Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

The issue is not in that way. If you published an image exclusively on Commons, then no problem. If you first publish an image outside Commons, how do we know that you are the author? OK, there may be some factors to prove that (consistency of EXIF data, etc.), but in the absence of EXIF data, we

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Again; what is different between me as a photographer taking pictures for a newspaper and me as a photograper taking pictures for Commons? Is it the name written om the lens? The shoes I'm wearing? There are no difference, this is a fallacy. John Erling Blad /jeblad tir. 14. mai 2019, 05.50

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Hi, Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was previously published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons. I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by OTRS. Regards, Yann Forget Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 5:54 AM Фархад Фаткуллин / Farhad Fatkullin wrote: > I feel I can give a relatively neutral comment on the part quoted below. Dear Farhad, Thanks so much for sharing your observations re: https://ru.wikinews.org/ . I'm glad to hear that the project is publishing on a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Not all local sysops have a strong knowledge of image licensing and I think allowing local sysops not familiar with image licensing and how Commons community works in general to delete\undelete files would be counterproductive. I agree with Yann that training would work. I think resources

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Fae, I think that what you are describing is essentially the sort of mechanism that would be mandated by Article 17 on the proposed new European copyright directive. Since the Foundation has explicitly opposed that, see their blog post

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

I am not in anyway surprise at this nonsensical behavior of Yann. This user once posted a misleading information about me and when asked to correct it they issued a block threat. It's just terrible. Isaac On Mon, May 13, 2019, 5:46 PM David Gerard Yann, you SERIOUSLY need to back up this

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

The expectations is at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators#Community role Regards, Isaac On Sun, May 12, 2019, 10:43 PM Todd Allen I wouldn't even have any idea what I'd need to do to be a sysop on Commons. > I frequently do find copyvio images and nominate them for

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Recognition of the WikiClassics User Group

Congratulations! Στις Κυρ, 12 Μαΐ 2019 - 8:11 μ.μ. ο χρήστης Shlomi Fish < shlo...@shlomifish.org> έγραψε: > On Sun, 12 May 2019 11:43:22 -0400 > Kirill Lokshin wrote: > > > Hi everyone! > > > > I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has recognized > > [1] the WikiClassics

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Hello Paulo, Thanks for restoring those images. If images are routinely deleted this way, I'm afraid it would be difficult to retain new editors. Affiliates invest a lot of time and resources to recruit new volunteers through various programs/project and if their uploads are blindly deleted this

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Many are. I've always been in favour of a "do what you think you can do under your responsibility"-model. Any steward can do any action, still they don't do what they are not familiar with. For example I seldom use central notice. Vito Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 22:28 Paulo Santos

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Yann, you SERIOUSLY need to back up this claim of "dishonesty" on the part of a Wikmedian of long experience. Your assumption of bad faith here is stupendous. You can't simultaneously complain of the workload, then work this hard to drive people away. - d. On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 05:10, Yann

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

I was not referring to your case, but in general. Even if so, talking about your case, you simply did what we all do. Or what we all should do, and we just know that sometimes it's not enough. Did you tell them that no matter what, somebody could have decided to delete them in any case?

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Thanks for this, Galder. It's clear you went the extra mile to make sure all these issues were addressed and in ways that exceed any education project I have seen before, and I've been involved with Wikimedia and education since 2003! -Andrew On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 12:01 PM Galder Gonzalez

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

I read this: On the other side, people who do outreach push too much for results with lmited understanding of the ecosystem they ask students to interact. I have met people who ask for "button men" at their initiatives with poor regard for the real expertise, often overselling what they do.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

We have dozens of cross project brainstorming off-wiki. But the general feeling is often that if you encourage the social dynamics of a platform in a way that people who like to "play cops" are a key actor... when this is established there is no point in creating sophisticated or efficient

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 3:03 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > The precautionary principle is labelled as an official policy of Commons. > I think it should be mentioned on the assume good faith page as it explains > why it is sometimes impractical to assume good faith

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Oh the irony! You assumed bad faith on my good faith edit to [[Commons:Assume good faith]]. What would you consider "dishonest" about the edits or the summaries? Telling folks that the [[Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle]] is part of the policy dynamic that even experienced

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

I love this thread. Thank you to all participating in it... Also: speeding these things with automation is also much easier once there is a quarantine where anyone can see flagged material without being an admin! SJ On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 7:39 AM John Erling Blad wrote: > This is wrong:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Ditto. But did not have the impression that this was {a, the} pressing need. Perhaps we also need better ways to highlight workload overloads (and continue conversations about them through time, rather than sporadic proposals of specific implementations that can easily fail) to stimulate

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 1:10 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote: > As a Commoner, I can tell we certainly are, James, please apply here: > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators > > Even if your sysop actions are rather occasional or seasonal, or focused

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

If I could share my vision, I am not part of the group of "expert flagged users"(I have some flags here and there, I was asked to get more but I have no rush) and I am not part of the group of "expert outreach users" (I make events but change them so often I do not play any specific role).

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Some years ago I did a quite simplified analysis of the number of active contributors, and normalized the number against the number of people wit internet connections for the respective language groups. The relative number was pretty similar for all languages from similar cultural groups. I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Trying to explain European copyright to Americans can be quite hard… ;) On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 6:07 AM Yann Forget wrote: > > Hi James, > > Of course. More admins would lesser the work charge, and it would be great. > We specially appreciate admins with multi-language capabilities, as it is a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

This is wrong: "The upload system allow you to upload something if you are the author. Period." The system as it is now will allow anyone to upload a file given (s)he has the necessary rights. That does not imply the uploader being the author of the material. Note that verifying whether the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

I can imagine a bot comparing photos found by Google (ie. comparing hashes) but not a system extracting some kind of unique feature that says an image is a copyright violation. So how do you imagine ORES being used for copyright violations? I can't see how a copyright violation would have any kind

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

I have proposed use of local sensitive hashing algorithms for at least three different purposes in the past. All being turned down. Probably it is due to LSHs being difficult to understand, and not to forget it is a fairly bit of fighting over what is and whats not a "real" LSH. In the past there

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Recognition of the Wikimédiens du Bénin User Group

Congratulations to the new UG. Regards, Bobby Shabangu On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 19:18, Shlomi Fish wrote: > On Sun, 12 May 2019 11:41:53 -0400 > Kirill Lokshin wrote: > > > Hi everyone! > > > > I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has recognized > > [1] the Wikimédiens du

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Hi all, I think that Tomasz and Paulo have made two excellent points. Firstly, Wikimedia Commons is a project on its own with a community that deserves full respect and not just a storage of files that acts as a cloud service to Wikipedia. Secondly, there is evident stagnation and even decline in

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

As a Commoner, I can tell we certainly are, James, please apply here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators Even if your sysop actions are rather occasional or seasonal, or focused on a certain topic, like mine, all help is very much welcomed there. Best, Paulo James Heilman

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

In my view it has not that much to do with AGF. In general people at Commons do assume good faith, or at least they should. But when an user uploads a mix of own work with copyvios, or a GLAM shows a complete lack of understanding on copyright laws (by uploading modern art, for instance, claiming

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

I have a fairly good understanding of copyright. Deal with a fair bit of copyright issues occurring via paid editing and flicker washing of images and would be happy to do admin work around that if the Commons community was interested. James On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 4:00 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Wikimedia project communities in general seem to be quite stagnant, if not declining, apart from Wikidata, which is and always will be a whole different case. In the case of Commons it was already very much as it is now when I joined in 2009. I always found it a very pleasant place, but overtime I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Hi Todd, If you are active in Commons, and demonstrably understand copyright, ToO, DeMinimis, FOP, you are very welcome as a sysop there, AFAIK: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators There are some minimal requests of participation, which should not be an obstacle for anyone

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Fair comments. It would be a useful allocation of the donors' money Cheers, P -Original Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Yann Forget Sent: 12 May 2019 13:29 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

But the problem here is not about having a good coverage on copyright issues! Is about deleting things claiming that are DW without specifying what is the original work this files are derived from! ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Hi, Same as for reviewing files. I find more rewarding to work on content that creating and mainting help pages. I should mention that Aymatth2 has done an amazing work on completely reworking the copyright help pages, creating subpages by

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Hi, My guest work is that 1. Adminship requires an extensive knowledge of copyright, that's the main factor limiting the number of candidates. 2. Commons requires candidates to be active locally. 3. I find personally much more rewarding to work on content that reviewing and cleaning files

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

And there is nobody who "must" improve commons help pages as they are all volunteers, so if someone wants better help pages, they can have a go at fixing them. Do be careful about how you go about it, as it must reflect project consensus. Get agreement on the talk page first for any

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

In which sense weren't those instructions followed correctly? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Please read my post again, Cheers P -Original Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 9:29 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

It seems that either the instructions were insufficient or not followed properly. Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 8:36 PM To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List'

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

The precautionary principle is labelled as an official policy of Commons. I think it should be mentioned on the assume good faith page as it explains why it is sometimes impractical to assume good faith to the extent of allowing content to remain. If not mentioned, it can lead to severe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

This looks like a project at risk of collapsing under its own weight. Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Yann Forget Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 6:48 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l]

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

A good question to ask would be why the admin group is not growing. And maybe (maybe) we can find a common answer to both problems pointed here. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and