenode.net and filling in a username and the channel > name (#wikimedia-strategy). You may be prompted to click through a > security warning. It's fine. More details at: > > http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours > > Thanks! Hope to see many of you there. Or not. Okey so it happened that the thing was taking place at a time reasonable for my timezone. So I check http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People/IRC_Agendas So there hasn't been an agenda in months. Fair enough agendas can be a pain. Hey how hard can it be to wing it? So I pop in. Discussion is about Reflect . You can read about it here: http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/travis/reflect/ Personally I think it's a bad idea to sacrifice screen real estate on order to solve the odd TR:DR problem. So I make this clear. I'm told that this is related to having a deadline. I start to make the case that perhaps things are getting a little too meta. I also make the case that a tool that is based around removing context and nuance form posts is a bad idea. I start to make the case that if there is a deadline to meet it is better to work out how to do it using technology we already know well (remember no one was considering adding reflect to say en.pedia) rather than trying to introduce new technology and hope it will allow us to do things faster to the extent it makes up for the time lost deploying it and learning how to use it. But at that point I was kinda banned. So peeps. Go along hang out. But be careful with discussion or dissent. They may not work out too well. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Strategic Planning Office Hours
On 1 June 2010 23:39, Eugene Eric Kim wrote: > pain. Hey how hard can it be to wing it? > > You're confusing the agendas of a Task Force to the office hours of > the strategy process as a whole. As stated at: > > http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_Office_Hours > > the goals of these office hours are to answer questions and engage in > discussion. These are not formal meetings, but a designated period > where Philippe and I make ourselves available to interact with people > in real-time. We keep the agenda open, but at the same time, we also > do our best to keep the discussion relevant. And, as with the strategy > process as a whole, we've worked hard to maintain an environment of > constructive, positive discourse. Removing the ability to raise problems with a suggestion is a great way to render discourse pointless. It in effect makes a virtue of [[en:not even wrong]]. > The decision to kick geniice off the channel was mine. You can read > the log to see how the discussion evolved and my explanation for why I > made this decision: > > http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours/2010-06-01 > > I don't think foundation-l is the appropriate place to discuss these > specific grievances, and I'm happy to continue this discussion on > strategy wiki's Village Pump. That said, I think we have a strong > record for openness and tolerance of all views, as long as the > discussion has remained polite and constructive, and I'm happy to > address any general questions about this here. You have demonstrated a preparedness to shut down lines of debate you don't like. This being the case there is no rational reason why I would chose to raise issues with your actions in places where you were able to continue to take such actions. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Office action
On 3 June 2010 00:13, Klaus Graf wrote: > For me there is no reason to believe that Mr. Godwin is a good lawyer. > > If he receives a formal (blah-blah) correct take-down-notice he will > take OFFICE ACTION. > > It was clearly un-lawful to take down the TU Munich logo which isn't > protectable according German copyright law but WMF has done so. > > It is a shame that WMF hasn't a policy of TRANSPARENCY regarding > office actions. The right of the community to get all information > cannot be overruled by Mr. Godwin's personal opinions about secret > things. > > If WMF or it's god-like counsel (who wasn't able to accept critics > since I am reading this list) has taken office action - there is no > way to appeal. Roma locuta causa finita ... > > Klaus Graf > You mean the Technical University Munich logo? The problem is that the image servers are in the US and under US law I can see a case being made for the logo being subject to copyright. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Office action
On 3 June 2010 00:54, Mike Godwin wrote: > Yes, it is correct that I will comply with a DMCA (or equivalent) takedown > notice. In this respect, I'm like just about every lawyer everywhere who > represents a service provider. Perhaps they are all bad lawyers, but at > least I'm in good company if they are. I will remind you that Wikipedia hosts information about a number of individuals and organization who have been known to file DMCA notices on materials that they either do not hold the rights on at all or which clearly fall within fair use in order to suppress information. So are you going to accept all DMCA notices regardless of how valid you feel the copyright claim is? -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
On 7 June 2010 19:21, Ryan Kaldari wrote: > I've added a new section on DMCA compliance to both the en.wiki and meta > Office actions pages: > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_actions > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Office_actions > > Please feel free to augment with additional info. > > Ryan Kaldari The claim "The Foundation is required by law to comply with such notices even if they are spurious" isn't correct. I assume you meant to say "The Foundation is required by law to comply with such notices even if they are spurious if it doesn't want to lose it's safe harbour" and even there I'm not sure the loss of safe harbour status would be universal. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: change of registered TMs in Persian wikipedia
On 10 June 2010 06:09, Ryan Lomonaco wrote: > Forwarded on behalf of a non-list-member. > > The question pertains to translation of trademarks within articles; to my > knowledge, there's nothing wrong with us doing so, and I think this is done > in many Wikipedias. But I'll defer to the list on this question. > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Amir sarabadani > Date: Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:58 PM > Subject: change of registered TMs in Persian wikipedia > To: foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Hello, > I'm one of Persian wikipedia users.for making pages same name of > trademarks (e.g. films ,games.etc.) we have several choices: > 1-we use same name and same alphabetical with trademark(e.g. > Google-->Google) > 2-we same name but Persian Script(e.g. Call of duty-->کال آو دیوتی/KAL > AV DIUTI/) > 3-we translate it(Prince of Persian-->شاهزاده ایرانی /SHAHZADE IRANI > means Prince of Persia) > Users of Persian wikipedia (with consequence) use third way usually > but I think change of trademarks is crime and maybe create legal > problem for the Foundation > > Please tell us what we do or maybe i think wrong please tell me. > Thanks and best wishes > -- > Amir Since wikipedia is not offering any goods or services under the mark we can pretty much do what we like. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] "The problem with Wikipedia..."
On 17 June 2010 21:14, Michael Snow wrote: > Dan Rosenthal wrote: >> Isn't the quote backwards? "The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works >> in practice. It could never work in theory"? >> > It can be formulated various ways. Raul's Laws has yet another variation: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raul654/Raul%27s_laws > > I'd note that in the history of that page, it dates back to March 2006 > and even then the original author was listed as unknown. That makes it > exactly the sort of quote that is easily misattributed to Winston > Churchill or Abraham Lincoln. > > --Michael Snow "The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it's a total disaster" goes back to jan 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gareth_Owen&oldid=35978744 -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] "The problem with Wikipedia..."
On 17 June 2010 21:37, phoebe ayers wrote: > On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 1:19 PM, David Gerard wrote: >> Here's the phrase in a 1988 sociology paper: >> >> http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/1/1/19 >> >> I'd call it a pretty obvious play on words, though, so I really doubt >> we got it from that. >> >> Anyone got a complete wikien-l archive to grovel through? >> >> >> - d. > > going back that far it might be on wikipedia-l, I think, and Joseph > Reagle has done quite a bit of work analyzing that -- maybe he can > help. We're looking for the orgins of the quote: "The problem with > Wikipedia is that it only works in theory. It could > never work in practice." Well I can search wikipedia-en-l as far back as 13.09.04 and I'm not coming up with anything. Running google searches for mentions pre 2006 doesn't turn up anything however use explodes in 2006 which is rather fast if than jan 2006 use is the first. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] "The problem with Wikipedia..."
On 18 June 2010 08:53, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: >> The "original" original of the concept itself is of course >> "The Flight of the Bumblebee", with a related concept >> being the centipede losing track of it's legs, when it >> begins trying to "think through" what it is doing with >> them. >> > > The concept of "Information Wants to be Free" has been > authoritatively shown to have roots in thinkers as ancient > as Aristotle. I would guess here too, that the instance > of scientists calculating the amount of energy it took to > keep the bumblebee up in the air, and measuring the > amount of food it actually consumed, is likely not the > earliest form of this paradox. Not really. All they ever calculated was weather it could glide. It couldn't. In this they were correct. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] encouraging women's participation
On 22 June 2010 00:10, Tim Landscheidt wrote: > Isn't an iPhone one of those gadgets with about 10 cm of > screen and no keyboard? Why would we want to encourage some- > one to edit with such a device? It must be very frustrating > to do so properly, and we don't profit, in fact it is to our > disadvantage if it's done improperly. Augmented reality. Wikipedia's coverage of local history and geography benefits if we can get edits from people on the move. > While I appreciate the efforts to encourage wider partici- > pation, IMHO we should make sure that we keep the quality of > our "products" and our "human resources" in mind. No edits > at all may be better than one edit in ten days for probably > 99% of the population. Given that 99% of the population is over 6 billion people 1 edit every ten days would result in a lot of worthwhile edits. > And I don't think that we will at- > tract the right 1% who will wander the libraries and the web > in search of the missing pieces of information, tackle thick > books and pause before clicking on the "Save" button to es- > timate whether their edit will find the approval of their > peers, by emphasizing that editing is easy or fun - because > it isn't. And it probably shouldn't be. If wikipedia is to survive it needs to be fun. If wikipedia is going to get a broad coverage it needs to be easy. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Donation of Encyclopedic Entries on Famous Poems
On 22 June 2010 01:25, MZMcBride wrote: > Jeffrey Peters wrote: >> Both rewrites/expansions can be found on Simple Wikipedia, a project >> that is noble and deserves more involvement by the community as a >> whole: >> >> > http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ottava_Rima/Ode:_Intimations_of_Immortalit > y >> >> http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ottava_Rima/Kubla_Khan > > Neither article appears to be written in Simple English (or whatever the > Simple English Wikipedia has contrived to mean "Simple English"). > > MZMcBride I assume Ottava is using the pages in question as a holding ground until they can be moved over to en. If you really need to know the details see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava_Rima_restrictions#Ottava_Rima_banned But the short version is that in an environment full of people with poor social skill's Ottava's approach to interactions has caused problems. Good content editor mind. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] English language dominationism is striking again
On 22 June 2010 17:32, Anthony wrote: > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Gerard Meijssen > wrote: > >> When you think that Commons is bad in supporting other languages, try to >> find pictures of a horse on the internet in other languages like Estonian, >> Nepalese ... It is not the same at all as when you are looking for images >> in >> English. > > > Don't most Internet users know enough English to be able to search for > "pictures of a horse" in English? > > (According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Internet_usage), > yes... "Most Internet users speak the English language as a native or > secondary language.") In practice pulling up the wikipedia article on "horse" in your language will cover most cases. There is a fairly good argument to be made that wikipedia is common's best search engine. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Board resolution commissioning study and recommendations
On 24 June 2010 07:20, Michael Snow wrote: >> 4. We do expect material in our projects to be educational in nature, >> and any material that is not educational should be removed. I would suggest that passing a resolution that outlaws most user pages is a bad idea. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against "copyleft"
On 25 June 2010 23:04, David Gerard wrote: > http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/ascap-assails-free-culture-digital-rights-groups/ > > They're actually gathering money to fight free content. > > We may need to do something about this. > > > - d. They are effectively trying to fight contract law though which is unlikely to end will for them. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Study of Potentially Objectionable Content
On 1 July 2010 00:38, R M Harris wrote: > > > > > > > Hello, Wikimedians. My name is Robert Harris and I'm the consultant the Board > has asked to look at the various issues around potentially objectionable > content as outlined by the Board resolution and FAQs posted to Foundation-l > June 24, 2010. I've created a page on Meta-Wiki > (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content) > to serve as a place where I can post the research I'm collecting for the > study and also hope that that page can act as a forum for discussions around > the various issues I've been asked to consider. The page includes my own > series of FAQs to help introduce myself. Hope to hear from you as I look at > these complex and significant issues. > > Robert Harris > So will Dory Carr-Harris be attending the next london meetup: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetup/London/35 -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to FoundationWebsite
On 1 July 2010 09:58, John Vandenberg wrote: > Who is WMF competing with? > Hudong -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki
On 16 July 2010 18:25, David Gerard wrote: > No, that's completely incorrect. Wikipedias are per language, not per > country, and no country owns the wiki in its language. Neutral point > of view is not local point of view. The problem is not the country in this case but the ethnic group. It is unlikely that they would ever write an article on Muhammad that contained pics but I don't feel this presents a problem. That does not challenge NPOV. Subjects such as Israel, pigs and what do do about PBUH are likely to present a greater challange. However is is a common problem with most small language wikipedias since they tend to by tied to a single culture or geographic area. I suspect KW and CY have issues although probably not to the same extent. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy etc - merging data
On 16 July 2010 13:14, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > As far as I know the data involved is exempt from having to be registered > with the registrar in the Netherlands. This is the type of data that is > essential for the running of an organisation like ours. You may feel > uncomfortable about this but that is tough. I'd suggest letting the WMF answer questions like that. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki
On 18 July 2010 10:10, wrote: > Excirial wrote: >> *And how do we assume good faith when images known to cause offense are >> being defended, especially when its not as if they can't be found on any one >> of a 1000 websites. Reposting them serves no value other than give the >> poster and its defenders a warm fuzzy "we're don't censored" feeling. Except >> that you do.* >> >> Reposting serves historical value, as i already pointed out. > > Explain what historic value reposting offensive images has? Just because > someone creates an image that causes a fuss, is no reason to reproduce > that image in order to document the fuss. Especially when one can simply > describe the image. > > >> Would you argue >> that the adding the depictions of gods, prophets and other religious figures >> throughout the centuries serves no encyclopedic purpose? Why is the >> external availability of those image's on 1000's of other sites a reason >> against including them? > > > Why no screencap images from the Nick Berg video? Is that of less > importance than the "Draw mohammed day" image? > > >> Man could equally argue that their broad >> availability means that another site containing them doesn't generate a >> problem. Equally i would again point out that we are building an >> encyclopedia, which is an unbiased compendium of knowledge. If we start >> pre-filtering topics and content on a >> WP:ITBOTHERSME<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ITBOTHERSME> >> basis >> we will soon have gaps everywhere because people tend to take offense from >> many things. What offenses are valid enough to warrant removal? Where is the >> borderline between "Acceptable" and "Non Acceptable"? > > > >> And again i politely ask that you cease with these personal attacks as they >> serve no purpose whatsoever. What do you wish to achieve? Do you intend for >> me to take you and your opinion serious while considering their >> implications, or do you prefer that i cast them aside as personal attacks? >> But if you are truly arguing that you deem the inclusion of these images >> personal attacks without any value, then i think there is little we can >> discuss - if you don't even believe that they might have historic value, >> there is no way to compromise. > > > Do you not see the irony in requesting that someone stops using words, > taken to be a personal attack, whilst at the same time defending the > continued publication of images taken to be personal attacks on others > religious beliefs. > > > >> *The goatse images was removed for stated reasons that could equally be >> applied to almost any of the controversial images. That those reasons aren't >> applied to the other images smacks of hypocrisy.* >> Then what stops you from nominating these images under the same criteria? If >> those images classify for the same reasons the same actions should be taken >> - simple as that. My own views on censoring are identical for any topic - be >> it goatse, Muhammed, Christians, Atheists, and so on and on. If i would >> change alter them for certain topics it would be a clearly biased action >> after all. >> * >> And the defenders of these images aren't doing just that? Scrap the muslim >> connection just explain to this Atheist why it is imperative to display the >> "Piss Christ" image, when "photograph of plastic christ on cross in jar of >> urine" describes exactly why the work was found offensive. Just explain why >> the actual image is necessary and whilst you are about it explain why it is >> so much larger than the normal use of an image to illustrate an article?* > > > No cartoon images of Olmert? > > http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/anti_semitism_e0407.htm > > It appears that about the only images on wikimedia are those by Latuff. > Are such images not of equal importance as images of Mohammed? > You are arguing in the wrong place. A very large debate has already taken place on this issue and consensus has been reached. Nothing you can say on this mailing list will impact that. If you really think you have something new to bring to the debate the correct place to raise the matter is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/images -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content
On 24 July 2010 18:28, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > - That IPs are shown a mildly "censored" version, and that seeing the > uncensored version of Wikipedia requires registering an account and setting > the preferences up accordingly. > And this is where it all breaks down. Once you start to offer a partially censored version as standard you are basically going to have to fight an eternal war until you give up and reacht he bottom of the slippery slope. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content
On 25 July 2010 18:17, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > You're right, it is not just about images. If I set up a censored account for > a small child, I should be able to set it up in such a way that they won't be > able to see articles like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogg_(novel) or > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cock_and_ball_torture_(sexual_practice) > > So, if the child clicks on a wikilink leading there, they would get a screen > saying, "Sorry, >this page is only available to adult accounts." Child responds by logging out. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Banner ads in sitenotice
Job adverts? Really?. Site notice is for critical stuff (fund raising, servers about to explode) even if you play with the notice to only appear ~%10 of the time. Central notice even more so. For less important stuff where you want to contact the community there is [[MediaWiki:Watchlist-details]] which would have the additional advantage of not putting English ads on the Italian (substitute almost every non english wikipedia of your choice) wikipedia. The size is also problematical. On my screen it takes up about twice the space of the average image thumbnail something people who come to wikipedia actualy want to see. Incidentally: "In one or two sentences, describe the process in which users are approved to become administrators on English Wikipedia. " Is this some kind of test to see if people know how to use semi colons? -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Journal Boycott
On 1 February 2012 20:14, Kim Bruning wrote: > > Coulw we start a WikiJournal of some sort? Been floated from time to time thus not going to happen > (Akin to WikiNews in > operation, perhaps?) No. If were actually going to launch a journal we would do it in a conventional manner. Partly so wikipedia will view it as a reliable source and partly because in some way wikinews acts as a terrible warning. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] New project: WikiMake - library of free 3D models?
On 10 February 2012 12:22, Leinonen Teemu wrote: > I do not know enough about file formats, but we naturally would been both: > free format for viewing 3D objects and free format that can be used for > making out of them physical objects. > In the short term just set up commons to host .blend files. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyright and cakes...
On 5 March 2012 14:54, Richard Symonds wrote: > Silly question for you all: > > Is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_cake.jpg actually > copyrighted to the WMF as a WMF logo? The cake was made for Wikimedia UK, so > it's technically a derivative work, perhaps... Its a derivative work. Technically the cake is a copyvio. > Any ideas what the copyright status of this should be? The one it is tagged under is about as close as commons could get. > Does the author > (Jezhotwells) have the ability to release it under a free licence, if s/he > wishes? No but if they put it on permanent display in a public place the photo would probably be totally fine under UK freedom of panorama law. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyright and cakes...
On 5 March 2012 20:40, Chris Keating wrote: > I suspect a court would hold that the set of "cakes" is disjoint from the > set of "objects on permanent display", and thus that a photograph of cake > can never benefit from freedom of panorama. Well you say that but slices of Charles and Diana's wedding cake have turned up at auction as recently as 2008. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pre-wikis vs. maturing Wikipedia: taking away dedicated editors?
On 7 March 2012 07:23, Amir E. Aharoni wrote: > I'm taking a hint from Clay Shirky's books here: What most people > would consider high quality published sources - in this case, by > railway companies, governments, standards institutions or engineering > colleges - simply don't have the capacity to go into that much detail. > The Polish (Russian, Israeli, American, Indian) volunteer railway > geeks do have this capacity, and quite possibly the quality of the job > that they can do is just as good as that of the above institutions. > I don't know about the polish rail geeks but the british ones have been nice enough to spend the last few decades churning out book after book (along with journals and magazines) that qualify as reliable sources. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Article Landing Pages - functional prototype to test and comment on
On 10 March 2012 11:16, Oliver Keyes wrote: > The first of the two Engineering is working on, partly because it lends > itself to being broken out into smaller pieces of work, is the Landing > System. Currently, when a registered newbie clicks on a redlink, they get > automatically taken to an edit page where they can create the article, but > without any context as to what is actually happening. With the proposed > system, instead of seeing a blank edit window devoid of context, they'll > see a new page that gives them various options.[3] People creating articles by clicking on redlinks are not as a general rule a significant issue. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Article Landing Pages - functional prototype to test and comment on
On 10 March 2012 14:47, David Gerard wrote: > On 10 March 2012 14:18, geni wrote: > >> People creating articles by clicking on redlinks are not as a general >> rule a significant issue. > > > That appears to be a numerical claim. Do we have numbers? > Not that I'm aware of but if you follow special:newpages for any length of time you will notice a tendency for the problematical articles to be orphans. After all a redlink generally means that at least one other person has thought that the article should exist. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] CBC getting rid of physical archives(but not digitising all of them)
On 14 March 2012 19:27, Tom Morris wrote: > Wow, if only there were another public service broadcaster who > stupidly decided to chuck away their physical archives for cost > reasons and then rapidly came to regret it afterwards. > > What's that broadcaster called? I'm pretty sure the name only had a > Levenshtein distance of 1 from 'CBC'. > > Oh yeah, the BBC. In fairness they were in a slightly different legal situation and technological level. > That's the BBC of "wiping Doctor Who episodes to reuse tape" fame. Ah you've not had dealings with the hardcore of the Dr Who fans. I understand that claim is considered questionable. > If the CBC were to follow the BBC's folly, that would be tragic and > utterly stupid. Different situations. The BBC's stuff was its in house productions. Going by the description on the petition most of the CBC stuff is stuff from third parties that can at a pinch be purchases on the open market. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Guidelines for the use of iframes?
On 15 March 2012 06:34, Erik Moeller wrote: > Whether the iframe is a good idea still remains to be seen. Jobvite > makes it unnecessarily hard to link to JDs directly (because their > ideology is that everyone should come through some social media > funnel, I think), and the navigation is heavily JS dependent right > now. So we might want to switch back to a hybrid format. The job pages > are also still actively being re-designed, and the setup might change > significantly in coming weeks. > Pointless waffle. You forget what the WMF is meant to be. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Stopping the presses:, Britannica to stop printing books
On 14 March 2012 16:34, Robin McCain wrote: > I find it bizarre that inclusion of information of local importance is > encouraged in the internationalized local language wikipediae but > discouraged in the U.S. English wikipedia. So events of local interest in a > town in Romania are desirable but the same cannot be said of a similar event > in San Jose, California. Local events in western countries are pretty easy to cover within wikipedia's rules. A mix of local news and the local history mob usually sees that there are plenty of sources. On the other hand writing about Odek (Joseph Kony's home village) is pretty much impossible. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
