[Foundation-l] Strike against the collection of personal data through edit links
Strike against the collection of personal data through edit links I have started a strike to protest against the collection of personal information through edit links. I won't edit articles with articleFeedbackv5_ct_token= ids in their URLs, as has become the case with the English Wikipedia article Costa Concordia disaster. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5#Meaning_and_purpose_of_.22action.3Dclicktracking.22.2C_.22token.3D.22.2C_and_.22articleFeedbackv5_click_tracking.22_in_the_edit_links_of_some_articles Also it is becoming uncomfortable to edit section 0 of an article. On a normal wiki article, to edit section 0, one copy-pastes the edit link of section 1 and changes 1 into 0. This is no longer possible in a reliable enough way, as the effect of changing the URL becomes obscure. If you started editing Wikipedia trusting that the WMF would not collect personal data beyond the strict minimum that is necessary to create an encyclopedia, you might be disappointed like I am. An other problem is that the contents of those URLs are leaked at least to your own Internet Service Provider (like any URL), and potentially to all websites you are browsing, as they become part of your browser history, untill you clear your browser history. And please don't tell me that those URLs are harmless. I don't wan't to edit a faith-based website. I want to edit a website without obscure features. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] The Mediawiki 1.18 image rotation bug on Commons and on all Wikimedia projects
The Mediawiki 1.18 image rotation bug on Commons and on all Wikimedia projects 1 - Bug or feature ? It is a bug. 2 - The human bug 3 - The technical bug 4 - Unexhaustive list of related talks 1 - Bug or feature ? It is a bug. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arameansoldid=463282677 : both pictures File:Aramean funeral stele Louvre AO3026.jpg and File:Si Gabbor funeral stele Louvre AO3027.jpg are tilted. It is somehow intentional, because it seems that the devs have suddenly decided that the exif orientation tag should be taken into account, while in the past users used had to use other ways to define image orientation. But even if it is intentional, we should call it a bug, because it is annoying to a lot of readers and uploaders whose pictures have been OK sometimes for years, and without warning they must suddenly change the orientation of their uploaded pictures. What about the pictures whose uploaders are no longer active ? So I hope everybody agrees that it is a bug. 2 - The human bug I think the Wikimedia Foundation should present officially its excuses to the readers and active users annoyed by the bug. The excuses could be linked from the rotatebot template, so that the concerned users could read them. The devs should find out what went wrong in the decision process to implement the 1.18 version, and try to find preventive measures so that big problems of this size do not occur again when a version upgrade is done. Is it really OK not to consult the Commons community before changing a picture-related feature ? 3 - The technical bug : deadline A lot of people should be thanked for having spared no energy to find the first steps toward solutions to the bug. A lot has been done. In particular a lot has been done to provide users easy access to a bot, called rotatebot which rotates pictures when needed. A lot of users have spent time tagging pictures with a rotate template, which calls the bot for help. Really a lot of people. The bot is busy, and the bot should be thanked, if it had brains to understand what thank you means. Despite all of that, despite the fact that the bot's speed was lately increased, we are still lacking a systematic solution which would correct all wrongly rotated pictures and a deadline. Let us stop asking users to individually tag every wrong picture! Let us have some developers create a tool to find wrong pictures and rotate them back to their original orientation! We need a deadline. We need to be able to say, In X month's time, all pictures will be back to normal. 4 - Unexhaustive list of related talks http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/10#Autorotation_using_EXIF_tag_with_MW_1.18 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/10#Autorotation_using_EXIF_tag_with_MW_1.18_.28old.29 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/10#Rotatelink_on_filedescription-pages http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/10#problem_with_rotation http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/10#Rotation_error http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/11#New_autorotation_based_on_EXIF_data_problem http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/11#Wrong_rotation_of_image_when_used_in_Wikipedia http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/11#.22Request_rotation.22_link http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/12#Direction_issue_with_File:Cyril_and_Methodius_monument_Sofia.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bistro#Monast.C3.A8re_Andronikov_:_image_.C3.A0_redresser http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bistro#Monde_.C3.A0_l.27envers http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro/5_d%C3%A9cembre_2011#Pourquoi_certaines_images_ont_subi_des_rotations_sans_modification_apparente http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Image_rotation_-_I_am_desperate http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bots/Work_requests#Maintenance_category_for_files_with_EXIF_rotation_other_than_0_degrees http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Rotation http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rotatebot#Rotation_on_Wikipedia It is unexhaustive because I did not check Commons' help desk, nor every Wikipedia language version. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The Mediawiki 1.18 image rotation bug on Commons and on all Wikimedia projects
The unrepentant attitude expressed above by K. Peachey increases the need for clear excuses from the Wikimedia Foundation, expressing clearly that something has gone wrong in the decision process, and that the people who think the relationship between users-community and developers the way K. Peachey is thinking, are mistaken. I don't want to address every single untruth included in K. Peachey's message. Let's say that when pictures are concerned, the input of the Commons community is useful, as is useful the input of the Georgian wikipedia when a Georgian-language-related feature is concerned. Let's say again that when users have been allowed for years - FOR YEARS - to upload pictures without concern for the exif orientation tag, revoking this allowance without prior warning is a breach of trust. And anyway, this is no reason to suddenly annoy readers, who are third parties in this developer-uploader misunderstanding and absence of dialogue. A Deadline is possible of course. All it needs is the political will from the Wikimedia Foundation management to impose a deadline to the devs. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Terms of use : Anglo-saxon copyright law and Anglo-saxon lawyers : a disgrace for Continental Europeans
Le 11 décembre 2011 19:02, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com a écrit : Hi. The Terms of use rewrite is starting to wind down. The current draft is here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use. From the point of view of Continental Europe, where creators enjoy advanced copyright laws which protect their attribution right, I think this implementation of the - creator belittling - US copyright law on Wikimedia projects is a disgrace. What the licensing section of this draft terms of use is saying is that the WMF simply disregards the attribution rights which are granted by law in their countries. It is humiliating. By the clever use of attribution licenses, there was a way to conciliate continental European laws and US or British laws. The WMF decides not to do so, and to stubbornly push the US-copyright law point of view. It is a pity. Perhaps the WMF should not have relied on a US lawyer alone. Perhaps a team associating a US lawyer with a continental Europe lawyer would have been better. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Terms of use : Anglo-saxon copyright law and Anglo-saxon lawyers : a disgrace for Continental Europeans
For some unexplained reasons, the whole contents of my message is not showing at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-December/070807.html . Here is another copy again: Le 12 décembre 2011 17:14, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com a écrit : Le 11 décembre 2011 19:02, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com a écrit : Hi. The Terms of use rewrite is starting to wind down. The current draft is here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use. From the point of view of Continental Europe, where creators enjoy advanced copyright laws which protect their attribution right, I think this implementation of the - creator belittling - US copyright law on Wikimedia projects is a disgrace. What the licensing section of this draft terms of use is saying is that the WMF simply disregards the attribution rights which are granted by law in their countries. It is humiliating. By the clever use of attribution licenses, there was a way to conciliate continental European laws and US or British laws. The WMF decides not to do so, and to stubbornly push the US-copyright law point of view. It is a pity. Perhaps the WMF should not have relied on a US lawyer alone. Perhaps a team associating a US lawyer with a continental Europe lawyer would have been better. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The Mediawiki 1.18 image rotation bug on Commons and on all Wikimedia projects
I am unable to find precise answers to your questions. But the scope of the phenomenon can be somehow understood with the following data which hint that today, the demand for rotation service has increased about 56-fold compared to June 2011. But I am unable to say how long the present high demand will last. And we must think about the unused pictures or pictures used on small projects which may require rotation but which people may be not be going to find so soon. Let alone the cases when readers find that something is wrong but are too shy to say it. As of 24-30 June (7 days) Rotatebot was requested to rotate about 250 files in 7 days (1) As of now, Rotatebot is handling about 250 files in 3 hours (2) (which means (24/3)*7*250 = 56*250 in 7 days) (1) http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributionsoffset=2011070100limit=500contribs=usertarget=Rotatebot (2) http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributionslimit=500contribs=usertarget=Rotatebot Le 12 décembre 2011 16:55, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com a écrit : * How many existing uploads, used on the wikis, were previously wrongly rotated and were fixed by the feature? * How many existing uploads, used on the wikis, were previously correctly rotated and were messed up by the feature? i.e., was there strong reason to apply it to past images, not just new ones? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] On certain shallow, American-centered, foolish software initiatives backed by WMF
The WMF has been recently backing softwares that are a breach of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (1). Recently a totally stupid pink heart was added to user talk pages, making people believe it is Valentine Day everyday, with the result that Wikipedia is now being used as a social network or a game. For example see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Alleahruiz . This sort of software enhances shallow relationships between people. That might be fine for American people or americanized people but everybody in the world is not American or Americanized or belonging to a culture close to that one. I believe that in this world some people value something else than shallow relationships based on US-centered cultural codes such as a pink heart, for example trusting relationships based on working together in the long term, using true words really felt rather than just picking an icon on a game interface. Do you know that the pink heart tool was imposed on Wikimedia COmmons by the English speaking community without consulting other language communities ? Now we are seeing the appearance of a feedback tool on the English Wikipedia ? How long are the non-English Wikipedias going to be free from this new stupid tool which has nothing to do with writing an encyclopaedia ? Where is the usability when adding new features at a confusing hurried rythm ? (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_blog.2C_webspace_provider.2C_social_network.2C_or_memorial_site ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] WMF is planning to install a video player that harms creator attribution and ties between Wikipedia and Commons
I have learnt this morning that the Timedmedia extension is not yet installed on wikimedia sites, but its meant to replace the existing player (1). As I was uploading videos, and needed some specific tools, I happened the other day to use the mwEmbed gadget on Wikimedia Commons which seems to be a prefiguration of what the WMF plans to install everywhere on its sites. My experience as guinea pig of that experiment is negative: Clicking on the i option of the polar bear video inserted on commons village pump (2) produces the following screenshot: http://prototype.wikimedia.org/timedmedia/File:Screenshot_of_commons_village_pump.jpg (3). What the video viewer can read is Credits: Title : File:PolarBearsPlayingSDZooFeb09.ogv Kaltura. This is not a proper way of providing author name (which should be Nehrams2020 ) and license (which should be Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license with a link). The share menu provides i frame src = // commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PolarBearsPlayingSDZooFeb09.ogv?withJS=MediaWiki:MwEmbed.jsembedplayer=yes width=220 height=165 frameborder=0 /iframe . There is no Attribution code similar to the one you can find when clicking on Use this file on the photostock toolbar on the Commons description page (4). The small polar bear icon displayed in the i option of the menu is too small (it is only about 50x30px, while the standard thumb size is 220px!). Using the full 220px rectangle as a link is the way by which we tell readers/viewers that the Commons description page is an important page. Most users will not be aware that they may click on that 50x30px icon to find valuable information about the file. The File:PolarBearsPlayingSDZooFeb09.ogv text is in grey color. This is not the standard way to make the viewer aware that it is a clickable link. Usually, clickable links are blue. This video player is putting the Wikimedia commons description page 3 clicks away from Wikipedia instead of just one (you must click on menu, then on i then on File:PolarBearsPlayingSDZooFeb09.ogv). If installed on Wikipedia, this gadget will not be an improvement, but a huge drawback for the quality of the relation between Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia Commons will be unknown from Wikipedia readers or seen as something far away. I guess a lot of people are going to believe that the person who deserves credit is the company named Kaltura instead of the real video creator. The i symbol is meaningless for people whose languages do not have the word information in their vocabularies. Even in English or in French information is vague and does not mean credit or license or attribution. The efforts Wikimedia Commons has been doing on description pages (indicating the source of the file, provide a description, provide a date, provide categories to find related files, etc.) are put aside for the purpose of the promotion of the Kaltura brand name. And again a download link seems to be provided straight away from the menu even if the user has not made the effort to learn about the licensing conditions. (1) Michael Dale 2011-10-11 02:54:09 UTC https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31583 (2) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#mwEmbed_gadget:_Videos_no_longer_properly_linked_to_description_pages_by_clicking_on_the_thumbnail (3) http://prototype.wikimedia.org/timedmedia/File:Screenshot_of_commons_village_pump.jpg (4) screenshot of use this file toolbar tool: http://prototype.wikimedia.org/timedmedia/File:Use_this_file_screenshot.jpg ( the stockphoto.js toolbar) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] The Wikimedia Foundation seems to want to repudiate Creative Commons 3.0 article 5, and make text contributors liable for every kind of complaint
I want to say very clearly that without the provisions included under Creative Commons 3.0 article 5, it will be very difficult for volunteer contributors to consider working for a project that makes them liable to all kinds of complaints. For that reason, the proposed Indemnity clause of the proposed new terms of use is a tremendous change. This sort of major change should be discussed in a very wide consultation with the community, with a sitenotice announcement on all projects, rather than making a surreptitious change as is being proposed on Meta. See also http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use#Terms_of_use.2316._Indemnity:_You_don.27t_mean_to_nullify_the_Creative_Commons_terms.2C_do_you_.3F ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The Wikimedia Foundation seems to want to repudiate Creative Commons 3.0 article 5, and make text contributors liable for every kind of complaint
I replied at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use#Terms_of_use.2316._Indemnity:_You_don.27t_mean_to_nullify_the_Creative_Commons_terms.2C_do_you_.3F I think if the Italian Wikipedians fought against an Italian bill of law trying to make them liable for a large series of complaints, they should also have a closer look at the draft terms of use prepared by the Wikimedia Foundation. How much shall the new Indemnity clause cost to Wikipedians ? More or less than the 12000 € fine of the Italian bill of law ? Also posted on the meta page: You are misunderstanding the interplay between these sections. The section of the CC license you quote disclaims warranties; such disclaimers have limited applicability and scope, and can't be used to avoid liability arising in other ways. Additionally, and obviously, nothing in the disclaimer allows the contributor to violate the terms of service agreement, and the indemnity clause applies only to such violations. ~Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
Of late I've often round reasons to be critical of the choices the WMF has made, but in this case you've made the best choice possible - supporting the community on it.wikipedia in a decision that they've come to as a group, even though that decision is controversial in some places. Bravo Sue, and Bravo WMF. Cheers, Craig I agree. I have been critical of a lot of things lately, but this last statement by Sue Gardner was good. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] WMF blog post on Italian Wikipedia
Le 5 octobre 2011 17:23, emijrp emi...@gmail.com a écrit : When people reuse content in other websites/blogs/etc, they have to copy the article text and link to Italian Wikipedia where you can check the entire history and authors. That is how attribution is given. It is explained here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content Now, most of all the attributions to Italian Wikipedia contents on the Internet are broken. This guideline is wrong. The 2009 licencing update http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update was wrong. And the You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution byline on edit box is an infringement of author's moral right. Instead of the bad Creative Commons license, the good GFDL license should apply to Wikipedia and be stricltly enforced with its requirement to Preserve the section Entitled History : http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Wikimedia chapters' raison d'être?
Wikimedia chapters are not only an example of what should not be seen in Wikimedia projects (an institution[...], of any kind, [...] claiming to represent [...] individuals [1]) they also absorb funds and hire people, pushing with more weight the goal to make money (a salaried person expects his/her salary to be increased by X % each year) which is different from what a volunteer based project should be. They aslo are de facto put in a position where people expect them to perform decision making. It is already bad that they deprive the communities of a decision making of their own, and take volunteer seats at the WMF board of trustees, but they don't do the job. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:CC-AR-Presidency#Bad_template_for_new_files . If the chapters showed that they are helpful in doing things better than what volunteer communities alone can do, they could prove that they are useful. But I am afraid they are not doing this. If they are not present when we need them... [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content#7._Wikimedia_Projects_serve_the_Information_Needs_of_Individuals.2C_Not_Groups ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Astonished by the so-called principle of least astonishment
My attention being caught by the sitenotice to the image hiding referendum, I came to read the 29 May 2011 board Controversial content resolution [1]. And I was astonished. I have two main criticisms. A) The principle of least astonishment was one compound in a set of balanced principles, limited to a very specific scope: the management of redirected titles [2]. It was not meant for contents other than titles. I am afraid the WMF board is adulterating a good limited principle into a broad obscurantist ideology. I am afraid some people will read content (...) should be presented to readers in such a way as to respect their expectations as meaning that they are entitled to censor anything that does not fit their preconceived ideas. B) Is there a philosopher aboard the plane ? Did-it not occur to anybody in the board that astonishment and knowledge are synonymous ? If you are against astonishment, you are against knowledge. Learning is about being astonished. When you are told again something you already know, you are not learning. When you are told something important you did not previously know, you are astonished. If you believe that the Earth is the center of the world, and Galileo tells you that it is not, you are astonished. Galileo raised a controversy and his theory was a controversial content. In Plato's dialogues, the master never stops astonishing his students [3]. [1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Principle_of_least_astonishmentoldid=7719182 [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moral rights
2011/3/4 Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com: - Original Message From: Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, March 4, 2011 5:05:11 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Moral rights 2011/2/27 Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com: No one wants to attack French moral rights, or the attack the idiosyncrasies of any particular legal jurisdiction. What we want to do is curate a large international collection of free content that will remain free content 300 years from now after all of us are dead and can no longer be personally vigilant regarding those who might try to restrict the descendants of our collected content from others. What is it that you want to do? Birgitte SB No one ? I would not say so. I would rather say that 75.8% (1) want to attack moral rights, which are not French only (3), and, as I showed in my previous mail, are a value taken into account in Wikimedia projects in such documents as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:OTRS#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries s It might have become a core value of the Wikimedia communities. But if community leaders lead the community into the wrong way... you end up with a 75.8 majority going into the wrong way. It is not reasonable to believe the underlying desire there is to make an attack French moral rights. Please try to be accurate and stop making such spurious accusations. Birgitte SB A vote is an expression of will. If people are so confused in their heads that their vote does not reflect what they want, it is a problem. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] 2015 strategic plan pdf and licencing/attribution practices
Just a few remarks about the 2015 strategic plan pdf (1) *http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode 4(a) You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform is infringed *The sunflower picture on the last page is what people colloquially call a stolen picture. The attribution right of Uwe H. Friese Bremerhaven 2005 (User:Vulcan) is infringed (2) *I could not find out where the other sunflower picture on the front cover page is taken from. *The photographer/cameraman , original author of the portraits page 3 is not attributed, which in turn prevents users from reusing the pictures. *When distributing portraits of living people with a free license, a good practice is to include a warning such as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Personality_rights ; If the pictures/videos were taken with the understanding between the cameraman and the models that they are taken for the purpose of documenting the WMF projects, it should be made clear to future reusers that we don't have a model release for other purposes. *The WMF logo on the back cover page is apparently released under CC-BY-SA *The reader is not reminded that the WMF logo (together with the series of words Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikinews, Wikiquote, Wikiversity, Wikispecies) is trademarked *The pdf does not contain any instruction pertaining to the conditions under which the WMF logo on the back cover page can be reused : **Is verbatim copying of the pdf allowed ? I guess yes, but if you don't write it down, people are not supposed to distribute the pdf verbatim, freely, because it contains a copyrighted logo. The question whether people can freely upload and redistribute this pdf on their own website is not addressed. **Is modifying the whole document (including the WMF logo) allowed ? Or should the creator of a modified version remove the WMF logo ? Even for a translation ? What are you allowed to do with the other trademarks ? The above is the sort of things which happen in an organization which does not put « foster good licencing and attribution practices » high enough in its priority list and in its budget (and in its strategic plan ?) 2015 (1) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/c/c0/WMF_StrategicPlan2011_spreads.pdf found at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strategic_Plan_Summary (2) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sunflower_Bl%C3%BCte.JPG ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] WMF 2015 strategic plan and multilingualism
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Template:BLPLang is not currently used at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strategic_Plan_Summary This can be construed as the WMF wanting to reach the people of the world to provide educational contents AND English-dominate them. The fact that http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications_subcommittees/Trans#Core_set_of_languages is now marked as obsolete disappoints me. It seems to mean that multilingualism has been rejected. Can the notion that a key document like a strategic plan is ready for release when it exists in only one language be discussed ? Or is it already too late ? Has multilingualism definitely lost the game ? For example because most of the supporters of multilingualism have left the management sphere of WMF. If you look at Jay Walsh's user page on meta : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jaywalsh you can find an indirect acknowledgement that Canada is a multilingual country. Is multilingualism worse off or better off in the Wikimedia Foundation than it is in Canada ? Should http://blog.wikimedia.org/ remain 100% English ? Why not have 1 or 2% of non-English with English translation ? 5 or 10% of English-with-some-translation ? Which degree of openness to non-English language should be shown on http://blog.wikimedia.org/ ? What is the purpose of linking to the blog from non-English main pages such as http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Portada anyway ? Would it not be fairer to tell people we have nothing pertinent in your language on this website. Please learn English first and come back. See you again ? Shouldn't a number of English-only contents be moved to the USA, UK, Australia, etc. chapter websites ? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] 2006-2011: Mexican, Argentinian, Brazilian governments distance themselves from freedomdefined 1.0
Mexico switched from PD to CC-BY-NC-ND in 2006 (1) Argentina from CC-BY-SA to CC-BY-NC some time in 2009-2011 (2) Brazil removed CC-BY-SA altogether from the culture ministry website in early 2011, in a context where the ministry is planning to reform the copyright law (3) Are our definition and our practices around free culture attractive enough for democratically elected governments ? My view is that they aren't. They are unnecessarily dry, unhuman, personality-rights-moral-rights aggressive, uploader-unfriendly-downloader-friendly. (1) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Mexico-NIP (2) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_32#Template:CC-AR-Presidency (3) http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/02/08/inside-views-brazils-copyright-reform-schizophrenia/?utm_source=twitterfeedutm_medium=twitterutm_campaign=Feed%3A%20ip-watch%20%28Intellectual%20Property%20Watch%29 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moral rights
It would seem that the right to license one's own work as one chooses is one of those rights. How does French law resolve that conflict? By declaring that the contract where the contractant chooses to waive a fundamental right is void. You find the same line of thought in Jean Jacques Rousseau's social contract : To say that a man gives himself gratuitously, is to say what is absurd and inconceivable; such an act is null and illegitimate, from the mere fact that he who does it is out of his mind. French : Dire qu’un homme se donne gratuitement, c’est dire une chose absurde et inconcevable ; un tel acte est illégitime et nul, par cela seul que celui qui le fait n’est pas dans son bon sens. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Social_Contract/Book_I#4._Slavery ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moral rights
Moral rights is one of the core values which used to be defended at least in the past, at least by a few community members. Things are changing so quickly these days that I can be sure of nothing, but it seems to be still the case today as shown on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:OTRS#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries with wording such as retain the right to be attributed and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights (personnality rights might be something a little different from authorship's moral rights, but the respect of personality rights is also a way of showing respect to universal human dignity) It is even more clear with the French version of that template at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Messages_type with the wording je suis conscient de toujours jouir des droits extra-patrimoniaux sur mon œuvre which is synonymous with I don't waive the moral rights I own on my work. In particular, I remember the following talk we had on the French village pump where we discussed whether it was cruel to require people to agree with the Declaration of consent for all enquiries, with some people expressing that what we are asking them to agree with is too harsh, some of them ending up not wanting to agree to more than a NC (Non Commercial) license : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bistro/archives/avril_2009#Autorisation_OTRS_..._message_standard_..._perception_dramatiquement_r.C3.A9pulsive_pour_l.27internaute_moyen My view is that with a standard GFDL 1.2 or CC-BY-SA 1.0 there is a middle ground with some rights waived and some rights reserved, even if they allow commercial use. I think it is important to convey throughout the reuse chain the feeling that the reusers are grateful to the content creator for having created the content. And that gratefulness or recognition (that someone did a good work, or an average work, but in all events, a work good enough for reuse) is expressed by attribution. There is also another line of doctrine which says that attribution is a tribute, which is the symbolic price paid for the work by the reuser. Under that doctrine, a free work would no longer be called a free as free beer work, but a symbolically paid work. A long time ago, people used to pay works with wikimoney. It may look a bit childish, or a waste of time, but I think the symbolic message of wikimoney is great : http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikip%C3%A9dia:WikiMonnaieoldid=8160930 . Is conveying gratefulness feelings to other human beings a waste of time ? I think reusers should keep in their minds that the wikimoney is the attribution. If you attribute the work correctly and follow all the other license's requirements (like adding a link to the legal code on the creativecommons.org website) you are symbolically paying some wikimoney for the work. But I think it is not possible to promote such values and at the same time be friends with the people who create and promote the CC Zero license. I think it is extremely embarassing to see the Creative Commons website promote CC Zero for the Open Clip Art library. What wrong have SVG graphic designers done to be treated in such a harsh way ? Enabling anybody to build upon their work with no duty to share alike ? Enabling anybody to reuse their work without crediting them ? Why isn't there anybody defending them ? Don't they deserve that minimal symbolic payment that is attribution ? Are they such under-citizens that they don't even deserve the minimal rights ? http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_use_for_data#Open_Clip_Art_Library I also think it is difficult to be friends with Open Street View, given the so strange way they use a creative commons attribution license. Attribution means providing the name that identifies the creator personally. Writing the sentence Individual OSM mappers do not request a credit over and above that to “OpenStreetMap contributors” is an act of dehumanization. They don't actually request this. They are compelled to choose between agreeing with this harsh treatment or not participate at all. They are never asked what they really want, if they would like to be personally attributed or not. And they are never taught that as a human being they deserve that minimal recognition feeling which is attribution. If you don't teach people that they have rights, they will never be able to be strong and defend themselves. So there is a big need to educate people that as content creators, they have the right to be attributed. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moral rights
2011/2/27 Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com: No one wants to attack French moral rights, or the attack the idiosyncrasies of any particular legal jurisdiction. What we want to do is curate a large international collection of free content that will remain free content 300 years from now after all of us are dead and can no longer be personally vigilant regarding those who might try to restrict the descendants of our collected content from others. What is it that you want to do? Birgitte SB No one ? I would not say so. I would rather say that 75.8% (1) want to attack moral rights, which are not French only (3), and, as I showed in my previous mail, are a value taken into account in Wikimedia projects in such documents as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:OTRS#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries It might have become a core value of the Wikimedia communities. But if community leaders lead the community into the wrong way... you end up with a 75.8 majority going into the wrong way. you hereby agree that such credit is sufficient in any medium (2) means that creators are no longer attributed personally. (1) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Result (2) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update (3) For example Spanish copyright law article 14 derechos irrenunciables e inalienables (...) Exigir el reconocimiento de su condición de autor de la obra http://civil.udg.es/normacivil/estatal/reals/Lpi.html They are also provided an international recognition in the Berne Convention Article 6bis : Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation. http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P123_20726 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moral rights
2011/3/4 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: On 4 March 2011 11:05, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote: No one ? I would not say so. I would rather say that 75.8% (1) want to attack moral rights, which are not French only (3), and, as I showed in my previous mail, are a value taken into account in Wikimedia projects in such documents as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:OTRS#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries It might have become a core value of the Wikimedia communities. But if community leaders lead the community into the wrong way... you end up with a 75.8 majority going into the wrong way. See, when most people have an overwhelming majority against them they consider the possibility they might be in the wrong community. Thanks for your warm feelings and also for ruling out that anybody can change his/her mind (including myself). That when they have started voting for something, they must go on voting for the same thing their life long. For ruling out that people having different views can live together. That the minority view is the wrong view. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moral rights
2011/3/4 Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com: 2011/3/4 Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com: (...) (3) For example Spanish copyright law article 14 derechos irrenunciables e inalienables (...) Exigir el reconocimiento de su condición de autor de la obra http://civil.udg.es/normacivil/estatal/reals/Lpi.html They are also provided an international recognition in the Berne Convention Article 6bis : Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation. http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P123_20726 See also the Japanese copyright law article 19 the author shall have the right to determine whether his true name or pseudonym should be indicated or not, as the name of the author, on the original of his work or when his work is offered to or made available to the public. The author shall have the same right with respect to the indication of his name when works derived form his work are offered to or made available to the public http://www.cric.or.jp/cric_e/clj/cl2_1.html#cl2_1+SS2 coupled together with article 59 Moral rights of the author shall be exclusively personal to him and inalienable. Inalienable means they can't be either sold or waived.: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inalienable http://www.cric.or.jp/cric_e/clj/cl2_2.html#cl2_2+S5 So it is not just a crazy French or European thing. How can so many countries' legislatures be wrong ? Until the 2009 license change, there was a narrow path with GFDL, enabling to build Wikipedia in each country without breaking too many laws (1). But with the 2009 license change, WMF is behaving like a bull in a china shop. (1) Even if you did everything right with Moral Rights, the French law is still broken in a couple of places. But this is not a scoop. Remember what Lawrence Lessig said about German law in http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Quarto/2/En-5 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Upload wizard: The other licenses and the future of Creative Commons
The Upload wizard distorts competition in favour of Creative Commons, for the purpose of creating a monopoly (0). Instead, it would be safer that for every file licensed under a Creative Commons license, one licenses one other file under GFDL and another file under Art libre, open source music license, LGPL, etc. One should not put all her eggs in the same basket(1), keeping open the option to switch back to GFDL : one should keep a leverage to pressure the Creative Commons organization, at the very least to ensure that CC 4.0 won't be worse than 3.0, and that 5.0 won't be worse than 4.0. Instead of patching the holes in the CC-BY-SA, the Creative Commons organization is supplying weapons to the ennemy. CC Zero (2), perhaps named after Imperial Japan's fighter aircraft (3), is a weapon of mass destruction against the attributive share-alike community, putting the Creative Commons organization on the side of those who want to reuse contents without crediting the creators. As an open attack on moral rights, that license is morally flawed. Although they created the LGPL (more permissive, yet fully attributive), the Free Software Foundation seems to present its copyleft GPL license as its main license representing their philosophy and what they fight for. On the other hand, the Creative Commons organization has no philosophy and is losing its soul. If the Creative Commons guru decides that CC 4.0 is CC Zero, do we have any legal tool to fight against it ? I am afraid we don't. This would leave us nothing but our eyes to cry with. (0) http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Multimedia:Upload_wizard/Questions_%26_Answers#Why_do_you_give_CC-by-sa_such_a_prominent.2Fdefault.2Frecommended_place.3F_Why_don.27t_you_use_a_step-by-step_license_chooser.3F (1) I was objected some time ago that I use too many agricultural metaphors. Sorry for this one again, but IANAEP : I am not an English poet ; (2) http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode (3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_A6M_Zero This one is not an agricultural metaphor. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Upload wizard: Why Creative Commons 1.0 and GFDL 1.2 must be saved
What is a guru license, and what is a non-guru license? A guru license is a license where a guru can change the terms of the license according to his whims. You can recognise the existense of a guru to the presence of the following lines : CC-BY-SA 3.0 : either this or a later license version. GFDL : The Free Software Foundation may publish new, revised versions of the GNU Free Documentation License from time to time (but you can opt-out of the guru if you remove or any later version from your licensing statement). Conversely, CC-BY-SA 1.0 does not contain any such revision mechanism. To the contrary of the other CC licenses, the following sentence at the end of the license : This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here, is true to its meaning. Philosophically, I don't see why I should choose for my created contents, or recommend to other creators to choose a guru-license. Depending on the whims of a guru amounts to the servitude denounced by Étienne de La Boétie (1530-1563) in his 1548 essay Discourse on voluntary servitude(1) CC-BY-SA-Guru is CC-BY-SA 3.0 CC-BY-SA-NonGuru is CC-BY-SA 1.0 GFDL-Guru is GFDL + version number or any later version GDFL-NonGuru is GFDL version + version number practically that means GFDL 1.2 (GFDL 1.3 has to be avoided because of its transfer mechanism to Creative Commons) Both the CC-BY-SA 1.0, and the strict GFDL 1.2 must be included in the upload wizard. The uploading tutorial should explain beginners the difference between these licenses and the other licenses, enabling them to choose in full knowledge of the facts. (1) http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Discourse_on_Voluntary_Servitude ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Upload wizard: the different attribution mechanisms and spirits of GFDL and Creative Commons
Upload wizard: the different attribution mechanisms and spirits of GFDL and Creative Commons Two small words make a big difference in the attribution mechanism of CC-BY-SA : if supplied in http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode 4(c). Put together with designate another party or parties (...) for attribution, this enables sharks to rob the small fishes' attribution. Actually they don't have to rob it. They can use an inequal power relationship in their favor to persuade the small fish to waive their attribution and to designate the sharks as the attribution party. The sharks can also add You agree to be credited, at minimum, through a hyperlink or URL when your contributions are reused in any form on edit boxes, or perhaps, even on upload wizards. To the contrary, the sharks don't have such a possibility with the GFDL. Because the GFDL requires to keep the license notice and the history, sharks cannot rewrite history in their favor and erase the small fishes' names. Creative Commons is shark-friendly. GFDL is small-fish-friendly. This is why they don't have the same spirit. The upload wizard must guarantee that the uploader will be fully attributed and MUST NOT require uploaders to waive their attribution rights. See also If the sharks were people by Bertholt Brecht at http://everything2.com/title/If+the+Sharks+Were+People (and just add free before culture). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Moral rights
French authorship rights law: Article L121-1 An author shall enjoy the right to respect for his name, his authorship and his work. This right shall attach to his person. It shall be perpetual, inalienable and imprescriptible. It may be transmitted mortis causa to the heirs of the author. Exercise may be conferred on another person under the provisions of a will. http://195.83.177.9/code/liste.phtml?lang=ukc=36r=2497 perpetual, inalienable and imprescriptible means that they cannot be waived. It also means that they are enshrined in French law as dearly as human rights. In my opinion, the people who want to attack this, are on a sloppery slope where the next step is when they request you to waive your human rights. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications
2011/2/20 geni geni...@gmail.com: (...) Well no. Because any such requirement would make it difficult to distribute such a video via conventional TV. A video has been released by a creator who intends it for free-software-like distribution: do you think it is good to allow reusers to display this video on the internet with an embedded player without a download link ? I personally think it is not good, and although I have never created a video myself, I guess that most creators would like to prevent this from happening. Restriction 4 (a) of CC-BY-SA 3.0 with You may not impose any effective technological measures is aimed principally at DRMs and probably cannot do much against the simple forgetfulness to add a download link. You may want to create a special clause for conventional TV (like requiring the TV speaker, or the opening credits or the closing credits to tell viewers that the video is otherwise available on the TV's website for download). This is why a new, yet to be written, Free Video License including this kind of clauses is needed. For the time being, the less bad licenses for videos are the Licence art libre with specify to the recipient where to access the originals (either initial or subsequent) (1) (but it is not clear if the word recipient applies only to distribution recipients or also means performance viewers and audiences) and the GFDL, from where it is possible to argue that an embedded player without a download link might not be transparent enough, and that public performance without distribution is anyway not allowed by the GFDL, but that is far from being an explicit way to have reusers understand what thay may or may not do with the video. (1) http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications
2011/2/21 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: On 21 February 2011 13:14, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote: For the time being, the less bad licenses for videos are the Licence art libre with specify to the recipient where to access the originals (either initial or subsequent) (1) (but it is not clear if the word recipient applies only to distribution recipients or also means performance viewers and audiences) and the GFDL, from where it is possible to argue that an embedded player without a download link might not be transparent enough, and that public performance without distribution is anyway not allowed by the GFDL, but that is far from being an explicit way to have reusers understand what thay may or may not do with the video. No-one has ever worked out how to do derivatives of GFDL-licensed internet video that all agree is in full compliance with the GFDL. Display the full 23 kilobytes of licence text in video at the end? Even for text, the GFDL is ridiculously painful to follow. So many reusers of Wikipedia text have been put off by nitpickers stridently maintaining that their particular attempt to follow the license isn't good enough. The GFDL is a terrible, terrible licence. The only reason Wikipedia ever used it was because there wasn't a better one at the time - if CC by-sa had existed when Nupedia was started, it would have been CC by-sa. The GFDL did save everyone else a great deal of time by making most of the possible mistakes really early, thus serving as a bad example for others to avoid. Licenses are *hard* to get right. Hampering reusability is the main reason licence proliferation is bad; but that it's hard to get a licence really robust and yet useful is the other reason licence proliferation is bad. - d. On the internet, it is easy to copy the text in small fonts or in a collapsible drop-down menu, or if you are lazy, provide a hyperlink to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html . What is more complicated is what happens in a movie theatre. In my opinion, the theatre owner should tell the viewers where the movie is available for download on the internet. Creative Commons licenses also don't address the forgetfulness of a slideshow presenter who forgets to upload his slideshow on the internet so that everybody can access the digital file and modify it for his own use. Creative Commons allows to merely perform the work without actually share it. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications
2011/2/21 geni geni...@gmail.com: (...) What is more complicated is what happens in a movie theatre. In my opinion, the theatre owner should tell the viewers where the movie is available for download on the internet. Look at you. You are stuck in one mode of thinking. Why should a web based version of the video even exist. The yet to be written Free Video License might say that this requirement applies only in the case when the original creator first released the first version on the internet. Alternative ways of providing the original version might be allowed with a wording similar to that of GFDL for transparent copies : offer to send them by traditional mail, at a reasonable cost. Anyway movies are generally film. I suppose you could provide a frame by frame set of PNG or tiff files or uncompressed YUV frames but the file size is going to be slightly unreasonable (run the film through any commonly used codec and it no longer equivalent). Creative Commons licenses also don't address the forgetfulness of a slideshow presenter who forgets to upload his slideshow on the internet so that everybody can access the digital file and modify it for his own use. Digital file? What on earth makes you think there is a digital file? I was thinking about a Powerpoint presentation. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications
2011/2/21 geni geni...@gmail.com: Can't images are again CC-BY-SA and not compatible What if the Creative Commons guru issues a statement saying that TVL is Creative Commons 4.0 ? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications
2011/2/20 phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com: Everyone, let us keep the agricultural rhetoric to a minimum please. regards, phoebe Sorry. That must have been a side-effect of the Paris International Agricultural Show 2011 being held until the end of this week. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications
2011/2/21 geni geni...@gmail.com: On 21 February 2011 19:45, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/2/21 geni geni...@gmail.com: Can't images are again CC-BY-SA and not compatible What if the Creative Commons guru issues a statement saying that TVL is Creative Commons 4.0 ? Why on earth should they do that? CC has actual lawyers and people who think about copyright rather a lot. They also have no reason to switch from a generalist license (which is what CC-BY-SA is) to a specialist license (which is what your video license would be). CC is already including some specialist concerns when it says For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work, performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image (synching) will be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License. While it is rather unnecessary for architects or sculptors, it adresses the specific needs of audio creators. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications
2011/2/21 geni geni...@gmail.com: (...) I was thinking about a Powerpoint presentation. Well yes thats rather the problem. There are also slideshows with actual physical slides. I've got some around somewhere. -- geni People who work with actual physical slides are unlikely to incorporate contents from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is online. If they bother to create a physical slide out of content from Wikipedia, they must have a computer with an internet connection, so it is not difficult for them to upload the equivalent of the slide they created at Wikimedia Commons, or on imageshack if it is not an educational content. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications
2011/2/19 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: On 19 February 2011 10:31, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote: A) Internationalisation. The CC 3.0 license is an unported license. This means English-based, English speaking countries' jurisdictions bases, English Common Law based. The 3.0 version is a disappointing regression from the better 2.0 version. In contrast, the CC 2.0 licenses have country (and/or language) based versions such as : http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ca/legalcode.fr http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ca/legalcode.en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/au/legalcode http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/uk/legalcode and so on. You do not understand the licenses. There are also country versions of 3.0, and each is explicitly interchangeable with each of the others. 3.0 is not as thoroughly internationalized as 2.0. Click on the following links so that you can see by yourself that they are empty : http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ca/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/fr/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ja/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/in/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ru/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications
2011/2/20 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com: Hello, Please get real. The translation of such licenses is WORK and much of this WORK is done by volunteers. Even when it is not done by volunteers it costs time. There is one suggestion I can give you. Give abundantly of your money to Creative Commons so that they are able to address your concerns. Thanks, GerardM The concerns of many French people are already addressed by CC-BY-SA 2.0 fr, and those of Indian people by CC-BY-SA 2.5 in There is no need to waste money in the 3.0 version. I think the upload wizard should - allow non-CC licenses such as License art libre, or GNU GPL, GNU LGPL, Open Source Music License, etc... - when CC licenses are chosen, allow to pick up licenses from any version (2.0 or 2.5 or 3.0) and any country as freely as with http://creativecommons.org/choose/ , eliminating the NC and ND versions which don't fit Commons' licensing policy. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications
2011/2/20 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: On 20 February 2011 15:52, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/2/19 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: You do not understand the licenses. There are also country versions of 3.0, and each is explicitly interchangeable with each of the others. 3.0 is not as thoroughly internationalized as 2.0. Click on the following links so that you can see by yourself that they are empty : All 3.0 versions of a given CC licence are explicitly compatible with each other. Your objections are literally not making sense in the domain of what you are talking about. I presume that the people who created http://creativecommons.org/choose/ know what they are doing and that their view on licensing does make sense, to some extent. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications
2011/2/20 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: On 20 February 2011 16:18, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote: I presume that the people who created http://creativecommons.org/choose/ know what they are doing and that their view on licensing does make sense, to some extent. You also presume that CC by-sa is a non-free licence. Further, you still haven't explained your notion that licence proliferation is good for free content despite having already been bad for free software. I'm sure you'll actually answer eventually. Software is a specific sector of content creation. Perhaps it is possible to gather software creators around a table, possibly with a few lawyers nearby, and ask them to create the single ultimate license that will fit all the needs of all software creators everywhere in the world and forever. But on Wikimedia Commons we are not dealing with a specific sector. We are receiving a variety of contents from different creative worlds. By the same token that you do not use the same legal code for a wedding contract and for a car purchase, I am not sure if the same contract can be used for a bronze statue and a for a song. I don't think you may address the mold issue for the statue exactly the same way as the musical score issue for the song. I think it would be a mistake to narrow on a single license, while there is still no good license for videos. No license at present ensures that the distributors will provide a download link together with the video, whenever they distribute it. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications
2011/2/18 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: On 18 February 2011 13:41, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote: Having a choice of possible licenses is a richness. Because specific licenses might be more suitable to some specific needs than other licenses. Because they don't offer the same sort of protection in a variety of circumstances. Destroying licenses looks as bad as destroying biological species. Biodiversity is needed. No, I think you're dead wrong there. Gratuitous licence proliferation is bad because it reduces interoperability and hence reusability. This has been observed repeatedly in the world of open source software; for you to claim that a proliferation of incompatible licences is a good thing in the world of free content, you would need to supply more than the mere assertions you provide here. Anything more than a continuum of PD - CC-by (equiv) - CC-by-sa needs *very good* justification. Steering people to one of those three by preferences is absolutely the right thing to do as it maximises reusability. Maximising reusability is not the same as maximising usability. If you open your eyes a little bit, you'll see that Creative Commons licenses are not the absolute legal chef d'œuvres people would like to believe they are. There are some good things in them, but they have some weaknesses. They are not even... free per the definition of Free works at http://freedomdefined.org/Definition/1.0 because they don't contain any open source requirement (Availability of source data). This is different from the GFDL which, more fortunately contains the transparent copies requirement. You don't find any transparent copies requirement in Creative Commons licenses. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications
2011/2/18 Huib Laurens sterke...@gmail.com: I'm starting to think you just don't like changes... every change that is done will result in a email from you Everything that affects internationalisation should result into a e-mail from me. Everything that affects the balance of power between the content providing users and the reusers should result into a e-mail from me. The GFDL has set a certain balance of power. This balance of power is a spirit. A promise has been made that Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version (1). I am just remembering and reminding, if need be, this promise. (1) http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.2.html ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications
2011/2/18 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: On 18 February 2011 13:41, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote: Having a choice of possible licenses is a richness. Because specific licenses might be more suitable to some specific needs than other licenses. Because they don't offer the same sort of protection in a variety of circumstances. Destroying licenses looks as bad as destroying biological species. Biodiversity is needed. No, I think you're dead wrong there. Gratuitous licence proliferation is bad because it reduces interoperability and hence reusability. This has been observed repeatedly in the world of open source software; for you to claim that a proliferation of incompatible licences is a good thing in the world of free content, you would need to supply more than the mere assertions you provide here. Anything more than a continuum of PD - CC-by (equiv) - CC-by-sa needs *very good* justification. Steering people to one of those three by preferences is absolutely the right thing to do as it maximises reusability. I am talking about biodiversity. You are talking like Monsanto who wants all the farmers on earth to use the same seeds. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications
2011/2/19 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: On 19 February 2011 10:54, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote: Everything that affects internationalisation should result into a e-mail from me. CC licensing does not affect internationalisation in any way whatsoever. CC 2.0 does not. CC 3.0 does. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications
2011/2/19 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: On 19 February 2011 11:58, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/2/19 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: On 19 February 2011 10:54, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote: Everything that affects internationalisation should result into a e-mail from me. CC licensing does not affect internationalisation in any way whatsoever. CC 2.0 does not. CC 3.0 does. Please detail the legal problems in question. So far you're making blank assertions which contradict pretty much everyone else's understanding of them. In my view, the existence of Canada French, Canada English etc... versions of CC 2.0 affects usability (or uploader-friendliness), but I don't see this as a legal problem. If you are talking about the legal problems I mentioned in my other mail, please have a look at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Crystal_Clear_icons . They are licensed under LGPL (I mentioned GPL in that email, but LGPL is probably enough). LGPL licensing ensures that the SVG code (which is a kind of software code) is distributed alongside the icon. If the icon is converted into PNG or JPG, the distributor is required to provide the SVG source code alongside the JPG or PNG rendering. While computers can easily change a SVG into PNG or JPG, the reverse is impossible. It is important to keep the SVG source code intact, so that people can easily open it and create modified versions as easily as the icon creator could create the original version. If the icon is released into the Public Domain, nothing ensures that people will carry the SVG code each time they reuse the icon. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications
2011/2/19 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: On 19 February 2011 10:41, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote: Maximising reusability is not the same as maximising usability. This is a nice-sounding phrase, but its meaning is entirely unclear. And maximising usability would mean rationalising the list of licenses anyway. Paralysis of choice is actually bad interface design. Let us define usability as uploader-friendliness and reusability as downloader-friendliness. If you rationalise eggs requesting them to be in cubic shape, because it fits best your transportation and space requirements, no hen will want to lay eggs any longer. If a grocer wants to maximize not apple reuse, but apple eating, he will lower the prices. But in turn, apple growing farmers will stop from being interested and will find another grocer who offers better prices. In our case, the another grocer might be Getty Image who is currently being linked from a number of pages on Flickr. Getty Image offers a better price than Wikimedia Commons, don't you think ? See http://www.flickr.com/help/gettyimages/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications
I have tried the prototype upload wizard for the first time this week (1) I am confident that all bugs can be solved. Bugs don't matter. But I am much more skeptical on the specifications, as they are presented at http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Multimedia:Upload_wizard/Questions_%26_Answers (August 2010) 1) I think it conveys a feeling of being morally flawed, which is bad for the image of the projects and for the projects' relationship with users When you go shopping, do you give your money first, and choose which item you buy only after ? What happens if you find out that all the food in the shop is stale ? You have lost your money. And that shop keeper is a crook. Being put in a situation where you have to implore the shop keeper to give you your money back is not comfortable. I elaborate on this at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27500 2) This software developpement is a trojan horse for a non-negociated policy change. Although the Wikimedia Foundation's resolution on licensing policy (2) is neutral, deciding to accept any free license, without creating undue privileges for specific licenses, this neutrality is no longer respected with the concept of CC-BY-SA 3.0 above all : http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Multimedia:Upload_wizard/Questions_%26_Answers#Why_do_you_give_CC-by-sa_such_a_prominent.2Fdefault.2Frecommended_place.3F_Why_don.27t_you_use_a_step-by-step_license_chooser.3F Commons currently has a pluralistic concept of preferred licenses at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Well-known_licenses which includes, for example the Art Libre (or Free Art) license. This pluralism is being attacked. Even the CC-BY-SA 2.0 which is compatible with Flickr is threatened. (See what happened to my poor CC-BY-SA 2.0 file (see image title in the EXIF metadata) at http://commons.prototype.wikimedia.org/uwd/File:Tree_at_Bourg-la-Reine_station.jpg ) This attempt at the creation of a CC-BY-SA 3.0 empire is bad. Having a choice of possible licenses is a richness. Because specific licenses might be more suitable to some specific needs than other licenses. Because they don't offer the same sort of protection in a variety of circumstances. Destroying licenses looks as bad as destroying biological species. Biodiversity is needed. (1) http://commons.prototype.wikimedia.org/uwd/Special:UploadWizard (2) http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures
2011/2/4 MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com: Hi. This doesn't seem to have hit this list yet, so I'm posting here for general information and discussion. Effective February 1, 2011, there are two substantive changes to the policies and procedures surrounding identifying to the Wikimedia Foundation. As a Commons user seeing every day the limits and the potential harm there is in using any picture-authorizing E-mail system, I think that the opinion of Commons users should be taken into account before making any significant policy change affecting Commons. Sometimes I think the pictures currently tagged with http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:OTRS cannot realistically be reused by reusers (because the reusers are not allowed to see the terms of the permission (1) and to know the identity of the E-mail sender). This absence of conditions where the pictures are realistically reusable by anybody apart from the Wikimedia Foundation itself (which can read the E-mails) make these pictures objectively unfree (even if from a legal perspective they are licensed under a free license), not belonging to the kind of free works mentioned on http://freedomdefined.org/Definition . The reusers must be in a position to check by themselves that the work is free. I.E. know the phone number of the person who reportedly issued the license and phone there to check that it is true. With the OTRS picture permission system, we are reinventing something that is hardly different for the non-Wikimedia reusers than the Wikipedia only permissions that had been banned by Jimbo Wales in May 2005 (2). If the foundation wants to identify more carefully its volunteers, it could means that it is gearing up to retaliate against any volunteer who would make a mistake. This in turn affects my relations as a Wikimedia Commons user with the volunteers with the prospect that if I ask a volunteer to do something difficult and if, for some reason, he makes a mistake, he will be harmed when the Wikimedia Foundation retaliates against him. In turn I should try less to rely on these volunteers out of fear that they might be harmed. The OTRS volunteers are left on their own in such a perilous situation that concretely it is better not to involve them. So in fact they are not as useful as you might think. I think we should go back to the community self-reliance motto expressed by Jimbo Wales in his New Statesman interview (3). And try to do most of the communication between uploaders and the Commons community on the wiki talk pages rather than on a Foundation-owned private E-mail system nobody can read. The wiki being public is a protection. If someone says something bad on a wiki, there are at least witnesses, and people who can show support. The wiki being public makes talks written on it available to non-Wikimedia reusers, enabling them to make their own decision on whether the file is really free, and licensed by a person who has enough authority to do so. (1) While the licensing terms are often clear, the extent of the permission (number of pictures, a whole website or not, whether the permission applies to pictures made available in the future, what happens if a discrepancy occurs in the future - not to say at present! - between the agreed terms and the mentioned website's terms of use) is not always so clear. The quality of the person (the boss of the company or corporation, or a person with a low rank in the hierarchy, a technical webmaster not usually having authority to engage the company's assets, or even a volunteer not hired as a salaryman by the licencing party, as was one envisaged hypothesis when dealing with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum) is never clear. (2) http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html (3) thinking about community participation and involvement, a spirit of volunteerism, a spirit of helping out, a spirit of self-reliance http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/01/jimmy-wales-wikipedia-vote ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] CC open attribute released
I have just uploaded the Firefox addon. Although it works perfectly on http://www.flickr.com/photos/75062596@N00/164893152 , it is not working perfectly on the corresponding Wikimedia Commons page at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Om%C3%B8_%26_Agers%C3%B8,_2006-06-04.jpg : the work is not properly attributed. The license is provided, but the photographer's name or user name is not mentioned. What should I or what should the Flickr upload bot owner or the Mediawiki developpers do so that the tool works perfectly on Commons ? Where is the good place to report such a bug ? An alternative way of providing good attribution and finding it, is to include it into the picture's metadata and have users use a metadata viewing tool such as the Exif viewer add-on for Firefox. See https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18871 2011/2/8 phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com: this is just awesome: http://openattribute.com/ Born at the Drumbeat festival, just released! See the backstory: http://mollykleinman.com/2011/02/07/announcing-open-attribute/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] CC open attribute released
2011/2/8 phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com: this is just awesome: http://openattribute.com/ Born at the Drumbeat festival, just released! See the backstory: http://mollykleinman.com/2011/02/07/announcing-open-attribute/ A little caveat, though : the question asked by Molly Kleinman : “What are the barriers to reuse of open content? is a very good question and I thank her for asking and expressing it. But the answer to it cannot be 100% technical. Even when technical barriers are removed, one barrier remains which is the reliability of the information one finds on the internet. For example the Brazilian Government himself tries to release a painting by a famous Brazilian artist as a free work at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ministeriodacultura/5283492602/ but I don't think the Brazilian Governement has the authority to do so. Only the painter's estate can decide matters pertaining to the copyright of the works of the now dead artist. So that the information provided by the open attribute pluggin remains dubious. At all events, that pluggin does not properly attribute the painter, although it attributes the photographer. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] CC open attribute released
Oops sorry. Even the it attributes the photographer is wrong. The pluggin is totaly wrong. It identifies only the uploader, and none of the artists. 2011/2/9 Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com: A little caveat, ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] CC open attribute released
As I previously said, one major barrier to the reuse of free contents is not only having an easy way to copy-paste copyright and licensing information, but the reliability of such copyright information. The work of Melanie Schlosser, Unless Otherwise Indicated: A Survey of Copyright Statements on Digital Library Collections, College and Research Libraries, v.70(4), p. 371-385 (July 2009) should be the building block upon which to make other assessments and propose improvements : http://crl.acrl.org/content/70/4/371.full.pdf+html See also the very good attitude of the Art Institute of Chicago, providing for many artworks a thorough Exhibition, Publication and Ownership Histories on each picture page like the following one : http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/24306 which provides clues as to when the work was first published and when the work will likely enter the Public Domain in application of the US copyright law. This is still not a full and easy to read copyright ownership history one would love to have available, but it is a great step forward. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Please add Things You Cannot Do and Definitions in Foundation Trademark Policy
Sorry if you feel that I am repeating myself with trifles not worth to bother the foundation list, but... It seems that people have difficulties understanding the meaning of distribute unchanged Wikimedia content, including appropriate attribution at [[:foundation:Trademark Policy#Things You Can Do, a Summary]] (1). So I suggest to add a new paragraph, called [[:foundation:Trademark Policy#Things You Cannot Do]], with: * Anything that is not included in [[#Things You Can Do, a Summary]], including: * Distribute any unfree WMF logo under a free license. * Create adaptations or derivative works, which combine any unfree WMF logo with a share-alike-free license, because it violates the terms of that license : see You may not offer or impose any terms on the Adaptation that restrict the terms of the Applicable License in article 4-b of http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode . Besides, I have the feeling, that distribute unchanged Wikimedia content, including appropriate attribution at [[:foundation:Trademark Policy#Things You Can Do, a Summary]] may require an explanation why this does not contradict your website may not copy the exact look and feel of any Wikimedia website at [[:foundation:Trademark Policy#Services Related to Wikimedia Projects]] (2). That apparent contradiction between unchanged and not copy would be best solved by adding the following at [[:foundation:Trademark Policy#Things You Can Do, a Summary]] or at a new paragraph called [[:foundation:Trademark Policy#Definitions]] : *Wikimedia content : A) the central part of a collaborative wiki website page, including text, images and other media files, excluding the margin with the logo, the footer and any unfree header. B) any free file available from an internal download link on a File page. Or we could replace the wording Wikimedia content by Free contents contributed by or uploaded by Wikimedia users, including bots. (1) http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy#Things_You_Can_Do.2C_a_Summary (2) http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy#Services_Related_to_Wikimedia_Projects ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Proposal for an allrightsreserved.wikimedia.org website
Allrightsreserved is a new website proposed for the purpose of hosting contents currentlty tagged with commons:Template:Copyright by Wikimedia, commons:Copyright by Wikimedia Deutschland and commons:Template:Copyright by Wikimedia Polska and hosted at Wikimedia Commons. More at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Allrightsreserved ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Translatewiki illustrates how low internationalisation is in the priorities of the Wikimedia Foundation
2011/1/27 Jesse (Pathoschild) pathosch...@gmail.com: These messages are available to all wikis (including non-Wikimedia wikis), instead of just one wiki. That means contributing as a volunteer to a variety of websites with different principles. Wikimedia is a non profit and it is dedicated to the distribution of culture and knowledge, and this is what I am interested in. I am not interested in contributing voluntarily for, say, Intellipedia, the CIA's wiki (they probably use a non-mediawiki software, but they could). There is a difference between letting non-Wikimedia wikis copy everything they want (fork anything they want) from Wikimedia contents and software, and working together with them, finding compromises half way between their needs and ours. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Translatewiki illustrates how low internationalisation is in the priorities of the Wikimedia Foundation
2011/1/27 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com: One very powerful reason why you should not localise locally is because there is no way that you will know locally when a message gets changed. The consequence is that the quality of locally localised messages do not get the same quality assurance as it gets in translatewiki. So in essence, localising at translatewiki.net does enhance the quality of the localisation. Only messages with changes that give specific information for a local wiki should be localised locally. Thanks, GerardM When I hear there is no way that you will know locally when a message gets changed, many warning lights are flashing in my cockpit. A non-Wikimedia community has the power of changing things within a Wikimedia website without the Wikimedia people being warned beforehand. According the New Statesman (1), Jimbo Wales used the word self-reliance in a comment about the Wikipedia spirit. In my view, relying on a non-Wikimedia website and community is not self-reliance. Today only the translations are expelled to a non-Wikimedia website and community. Tomorrow, will the same happen to bugzilla ? One of the strenghts of the Wikimedia projects is the reactivity of the community. When there is something wrong, people file a bug. If the bug-filing place is moved to a far away place, the reactivity might be lower (your comment that there are very few issues between the translators might mean that the reactivity is low). If it remains high, it means Wikimedia is providing volunteers to a non-Wikimedia community. It means Wikimedia sends its volunteers to work on non-Wikimedia projects. Is Wikimedia a volunteer hiring agency for a variety of wikis not sharing the same purposes ? (1) http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/01/jimmy-wales-wikipedia-vote ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Translatewiki illustrates how low internationalisation is in the priorities of the Wikimedia Foundation
2011/1/28 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com: When the CIA uses MediaWiki and it does, we are happy because as a result we do and did get feedback on the use of our project. When the CIA wants to use LocalisationUpdate and its people help localise at translatewiki.net we could not be more happy. As I said, I have nothing about anybody reusing the contents. However I am against entering into a community with anybody. I want to enter only communities with which I share some values. Let's forget about the CIA. I have nothing against the CIA. Let's imagine a group with non-democratic values provides translators to Translatewiki. Then that group has a legitimacy to have a say in the way Translatewiki is managed. Then that group can impose its power structure in the management of Translatewiki. Then for some unexplained reason, they hire bad translators, who really do bad work. Can I say hello, I am from Wikipedia, and I think your translation is wrong, please change it. No I can't. It is too late. They have imposed their non-democratic power structure, and there is no way to change what people superior to me in their non-democratic hierarchical power structure are imposing. In a non-democratic power structure the only thing you can do is shut up. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Translatewiki illustrates how low internationalisation is in the priorities of the Wikimedia Foundation
Before Translatewiki existed it was possible for Wikimedia/Wikipedia users to improve the translation of the Mediawiki software's message used on their project into their own language. It is no longer possible now, because Translatewiki exists, and there is a powerful Translatewiki lobby within the local Wikipedia/Wikimedia communities which actively fights against the translation of messages on-wiki, and compells users to open a user account on Translatewiki (1). Translatewiki.net is not part of the Wikimedia Foundation projects (2). So users are requested to either * Let awkward translations go on being displayed on their language version of Wikipedia * Or open an account on a non-Wikimedia project, which means providing non-Wikimedia managers access to your personal data. That means you are loosing the guarantees of http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy (the guarantee that your data are accessed only exceptionally and in such exceptional cases, always handled by people trusted by the Wikimedia Foundation) A user who wants to remain just that : a Wikimedia user, not a non-Wikimedia user can no longer work successfully on a Wikimedia/Wikipedia wiki. I ask the Wikimedia Foundation to protect its users from the aggressions of non-Wikimedia projects. And to implement a set of policies to prevent this sort of non-Wikimedia project lobbying. I ask the Wikimedia Foundation to support people involved in translation work, rather than expell them to non-Wikimedia projects. Symbolically, that means that the Wikimedia Foundation is expelling internationalisation. Internationalisation ? What ? I don't want that to happen in my house, the Wikimedia Foundation is saying. (1) http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikip%C3%A9dia%3ADemande_d%27intervention_sur_un_message_syst%C3%A8meaction=historysubmitdiff=61680671oldid=61680545 (2) http://translatewiki.net/wiki/Project:About ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Call for help to negociate Presidency of Argentina partnership
Our previous agreement with the Presidency of Argentina has entered a grey zone where we don't know exactly what we are allowed to do with their media. So this agreement needs a new negociation for renewal or the best termination terms. Could anyone help ? We need someone with a good knowledge of Wikimedia Commons licencing policies We need someone with access to OTRS so that he/she can read the former E-mail agreement. We need a lawyer or someone with experience of conducting successful negociations. For more details, see : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Template:CC-AR-Presidency ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikiwix porn ads (was: Advertising on Wikipedia)
Aren't we going to throw these partnerships (?) away ? If Wikimedia does not have enough money to develop some services internally, then just forget them, instead of allowing outsiders to use Wikipedia as a Trojan horse containing for profit businesses or other purposes non compatible with the Wikipedia spirit (I mentioned Wikimapia a few days ago, which is fine but too slow while wiki means quick in Hawaiian language) inside. 2011/1/22 Platonides platoni...@gmail.com: F.-F. Duron a écrit: Yes, but maybe you can control the partnerships you're making! ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Advertising on Wikipedia
Le 21 janvier 2011 18:43, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com a écrit : Bonjour François En fait, wikiwix n'est pas un site miroir de Wikipedia (une copie). C'est un peu plus compliqué. Si la page vient à disparaitre ou devenir inaccessible, la version originale est toujours accessible via le système d'archivage wikiwix. Si ça marche. Mais si ça ne marche pas... http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro/29_octobre_2010#A_quoi_sert_le_lien_.5Barchive.5D.3F ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia, the Pedia that used to be a Wiki
2011/1/4, Виктория mstisla...@gmail.com: it had been patrolled = [отпатрулированная версия] anyway. Thanks! ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia, the Pedia that used to be a Wiki
2011/1/5, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org: On 05/01/11 00:33, Teofilo wrote: We are more or less 24 hours (19 hours, exactly) after I corrected the mistake, but the toolserver.org/~kolossos/openlayers is still wrong. This is not what a wiki is supposed to be. You seem to be getting confused between a wiki and some software written by some Wikipedia user and not reviewed by anyone. If you don't like the quality of it, you shouldn't link to it from the geo templates. -- Tim Starling You are totally right, but let's see the problem from a different point of view. Let's look at it from the user's point of view. This is a feature closely associated with Wikipedia. German speaking users encounter it everytime they visit a geography Wikipedia article, like a city, a castle, a museum, and it is located in a prominent place not far from the foremost top right angle of the page. Other language wikipedias are in the process of implementing it. On the French language wikipedia, it happens on railway stations, German cities, and pages randomly using the coord template for specific reasons. So it is a de facto Wikipedia software, whether you like it or not. Toolserver.org is a Wikimedia website, and most people would think that it is a safe software condoned by the Wikimedia Foundation (or by the Wikimedia German chapter). It is so closely associated with Wikipedia and Wikimedia that most people would think that this is the direction the Wikimedia management is leading the project into for the future. If it can update quickly enough so that you get the I can correct straightforward mistakes straight away kind of feeling, it is perfect, and my congratulations go to the developers who made that wonderful tool. Can't we boost the toolserver.org server so that it can update more quickly ? Or integrate that tool into the main Wikipedia server ? (I have reservations about the way Openstreetmap deals with authorship in its use of Creative Commons licenses, but let's forget this). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia, the Pedia that used to be a Wiki
2011/1/4, Виктория mstisla...@gmail.com: it had been patrolled = [отпатрулированная версия] anyway. What about the message Стабильная версия была проверена 28 сентября 2010. 1 изменение ожидает проверки. which is written now at the top of the history tab (1), and google-translates into English as Stable version was tested on Sept. 28, 2010. 1, the change is awaiting moderation ? (1) http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%9F%D1%8C%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BD_(%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BA)action=history I have visited Russia only once in my life. It was a long time ago at the time of the USSR. I was making a long flight from Japan to Poland, and had to stop overnight at a hotel inside Moscow airport. Although I enjoyed the food, the beverage, the kindness of the stewardess, the landscapes with snow, lakes, forests inside the airplane, I disliked my stay at Moscow airport because people kept me waiting without telling why or how long. I think this is what Wikimedia is looking like with the so-called flagged revisions software : the USSR. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Wikipedia, the Pedia that used to be a Wiki
The other day, I read the [[:en:Wikileaks]] article on Wikipedia. What it said was, more or less, that Wilileaks is a leaks website that used to be a wiki. And I wondered : how long will it take before we read somewhere : Wikipedia, the Pedia that used to be a Wiki ? Sooner than you might think. Just yesterday, someone reported a mistake at the French village pump : a castle was located at the wrong location on the new toolserver.org/~kolossos/openlayers map tool. That castle, called Pierrefonds Castle, should be located in the Pierrefonds town, not in Senlis town, like the Windsor castle is located in the town of Windsor to the exclusion of any other English town. I thought this was the time to show the power of a wiki : a cool website everybody can edit, especially useful to instantly correct straightforward mistakes like that one. The toolserver.org/~kolossos/openlayers software is cute enough to provide source: ru at the bottom of the little popup window that pops up when you click on the wrongly located castle. I instantly corrected the wrong coordinates on the Russian language version of Wikipedia (1) which had the mistake. We are more or less 24 hours (19 hours, exactly) after I corrected the mistake, but the toolserver.org/~kolossos/openlayers is still wrong. This is not what a wiki is supposed to be. There are 2 potential reasons. A) The Russian Wikipedia uses Flagged revisions and my newbie edit might be ignored by whoever wants to ignore it because it is flagged as a non-flagged newbie edit.B) the toolserver.org/~kolossos/openlayers software might be too slow to perform updates. Whatever the reason, this is evidence that Wikipedia is changing into something that is not a wiki. I am wondering if the whole problem is not the sheer idea of having developers doing their job : developping. Developping means changing. If you change a wiki, you have 99% of chances that what it changes into is not a wiki. This was my first anti-developer rant of 2011. Happy new year everybody. (1) http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%9F%D1%8C%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BD_%28%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BA%29action=historysubmitdiff=30694643oldid=28135989 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for a moratorium on all new software developments
2010/9/7, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com: 2010/9/7, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org: Presumably this conspiracy would have to extend beyond the WMF to PediaPress and Purodha Blissenbach, the developers of Collection and mobile.wikipedia.org respectively. The absence of a history tab in the mobile format is in my view an exact measurement of the temperature of the warmth of the relations between the WMF and its contributors. Let's not call this a conspiracy. Philosopher Pierre Bourdieu would call it an unconcious strategy (1). The other reason why we can't call this a conspiracy is that a conspiracy is usually kept secret, while that agenda is known by a lot of people. They even managed to organise a vote and found a majority approving it at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Result The result is the adding of You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license on every edit tab footer. The result is that it is thought that it is OK to distribute contents without the history tab, the author's names remaining in a format not readable on the device the user is using. So all these things are features of the new vastly known agenda. They are not bugs. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for a moratorium on all new software developments
2010/9/7, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org: If you don't like it, you can request that it be switched off, using Bugzilla. You will need to demonstrate that the community is in favour of such an action. This is not proactive. Giving more power to the admins is a constitutional change. Usually a constitutional change requires a referendum beforehand (An amendment to the United States Constitution must be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures, WP says). You don't simply switch to the new constitution and tell the people who are unhappy with the new constitution that it is their burden to demonstrate that the older constitution was better. And when a constitutional change changes a democracy into a dictatorship without the freedom of speech, it is too late to express yourself after you have lost the freedom of speech. * The pdf tool is not fulfilling the licenses of images imported from Flickr. This is typically a tool enabled on all projects without consulting with the communities. That tool should be disabled at once from all project, until it is repaired (which might mean redevelopped from scratch). (2) Is there a bug report for this? No and there won't be (at least from me). Because I don't know if it is a bug or a feature. Show me the specification of the pdf tool first. I will see if the specification says that pictures' photographers should be credited. If the specification says so, I will report it as a bug. But if the specification does not say so, it simply means that I disagree with the specification. And I don't think bugzilla is the proper forum to discuss specifications. If there had been a talk before implementing the tool between the developpers and the Wikimedia Commons community, I would have been able to say how I see such a tool. Basically I think that every description page from Commons must be added at the end of every pdf produced. That will make the pdf a bit longer, but it is an easy and secure way to have the pictures properly described, and licenced. This is not my idea. This is what somebody else answered to a newbie asking how to best credit pictures when a wiki article is distributed in printed form. This is part of the common knowledge at wikimedia commons. By the way, the pdf of [[:fr:Valery Giscard d'Estaing]] (1) is properly crediting at least some photographers. But I wonder why File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-1990-0309-027, Dresden, Volkskammerwahl, BFD-Wahlkundgebung.jpg (2) is marked as public domain in the pdf instead of creative commons. My feeling with that pdf tool is that I am the first person ever to care on how pictures are credited. So I think it has never been specified as a requested feature. That means how little the WMF cares about respecting licenses. I think it is partly thoughtlessness, partly an agenda to remove contributor's names from wherever is possible, so that the WMF can dominate the contents and do whatever it wants with them without the contributors being able to control. An agenda to use the volunteers not as partners, but as a pleb available for [[:en:corvée]] (3). The removal of the article's history tab from mobile.wikipedia.org (merely linking to the main websites's history tab is not the same as including it within the mobile.wikipedia.org website) sounds more like an agenda than mere thoughtlessness. (1) http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Val%C3%A9ry_Giscard_d'Estaing (2) http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-1990-0309-027,_Dresden,_Volkskammerwahl,_BFD-Wahlkundgebung.jpg (but the pdf is not crediting the photographer of Fichier:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F075424-0004, Bonn, Genscher mit Politikern aus Frankreich - crop 2 - Anne-Aymone Giscard d'Estaing.jpg ) (3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corv%C3%A9e ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for a moratorium on all new software developments
2010/9/7, Kropotkine_113 kropotkine...@free.fr: There is absolutely nothing wrong with it on french Wikipedia. My interpretation : French admins are happy to see their powers increased, and to mimic oversighters with it. Non-admins, especially newly-registered ones might be too shy or not aware that they are allowed to have an opinion on such issues, and feel that when developpers install a new software on your wiki, (if they only find out that the software has changed: many changes are quite invisible) you just have to shut up and smile. The policy page at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oversight implies that similar powers are not given to anybody except oversighters (or above : stewards and top level WMF people). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for a moratorium on all new software developments
2010/9/7, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org: Presumably this conspiracy would have to extend beyond the WMF to PediaPress and Purodha Blissenbach, the developers of Collection and mobile.wikipedia.org respectively. The absence of a history tab in the mobile format is in my view an exact measurement of the temperature of the warmth of the relations between the WMF and its contributors. Let's not call this a conspiracy. Philosopher Pierre Bourdieu would call it an unconcious strategy (1). Developping software costs money and time. Maybe especially time. Developping both feature A and feature B is too expensive when most people will care only for feature A. Feature B is dropped because people who had feature B in mind feel that they will not be rewarded for it and they stop insisting for it and it finally fails from being included in the specification. And yes the outcome is that people did a great job developping feature A. (1) [His] theory seeks to show that social agents develop strategies which are adapted to the needs of the social worlds that they inhabit. These strategies are unconscious and act on the level of a bodily logic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Bourdieu ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Call for a moratorium on all new software developments
During the past few years, the new softwares of the Wikimedia Foundations have been developped in a too much anarchic way. * They are sometimes implemented as a whim of a few WMF big wheels, without consulting the user communities. * We are never shown specifications defining the goals of the planned softwares, which makes me doubt such specifications are ever written. With specifications being written and published, problems could be talked in a proactive way. A few problems : * The developpers have enabled for every Admin of the French Wikipedia, the possibility to mask (and exert acts of censorship) without needing to be an oversighter (1) Which means that the policy page at [[:fr:Wikipédia:Masqueur d'adresses IP]] (more or less the same as [[:en:Wikipedia:Oversight]]) is a joke. Every single admin has virtually the same power as an oversighter. * The pdf tool is not fulfilling the licenses of images imported from Flickr. This is typically a tool enabled on all projects without consulting with the communities. That tool should be disabled at once from all project, until it is repaired (which might mean redevelopped from scratch). (2) Conclusion : Because more software means more harm, I call for a moratorium (1 year? 6 months ?) on all new software developpements. During that time the developpers should be allowed to repair only obvious and urgent bugs. (1) A statement by a French admin saying that such acts are currently performed by simple admins : http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikip%C3%A9dia%3ABulletin_des_administrateurs%2F2010%2FSemaine_36action=historysubmitdiff=56843997oldid=56843680 (2) Example provided here : http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikip%C3%A9dia%3ALe_Bistro%2F4_septembre_2010action=historysubmitdiff=56786685oldid=56786681 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] English language dominationism is striking again
News from the front. A very bad and unfair unbalance of power was established in favor of English on Wikimedia Commons in 2005-2006, requiring people from the world to work for the benefit of the English language community. In that ocean of unfairness, there was a small island where you could find comfort and grace : biological taxa: the names of animals and plants. For centuries the scientific community had been used to using latin, creating a space where scientists from the world are nearer to being equals, everybody needing to leave her/his native tongue and use a foreign language. Wikimedia Commons had decided to name categories accordingly. I have discovered a few days ago that someone, probably in good faith and unaware of this language policy, created [[:Category:Animals by common named groups]] which is a container for English-named biological taxa, at the end of 2008. Now I find people pushing for this container and English named wild animal species. So the front line is broken. More reading at : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Category:Wolves http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Biologie/Le_caf%C3%A9_des_biologistes#Cat.C3.A9gories_en_latin_en_danger_sur_Commons ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Did you say usability ?
What would you think about an automobile repair shop, when you discover after you try the car again that you can no longer remove the key and stop the engine ? This what happened on the Spanish Wikipedia where I logged in and found out that the logout link (Salir in Spanish) is hidden behind the Wikipedia logo. Screenshot : http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_in_Spanish_new_version.jpg I finally found out how to log out, and I sometimes use different web browsers, but it is difficult to say this is a nice experience. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Did you say usability ?
2010/6/15, Brandon Harris bhar...@wikimedia.org: Could you provide me with the exact operating system and browser versions you are using? Thanks. I replied at http://usability.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AWikipedia_in_Spanish_new_version.jpgaction=historysubmitdiff=7786oldid=7784 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Did you say usability ?
2010/6/15, Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.com: there're some better ways to report problems though, like http://bugs.wikimedia.org/ Yes. So the topic for a talk on the foundation list would be : should Wikipedia stop to support older computers or older web browsers like Internet Explorer 6 ? Forcing people like me to get rid of their older computer and spend money to buy a new one, with a larger screen, and better web browsers. Is that bug worth spending time on it ? Are users like me (how many are they? one or two? less than 100? less than 1000? less than 1? more? ) worth paying attention ? The meaning of usability in the Wiki-m/p-edia vocabulary generally means moving forward with smart new software implying less support and less usability for older computers doesn't it ? Google Books has http://books.google.fr/books?output=html (simple html mode) for older computers. Gmail has https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=htmlzy=c (simple html mode) for older computers, requiring no javascript. Wikipedia has... what ? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Did you say usability ?
2010/6/15, Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.com: Well, there're no incentives for keeping old cars, as they emit more CO2, are noisier, etc. Old computers are similar What a pity they are not similar to old sewing machines, old vacuum cleaners, old electric ovens, or old tables or old chairs. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Are Wikimedia websites a proper venue for an artistic contest ?
Let's have a look at the mission of Wikimedia : The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. (1) Is there any room in this mission for an artistic contest ? Is there any room in this mission for promoting little known young or older artists seeking recognition ? And should the recognition of the artistic skills of some contributors be done at the expense of the contributors who contribute with other skills, while their artistic skills are those of a beginner ? Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Day (2) is an artistic contest. Why on earth is it allowed on a Wikimeda website and given a prominent space on the main page of one of the main websites ? Should it not be abolished ? If that artistic contest remained doing its business on its dedicated pages without interfering with the rest of the project, there would not be too much need to think too much about it. But I am afraid that the artistic virus is slowly contaminating other parts of the project. I discovered this morning poor composition as an argument for deleting a picture (from someone else, not me). It means that the picture of the day people are slowly highjacking Wikimedia Commons to turn it into a beauty contest. None of the pictures I take with my small 29.95€ made in China camera can compete with pictures that could be taken with a professional camera. If the destiny of my pictures on Wikimedia Commons is deletion because of their poor artistic qualities, I ought to be told right now so that I don't waste my time taking them and uploading them. But if Wikimedia is about education rather than about art, does it matter if the school's architecture or the textbook is ugly, while the teacher teaches valuable skills and information to the pupils ? I think there is some space for beauty and art within Wikimedia projects, but that space is very thin. Beauty fits the mission statement only as a pedagogic tool, as a part of the effectively adverb of the mission statement, thinking that it is easier to have the pupils feel comfortable at school if their school's building and their textbooks are somewhat attractive. But I don't see how beauty or art could be a top level priority. Why don't we ever read on Wikimedia Commons' main page look at this picture: it is quite awkward, poorly lit, but it is the first picture we've ever had to illustrate Wikipedia article name of page. We are grateful to the contributor who sent it. AND we will never delete it even if no longer used in any Wikipedia article when better pictures are sent by professional photographers later. (1) http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement (2) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Picture_of_the_day ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] The new Wikipedia logo-v2 is ugly
When I read and edited the English language wikipedia this morning, I saw that the logo had changed. I had a strange feeling, at first not being sure if this was only a feeling of surprise or if there was some real problem with that new logo. After performing my editing tasks, I had a closer look at the new logo and compared it with the older one, and I found the following design flaws : * the diameter of the sphere has become shorter than the Wikipedia word below (some harmony is broken). * It is darker. * It is fuzzier (while the older one was brisk, with contrast). * It bears geometric flaws : when you look at a planet, the meridians which are farther should be closer to each other than the nearer ones. The same kind of problem occured on the old logo, but as it was bigger, the proportions were different, and that problem was less conspicuous. I suspect a management flaw in the way the Wikimedia Foundation is managed. 1) I suspect this logo change has very little to do with usability. So I don't understand why the usability people have been authorised to touch this. 2) When the city council of a big city decides to redesign the statue located on the main square of the city, usually an artistic contest is organised, with a jury of professionals whose job is to find the proposal which has the greatest artistic merit. The same sort of organisation should take place when redesigning something as important as the Wikipedia logo. Also I feel sorry for the designer of the old logo. It seems that his/her talent is not recognized as should be. Useful links : New logo at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.png Older logo at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia-logo-en.png ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] LiquidThreads almost ready for deployment
With the Foundation's support Is there a board resolution on this matter ? I think the question of how we talk to each other is a question even more important than the license problems. As there was a referendum on the license change, I think there should be a referendum on the talk pages' software change. it's been used in a production context on the strategy wiki, This is an alternative wording for saying that the Strategy wiki's users have been used as guinea pigs for software experiments without their consent. Being treated as a guinea pig means in my case that my computer freezes. I want apologies for this and that the software is removed from the strategy wiki. This software should be called Liquidthreat because it is a threat to community life. For example the disparition of fixed tables of contents and archiving numbers, preventing to memorize where a talk page you have contributed to or enjoyed reading is located. For example the protecting individual discussion threads feature which is an invitation to censorship. For example the summary feature which is an invitation to gross misinterpretations of other people's opinions. For example the possibility to reactivate old talks from two years ago, instead of linking to their location in their archive as a reference and starting a new fresh talk, contributing to a prospect of never-ending monster talks... The worst is probably the waste of screen space which prevents people with a small screen to understand the structucture of the talks, and to find quickly which message an answer is supposed to be answering, and who is the last person who talked. Even finding the edit box in the middle of a long page, playing with the vertical scroll bar, is not easy. Wiki talk pages are dense, and this enables to quickly discriminate between what is important and what is not. Wiki talk pages are easily turned into archives and can subsequently be used as references. Wiki talk pages as they are now are good. Don't kill them. 2009/12/16, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org: Hi all, With the Foundation's support, I've spent the last few months churning away at LiquidThreads [1], a new discussion system that is proposed for use on Wikimedia projects. LiquidThreads has been in alpha testing on Wikimedia Labs [2] for several months, and, more recently, it's been used in a production context on the strategy wiki, where it has been quite well-received. ___ 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, Geoffrey Plourde geo.p...@yahoo.com: With regards to Florida, if the servers are in an office building, one way to decrease costs might be to reconfigure the environmental systems to use the energy from the servers to heat/cool the building. Wikimedia would then be able to recoup part of the utility bills from surrounding tenants. I am not sure the laws of thermodynamics (1) would allow to use that heat to cool a building. You would need a cold source like a river to convert heat back into electricity. But it might be more cost efficient to have the water from the river circulate directly into the building, so that your extra heat is still remaining unused. This is why I think it is more difficult to find solutions in a hot country like Florida than in a cold country (as long as you don't question the very existence of heated homes in cold countries, leaving aside the possibility of moving people and their homes from cold to warm countries). (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics#Second_law ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia and Environment
2009/12/13, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com: I don't think that's a practical solution. It's not because they need to be cooled that computers cost so much energy - rather the opposite: they use much energy, and because energy cannot be created or destroyed, this energy has to go out some way - and that way is heat. In cold countries, energy can have two lives : a first life making calculations in a computer, or transforming matter (ore into metal, trees into books), and a second life heating homes. But the best is to use no energy at all : see the OLPC project in Afghanistan (A computer with pedals, like the sewing machines of our great-great-great-grand-mothers) (1) (1) http://www.olpcnews.com/countries/afghanistan/updates_from_olpc_afghanistan_1.html ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Wikimedia and Environment
You have probably heard about CO2 and the conference being held these days in Copenhagen (1). You have probably heard about the goal of carbon neutrality at the Wikimania conference in Gdansk in July 2010 (2). You may want to discuss the basic and perhaps naive wishes I have written down on the strategy wiki about paper consumption (3). Do we have an idea of the energy consumption related to the online access to a Wikipedia article ? Some people say that a few minutes long search on a search engine costs as much energy as boiling water for a cup of tea : is that story true in the case of Wikipedia (4) ? 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). (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference_2009 (2) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2010/Bids/Gda%C5%84sk#Environmental_issues (3) http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Environmental_policy_for_paper_products (4) http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article5489134.ece (5) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers (6) http://www.greenercomputing.com/news/2009/12/08/giant-data-center-heat-london-homes ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Wikipedia trademark
In the following news article, it is said that Google showed French journalists in Paris a webpage with search results including Wikipedia in its presentation of its new Goggles search engine. I think the WMF lawyers should have a closer look at that and see if WMF is not entitled to a compensation for letting Google use the Wikipedia trademark as a sales argument. I think using the Wikipedia name within a for-profit endeavour distorts the image of Wikipedia as a non-profit charity. Should Wikipedia be associated to a service restricted to the happy few who buy it ? Wikipedia should remain something for everybody to enjoy, not necessarily more associated to one operating system than another. It should not necessarily be associated with the organised obsolescence of older computers, and remain critical vis-à -vis the fascination for the new. http://www.lepoint.fr/actualites-technologie-internet/2009-12-09/recherche-sur-google-n-ecrivez-plus-photographiez/1387/0/403115 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Consensus on Meta for suspecting every volunteer of abuse ?
Make the following experience: Go to Gmail and create a new account on Gmail. Does Google tell you after you have created your new account : We are ready to have a conflict relationship with YOU ? We have an Abuse Log ready for YOU ? Now go to meta.wikimedia.org (1), create a new account there and click on your My contributions link. And see what you see on the top line of Special:Contributions : Abuse Log. My preference on meta is French, and it reads (Journal des abus). In French Journal means both Log and Newspaper. It sort of says you are already making headlines in newspapers for abuse. It means Wikimedia users are considered as suspects from the first time they set foot into the wiki. It means that the climate there is a climate where everyone suspects everybody else, where you are guilty until proven innocent, and where bad faith is assumed (3). Jimmy Wales and Michael Snow want to attract new volunteers (2) in these conditions ? Can anybody show me the page on meta.wikimedia.org, which shows that a consensus was reached prior to implementing this Special:AbuseLog software ? It is almost the same problem on Commons (my user preference there is English) where the AbuseLog has been pudically renamed filter log (but the wording with Abuse is still used in the URL). The French Language Wikipédia is still unaffected by this Abuse thing. I hope the virus of suspicion will not infect her. (1) http://meta.wikimedia.org (2) http://volunteer.wikimedia.org (3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...
I should have said it in my previous message : the first and foremost priority for France, is that Government-owned museums allow visitors who paid their entrance ticket to carry a camera and take pictures of paintings and sculptures when the painters and sculptors died more than 70 years ago. In 2005, the Government-owned Guimet museum in Paris, which is famous for its Chinese and Japanese art collections, asked for 50€ for each non-commercial-purpose photographic shot and 5000€ for a commercial-purpose shot (1). Telling the Museum administrators that we want to use their pictures taken by their photographers is not the best message. The best message is : allow every camera carrying citizen to take his own pictures. If they want to contribute to Wikipedia with photographs taken by their photographers, it is OK but it is not a priority. (1) http://web.archive.org/web/20050305062057/www.museeguimet.fr/homes/home_id20392_u1l2.htm 2009/9/28, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: 2009/9/28 wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk: From the earlier poster Teofilo: I disagree. I think the priority is to have the full resolution pictures of Public Domain works. That seems to be a demand to have the highest resolution copies possible. That sets it out as a goal, not a demand. But getting back to the case in question - we're talking about the sort of museum that's actually a government sub-department. Thus, public domain images that the taxpayer has *already paid for*. I see nothing whatsoever unreasonable about the idea of asking-to-demanding those. They're owned by the public, not by the museum bureaucrats. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...
That was not the right link. Good link : http://web.archive.org/web/20050208203749/http://www.museeguimet.fr/pages/page_id18315_u1l2.htm 2009/9/30, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com: (1) http://web.archive.org/web/20050305062057/www.museeguimet.fr/homes/home_id20392_u1l2.htm ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the French cultural authorities
David Monniaux said: only in 2006 it was established for sure that rights to works done by civil servants as part of their duties belonged to their employer; No, it is the opposite. The new French Intellectual Property Code says that the civil servant author remains the copyright owner of his work whenever the work is used outside government purposes. See articles L111-1 and L131-3-1 of the Code. So for the Wikimedia projects' purposes, the copyright holder is the civil servant himself or herself, not the government. Only in rare cases when the purposes of the Wikimedia projects and the purposes of the French government overlap, could the government be considered as being the copyright holder. L111-1: http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do?idSectionTA=LEGISCTA06161633cidTexte=LEGITEXT06069414dateTexte=20090926 L131-3-1: http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT06069414idArticle=LEGIARTI06278959dateTexte=categorieLien=cid 2009/9/22, Yann Forget y...@forget-me.net: Hello, I think this is worth a larger audience. Yann Original Message Subject: [Commons-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the French cultural authorities Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:51:12 +0200 From: David Monniaux David . Monniaux @ free . fr To: common...@lists.wikimedia.org [...] Note that it is not out of ill will that museums and other institutions refuse to release pictures under a free license. There are some legal difficulties involved - sometimes they do not own the rights to the pictures (only in 2006 it was established for sure that rights to works done by civil servants as part of their duties belonged to their employer; also, they sometimes employ private photographers), and ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the French cultural authorities
Hello GerardM, I follow you on the multilingual issue. Some of the manyfold copyright symbols I quoted in my previous message might apply to the annotating text, and let alive creative text writers have the possibility to sell their text for money. But that should not allow them to add a copyright symbol on a photograph taken before 1906 by somebody else. The topic raised in this discussion is not every GLAM. It is those GLAM paid with the taxpayer's money which are part of the government administration. I think the government should respect scrupulously what the lawmaker is saying in the copyright law concerning Public Domain. The Wikimedia Foundation and Chapters should not provide help to civil servants wanting to have more than what the lawmaker allows them to have. If the French Chapter capitulates in front of the civil servant lobby, then the French Chapter loses any kind of representativity of the public's interest. Ultimately, the French Chapter would lose the public's confidence. 2009/9/25, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com: Hoi, The world is not so simple. When we accept material from a GLAM in a low resolution, we should be happy with what we get. When a GLAM considers this an acceptance that this material is copyrightable they are wrong. When we accept material we get it with annotations, we get it with all the aspects that make this material worthwhile. Our Commons material is useless if it was not for our categories, the annotations of the material that we store. This is in my opinion the most important part of the picture because this is what gives our material relevance and makes it possible to find it. This is at the same time the biggest problem of Commons. You can only find things when you know your English. Thanks, GerardM ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the French cultural authorities
I think our prioritory focus should the Public Domain, not least because the new (undisclosed yet) digital clause to be used on French governement GLAM websites will be experimentally tested on the website of the Claude Monet exhibition at Grand Palais in Paris from October 2010 to January 2011. Claude Monet is a painter whose works are in the Public Domain because he died more than 70 years ago. References: French : http://www.lemonde.fr/culture/article/2009/09/10/les-dix-travaux-de-marin-karmitz-pour-la-culture_1238286_3246.html English : http://artforum.com/news/mode=internationalweek=200938 2009/9/25, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: Oh yeah, we need people to push in all directions at once at all strengths at once. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the French cultural authorities
My reaction to this report is tears, because it is terrible : they use the keyword public domain only once, talking about a set of 4500 American Library of Congress pictures on Flickr (1), only to contradict it a few lines below when they talk about rights holder for the works by Ingres (2), a painter who died more than 70 years ago. French GLAM administrators live in old castles like the Louvre which were built during the Monarchy, before 1789, and they have kept the mentality of that era. Their idea of government is to increase the King's properties and benefits. Despite their claim to the contrary, they ignore the interest of the public. See also page 19 (3) the connection they make between libre de droits (a very polysemic wording which can mean anything from public domain, to royalty free, or even free licenced) and non commerciale (and they say they have a lawyer among their editorial team!). Not even once do they hint that commercial use is allowed when a work is in the Public Domain. (1) recommandation n°1 page 17 (pdf OCR version page 12) (2) recommandation n°2 page 18 (pdf OCR version page 13) (that part is translated into English in the message forwarded by Kat Walsh 2009-09-22) (3) recommandation n°3 page 19 (pdf OCR version page 14) pdf OCR version: http://david.monniaux.free.fr/pdf/rapport_culture_ocr.pdf 2009/9/22, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com: Well done! That sounds like the most constructive engagement any part of the overall project has had on opening up large swaths of external content, that I can recall. Congratulations to everyone involved in France. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the French cultural authorities
David Monniaux said : release lower resolution pictures under free license, keep high resolution pictures (those suitable for art books, posters and so on) proprietary. I disagree. I think the priority is to have the full resolution pictures of Public Domain works. Because this is what the French copyright law is saying. There is no need to negociate anything. There is no need to change a single word from the current French copyright law. Simply have the French government's cultural institutions (museums, archives) recognize that they have been wrong until now, by adding copyright notices on Public Domain works (in France: non-poshumous works whose authors have been dead for more than 70 years). If someone has another opportunity to write an article in Libération or elsewhere, please denounce the copyright notices added by the Musée d'Orsay on a picture like the photograph of Louis Blanc by photographer Etienne Carjat who died in 1906 (1). Please denounce the copyright notice added by Musée Carnavalet on a bidimensional work like the Declaration of Human Rights by Le Barbier (who died in 1826) (2). And don't tell me that a school teacher can use this work at school with a 400x400 px size, like what is available to them through the new agreement signed between the French ministry of Education and authors' representative bodies (3). A teacher needs to show his pupils every details on the picture. Negociating small size pictures could be only a lower level priority concerning truely copyrighted works when the artists are still alive and need money to buy their bread. (1) ©photo musée d'Orsay / rmn on http://www.musee-orsay.fr/en/collections/index-of-works/notice.html?no_cache=1zoom=1tx_damzoom_pi1%5Bzoom%5D=0tx_damzoom_pi1%5BxmlId%5D=064037tx_damzoom_pi1%5Bback%5D=%2Fen%2Fcollections%2Findex-of-works%2Fnotice.html%3Fno_cache%3D1%26nnumid%3D064037%26cHash%3D73f82dabb3 (2) © musée Carnavalet, © direction des musées de France, 2008 Droits photo © musée Carnavalet / Roger-Viollet on http://www.culture.gouv.fr/public/mistral/joconde_fr?ACTION=CHERCHERFIELD_1=REFVALUE_1=1104384 (3) http://www.education.gouv.fr/cid48874/menj0900756x.html 2009/9/22, Yann Forget y...@forget-me.net: Hello, I think this is worth a larger audience. Yann Original Message Subject: [Commons-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the French cultural authorities Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:51:12 +0200 From: David Monniaux David . Monniaux @ free . fr To: common...@lists.wikimedia.org [...] I proposed a way out: release lower resolution pictures under free license, keep high resolution pictures (those suitable for art books, posters and so on) proprietary. The suggestion has been retained by the commission - even though they still seem to toy with this idea of negotiation. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] new survey of digital collection copyrights
However, this study presents evidence that, far from educating users about copyright or promoting the public domain, many libraries engaged in digitization projects are omitting a key tool for copyright education or using it in ways that undermine users’ needs for accurate copyright information. This is very piquant to read here on the foundation list, when you think that not long ago, Wikimedia signed a deal with the German Bundesarchiv which included no obligation from the Bundesarchiv to provide copyright information. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Britain or Ukraine? What UK stands for in Wikimedia jargon
Hello everybody; This is to say that I have written a piece on this topic at : http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#uk.wikimedia.org_is_Wikimedia_Ukraine,_isn't_it_? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
