This is a good idea in theory, but the tags-per-country could become
endless, and I wonder who would be brave enough to upload images to
such a project, as the uploader would be responsible for the
freeness of the uploaded content and the associated completeness of
license tags.
Perhaps if you
On 2 March 2014 08:55, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 March 2014 02:01, Mark delir...@hackish.org wrote:
I personally would welcome more attention to our actual mission,
producing
free content, rather than the mission some of our members seem to be
engaged
in, making the
On Sun, 2 Mar 2014, geni wrote:
On 2 March 2014 08:55, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 March 2014 02:01, Mark delir...@hackish.org wrote:
I personally would welcome more attention to our actual mission,
producing
free content, rather than the mission some of our members seem to
On 2 March 2014 16:31, Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org wrote:
These days I wouldn't dare upload an image that was not either my own work
or public doman due to life+100 because I couldn't guarantee that it wont be
delted. Even with my own work I'm wary because of recent cases of amateur
On 3/2/14, 5:31 PM, Chris McKenna wrote:
There seems to be a disconnect between what Commons sees as it's
mission: To be a repository of Free media; and what other projects see
as Commons' mission: To be a repository of media for use on Wikimedia
projects.
But since the other Wikimedia
One possible approach is certainly to choose a representative country
per language, and define freeness as only free in that country
specifically. So en.wiki's ambition is to be free only for Americans.
Perhaps es.wiki's goal will be to be free for Spaniards, and/or
Argentinians. de.wiki will be
On 2 March 2014 16:56, Mark delir...@hackish.org wrote:
On 3/2/14, 5:31 PM, Chris McKenna wrote:
There is a further disconnect in that Commons is taking an increasingly
ultra-conservative approach to the definition of Free, whereas most other
projects are working to a definition of Free for
On Sun, 2 Mar 2014, Mark wrote:
On 3/2/14, 5:31 PM, Chris McKenna wrote:
There seems to be a disconnect between what Commons sees as it's
mission: To be a repository of Free media; and what other projects see
as Commons' mission: To be a repository of media for use on Wikimedia
projects.
But
On 2 March 2014 20:50, Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org wrote:
On Sun, 2 Mar 2014, Mark wrote:
On 3/2/14, 5:31 PM, Chris McKenna wrote:
There seems to be a disconnect between what Commons sees as it's
mission: To be a repository of Free media; and what other projects see as
Commons'
On 2 March 2014 13:51, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
Its a pretty accurate description. What do you think the law says?
It's possible, if you want people and organisations to stop their
moves against you, that snideness and word play may not serve to
convince them that you have any evidenced
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org wrote:
You've missed the point. Commons is not at present a reliable source of
media, Free or otherwise, because media gets deleted because once someone
alleges that it is not free it gets deleted if the original uploader cannot
On 2 March 2014 16:35, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed. The extreme paranoia over images people created themselves
versus the ridiculously sloppy standards for anything on Flickr (a bot
can't meaningfully verify an image) makes Commons merely seem
capricious.
No the same
On 02/03/2014 01:26, geni wrote:
On 1 March 2014 23:59, ??? wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 01/03/2014 23:06, geni wrote:
On 1 March 2014 19:58, ??? wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
You have no guarantee that the account that the images were scraped from
held the copyright in the
On 2 March 2014 22:20, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 March 2014 13:51, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
Its a pretty accurate description. What do you think the law says?
It's possible, if you want people and organisations to stop their
moves against you, that snideness and word
On 3/2/14, 6:17 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 2 March 2014 16:56, Mark delir...@hackish.org wrote:
On 3/2/14, 5:31 PM, Chris McKenna wrote:
There is a further disconnect in that Commons is taking an increasingly
ultra-conservative approach to the definition of Free, whereas most other
projects
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Which led to the thought that hey, what we really need is a meta-project
for hosting images that is *explicitly* intended to serve the other
projects. We tried this before, right? But maybe this time we make the
meta-project a
That would be wonderful. I imagine we would want to tag the images to
indicate their copyright status in certain jurisdictions, and set up a
mechanism so that projects can define which sorts of images they want to be
able to embed in their local pages, and which they do not want (unless a
locally
On 1 March 2014 19:58, ??? wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 28/02/2014 01:23, geni wrote:
We could do that but it pretty much removes commons only advantage over
say
imgur or flickr. We want the images on commons to be free. Not simply
stuff
no one has got around to complaining about
On 01/03/2014 23:06, geni wrote:
On 1 March 2014 19:58, ??? wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
You have no guarantee that the account that the images were scraped from
held the copyright in the first place, and as such you are unable to pass
that guarantee on to any one else.
Want means
On 1 March 2014 23:59, ??? wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 01/03/2014 23:06, geni wrote:
On 1 March 2014 19:58, ??? wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
You have no guarantee that the account that the images were scraped from
held the copyright in the first place, and as such you are
On 2/28/14, 1:43 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 28 February 2014 08:27, Delirium delir...@hackish.org wrote:
But the other Wikimedia projects are *also* supposed to share that goal: of
producing a Free-as-in-freedom encyclopedia whose contents can be safely
reused and adapted by a wide range of
On 2/28/14, 9:18 AM, David Gerard wrote:
On 28 February 2014 01:23, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 February 2014 22:03, Galileo Vidoni gali...@gmail.com wrote:
And we remain convinced that there is space for a way more prudent
implementation of URAA that prevents deleting educational
2014-02-28 7:00 GMT+05:30 geni geni...@gmail.com:
On 27 February 2014 22:56, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
This is the essential point of the problem:
* Commons has a long-running attitude of absolute copyright paranoia,
so that no reuser will ever be put in legal danger. This
This would be the more concise open letter that I think all projects could
support, no?
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 28, 2014, at 10:08 AM, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-02-28 7:00 GMT+05:30 geni geni...@gmail.com:
Now if someone could get the US to follow the law of the shorter
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 7:02 AM, Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com wrote:
This would be the more concise open letter that I think all projects could
support, no?
Yes, this would be helpful. It's in everyone's interest for the US to
adopt the rule of the shorter term. And the current Register
On 28 February 2014 08:27, Delirium delir...@hackish.org wrote:
But the other Wikimedia projects are *also* supposed to share that goal: of
producing a Free-as-in-freedom encyclopedia whose contents can be safely
reused and adapted by a wide range of other people and organizations, who
should
On 28 February 2014 08:18, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
This supports what I noted: Commons increasingly just can't be relied
upon as a repository for the other Wikimedia projects.
Given the general failure of such projects to file exemption doctrine
policies they wouldn't be able
On 28 February 2014 16:05, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 February 2014 08:18, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
This supports what I noted: Commons increasingly just can't be relied
upon as a repository for the other Wikimedia projects.
Given the general failure of such projects to
On 28 February 2014 12:43, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
You're justifying the observed, serious problems with current actions
by saying but they should work in theory!
No. Its more that they are features rather than problems.
There have always been images hosted locally that
Still no explanation (nor appologies) on usage of inappropriate wording
towards volunteer by the board of Wikimedia Argentina.
It quite amazing when almost all projects have policies on civility ...
2014-02-27 0:24 GMT+01:00 geni geni...@gmail.com:
On 26 February 2014 22:39, Galileo Vidoni
And what about the [apparently lack of] self-criticism of some Commons
sysops/admins?
I think being able to accept criticism and moreover being able to say
hey, somebody is questioning what we do. Why would that be? instead of
plainly rejecting any questioning, is one essential part of
Not to mention demanding excuses and delivering such high expressions of
politesse as this one:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWikimedia_Argentina%2FOpen_letter_regarding_URAAdiff=7665183oldid=7665158
I'll repeat it here for the record: I'm sorry and I offer our apologies if
On 27 February 2014 22:03, Galileo Vidoni gali...@gmail.com wrote:
We remain convinced that something is fundamentally wrong when its
practical result is self-inflicting the highest possible loss of contents.
And we remain convinced that there is space for a way more prudent
implementation of
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 5:56 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 February 2014 22:03, Galileo Vidoni gali...@gmail.com wrote:
We remain convinced that something is fundamentally wrong when its
practical result is self-inflicting the highest possible loss of
contents.
And we
On 24 February 2014 20:51, Galileo Vidoni gali...@gmail.com wrote:
However, over the last months certain Wikimedia Commons administrators have
conducted massive deletions of these contents, in many cases involving
entire categories. The burden of proof has been inverted: instead of having
to
Hi,
...
Many years ago, the editors of the Spanish Wikipedia decided to close the
possibility to directly host images, choosing instead to use Wikimedia
Commons. If we miss the opportunity to find a workaround that saves
hundreds of thousands of images from an unrequested deletion that hurts
Hi,
2014-02-26 16:01 GMT+05:30 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
On 24 February 2014 20:51, Galileo Vidoni gali...@gmail.com wrote:
However, over the last months certain Wikimedia Commons administrators
have
conducted massive deletions of these contents, in many cases involving
entire
Thanks for your replies. We'll surely take the French precedent into
account if Commons' admins fail to reconsider the current policies and we
propose hosting images on the Spanish Wikipedia. By the way, I forgot to
mention that we've also published this letter on Meta and that there's also
an
On 24 February 2014 20:51, Galileo Vidoni gali...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear movement fellows,
Wikimedia Argentina would like to express its support for the letter by
Wikimedia Israel regarding URAA-motivated massive content deletions in
Wikimedia Commons. Yet, we would like to express our view
[Sorry for this excurse]
Dear Geni, the 20 years indeed come from article 24 of law 11 723. The 25
years come from the Berne Convention. In any case, Argentine copyright law
is already known and documented in Commons, and we have been using a
specific template (PD-AR-Photo) for years. Regarding
On 26 February 2014 22:39, Galileo Vidoni gali...@gmail.com wrote:
[Sorry for this excurse]
Dear Geni, the 20 years indeed come from article 24 of law 11 723. The 25
years come from the Berne Convention.
But that merely established a minimum under international law. Unless you
have some
Dear movement fellows,
Wikimedia Argentina would like to express its support for the letter by
Wikimedia Israel regarding URAA-motivated massive content deletions in
Wikimedia Commons. Yet, we would like to express our view not only to the
Foundation BoT but also to all Wikimedia editors, and
42 matches
Mail list logo
