Re: [Wikimedia-l] Help decide about more than $10 million of movement funds in the coming year
Only ten millions? This sounds wrong. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!
First they deleted Michelle Obama's arms,[1] now they want to get rid of Justin Bieber on Twitter.[2] What is the world coming to! [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michelle_Obama%27s_arms [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Justin_Bieber_on_Twitter Ryan Kaldari ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] The Signpost -- Volume 8, Issue 27 -- 02 July 2012
Analysis: Uncovering scientific plagiarism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-07-02/Analysis Op-ed: Representing knowledge â metadata, data and linked data http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-07-02/Op-ed News and notes: RfC on joining lobby group; JSTOR accounts for Wikipedians and the article feedback tool http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-07-02/News_and_notes In the news: Public relations on Wikipedia: friend or foe? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-07-02/In_the_news Discussion report: Discussion reports and miscellaneous articulations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-07-02/Discussion_report WikiProject report: Summer sports series: Burning rubber with WikiProject Motorsport http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-07-02/WikiProject_report Featured content: Heads up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-07-02/Featured_content Arbitration report: Three open cases http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-07-02/Arbitration_report Technology report: Initialisms abound: QA and HTML5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-07-02/Technology_report Single page view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single PDF version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-07-02 http://identi.ca/wikisignpost / https://twitter.com/wikisignpost -- Wikipedia Signpost Staff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost ___ Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!
On 3 July 2012 12:02, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote: On Tuesday, 3 July 2012 at 10:15, Svip wrote: I can't believe _I_ am not the ultimate ruler on what is valuable enough to get on Wikipedia. It seems most of the delete comments on the Justin Bieber article are mostly people who dislike Justin Bieber. Surely Lady Gaga on Twitter[3] should be deleted as well? Or perhaps that is different, because they like Lady Gaga more than they like Justin Bieber. [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Gaga_on_Twitter To be fair, 'Ashton Kutcher on Twitter' is also up for deletion too. In both the Kutcher and Bieber case, there's a lot of I don't like it, therefore it can't be notable! I just cannot see any legitimate argument for deletion being presented. They all basically boil down to don't like it! Hammersoft makes a compelling argument. I've been keeping track of the discussion (no particular personal opinion on it) and currently some of the deletion arguments seems to be holding strong sway; particularly comments about NOTDIR content forking etc. The keep arguments largely centre around ILIKEIT; some assert notability under GNG but so far no one has presented a source that adequately covers this. I've been through a big portion of the sources looking for one that covers this intersection/topic in sufficient depth to assert notability and so far there isn't one. It's essentially a collection of trivial mentions news/gossip reports. Whether that adds up to GNG I don't know. The keep votes aren't doing a good job of convincing me. Tom ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!
I think that is a very dismissive misreading of the discussion. Some people have it in their heads that appears in reliable sources equates to article-worthiness, but the problem here is that the doings of celebrities is covered in excruciating detial by the media, including what tey eat, the clothes they wear, and so on. Same for some politicians, such as every Thanksgiving some poor sod gets to stand outside the White House gate and breathlessly report what is on the President's table, or at XMas the reports of what the First Family bought each other. Reliably sourced? Yes. Encyclopedic worthiness of White House Thanksgiving 2009 Dinner Table ? None at all. I guess anything that people are interested in is our guideline; however those who are interested it are going to have to write, and monitor, most of this stuff themselves. It can be interesting. I remember a TV show about Queen Elizabeth's kitchen; fascinating, in a way... Actually, White House cuisine is an issue; prime rib, real prime rib, is readily available to the White House; eating a lot of that, a favorite of Nixon, will clog up blood circulation to the brain. Fred ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!
Would it be possible to get copies of the older non-notable articles? I would like to add them all to speedydeletion.wikia.com thanks, mike James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!
On 3 July 2012 14:49, Svip svi...@gmail.com wrote: On 3 July 2012 15:35, Tarc Meridian t...@hotmail.com wrote: What does 'encyclopaedic worthiness' even mean? If Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, then all those niche-wikis are encyclopaedia too. Well, yes, they basically replace the specialist encyclopedias. (Main difference from Wikipedia: original research allowed; a different standard of what's article-worthy.) It is hard to say where the line goes. I agree that _just_ because something is reliably sourced, does not make it worthy for an entire Wikipedia article. But _what_ does make it worthy of Wikipedia's attention? You seem to be saying that we must have a bright line. The evidence appears to be against this. Consistency is not a terminal goal. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging
Hi I would like to bring up an issue with office actions that was brought up elsewhere. There has been an issue on commons with User:Saibo tagging images from WMF staff. He disagreed with a particular office action taken by WMF staff. He gives an explanation with relevant diffs here[1]. The issue is rather complicated, and the specifics of it seem to be in secret. And that is mostly the problem here. He asked for an explanation is several places, but so far, the response from Philippe, and the rest of the staff has been that office actions are not explained - that is the crux of the entire offered explanation. Office actions have historically been used to blank or delete pages, the current listed policy on Meta and commons[3][4] make no mention of Global bans or blocking a user locally, or even globally. I have not known for office actions to extend to users and global bans, the last I know was a discussion going on with Steven on Meta about this. This might be its first usage. The proposed policy[5] and open RfC[6], have not concluded yet. The RfC received comments just today. Is that proposed policy already being used on commons? Office actions, have been limited to blanking pages, though sometimes contentious, they have been exercised with caution. It is a different ball-game when it goes from just blanking a page, to instantly blocking a user globally, and giving no explanation to community members who have known that user for years. if it is stretched to banning a 2 year old user with no explanation beyond, OFFICE ACTION it is going to do more than just raise eyebrows. I understand the specifics of the issue here, but banning users with absolutely no explanation can not be this widely accepted. Regards Theo [1]http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Saibo/WMF [2] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philippe_(WMF)#Why_did_you_block_a_user_without_a_reason.3F [3]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_actions [4]http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Office_actions [5]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_bans [6]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Request_for_comment/Global_bans ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: So, can you say what it is about this that made you bring it up now, in July? I heard about this issue fairly recently, on a private list. So, you probably already know more than I do. I really don't care about the specifics of the issue to be honest, my question was simple was OFFICE action used before to block someone, globally or locally? The policy pages I read on Meta, make no mention of it beyond it being used to blank or delete pages without an explanation. Regards Theo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging
On 3 July 2012 19:08, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: I love it when people send e-mails to the public list, and purposefully refrain from actually discussing the actual events at issue. You have to read 3/4ths of the e-mail to get an idea that it's about someone being blocked, but you still don't know why, when, or by whom. That's precisely the crux of the problem: office actions often aren't properly explained and documented. No one who wasn't involved in the original office action decision really knows why, when, or by whose authority was the office action taken out. Following the yellow brick road, however, leads you to discover that this is about a global ban of user Beta_M, performed by the WMF as an office action seemingly in March of this year. Phillipe, Maggie Dennis, Jimbo and Sue have all weighed in on the issue, saying that they are unable to disclose specifics for this case but that the decision was made by Sue in consultation with the WMF general counsel. So, can you say what it is about this that made you bring it up now, in July? On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: Hi I would like to bring up an issue with office actions that was brought up elsewhere. There has been an issue on commons with User:Saibo tagging images from WMF staff. He disagreed with a particular office action taken by WMF staff. He gives an explanation with relevant diffs here[1]. The issue is rather complicated, and the specifics of it seem to be in secret. And that is mostly the problem here. He asked for an explanation is several places, but so far, the response from Philippe, and the rest of the staff has been that office actions are not explained - that is the crux of the entire offered explanation. Office actions have historically been used to blank or delete pages, the current listed policy on Meta and commons[3][4] make no mention of Global bans or blocking a user locally, or even globally. I have not known for office actions to extend to users and global bans, the last I know was a discussion going on with Steven on Meta about this. This might be its first usage. The proposed policy[5] and open RfC[6], have not concluded yet. The RfC received comments just today. Is that proposed policy already being used on commons? Office actions, have been limited to blanking pages, though sometimes contentious, they have been exercised with caution. It is a different ball-game when it goes from just blanking a page, to instantly blocking a user globally, and giving no explanation to community members who have known that user for years. if it is stretched to banning a 2 year old user with no explanation beyond, OFFICE ACTION it is going to do more than just raise eyebrows. I understand the specifics of the issue here, but banning users with absolutely no explanation can not be this widely accepted. Regards Theo [1]http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Saibo/WMF [2] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philippe_(WMF)#Why_did_you_block_a_user_without_a_reason.3F [3]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_actions [4]http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Office_actions [5]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_bans [6]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Request_for_comment/Global_bans ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: Office actions have historically been used to blank or delete pages, the current listed policy on Meta and commons[3][4] make no mention of Global bans or blocking a user locally, or even globally. I have not known for office actions to extend to users and global bans, the last I know was a discussion going on with Steven on Meta about this. This might be its first usage. The proposed policy[5] and open RfC[6], have not concluded yet. The RfC received comments just today. Is that proposed policy already being used on commons? To answer in a word: no. The proposed global bans policy is not related to that situation at all, and has not been applied yet. The policy is one where any banning decision is made in public via a cross-wiki discussion, and as such is very different than office actions. Steven ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Deryck Chan deryckc...@wikimedia.hk wrote: On 3 July 2012 19:08, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: I love it when people send e-mails to the public list, and purposefully refrain from actually discussing the actual events at issue. You have to read 3/4ths of the e-mail to get an idea that it's about someone being blocked, but you still don't know why, when, or by whom. That's precisely the crux of the problem: office actions often aren't properly explained and documented. No one who wasn't involved in the original office action decision really knows why, when, or by whose authority was the office action taken out. Except as I then described, in fact the specifics are known - it was done at Sue's request, in mid-March, after she consulted with the GC and after Jimbo weighed in. Several other WMF staffers then commented about its status as an office action and their inability to publicly justify it. I understand why people will have a problem with that reply, it's just irritating to get a discussion prompt with vague allusions that you then have to go digging through in order to understand what the heck is going on :-P ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging
Phillipe, a global ban, even by the policy proposed, requires more than 2 communities agreeing that the ban is necessary, as far as I know, even if we count the office staff as one community that is only one. At least the guy know why he was blocked? And what is the guarantee we have that tomorrow you (you here as staff) won't block me or anyone else using office action as reason? _ *Béria Lima* *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 3 July 2012 16:05, Philippe Beaudette phili...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: my question was simple was OFFICE action used before to block someone, globally or locally? To the best of my knowledge, no. And that's precisely why we would like a global ban policy implemented. We would prefer an established, community-monitored process that we can turn to when at all possible (and make no mistake, in this case it was needed; I wish we could give all the specifics, but for privacy reasons, we just can't). Because we didn't have that, we had to break new ground with the Office actions policy. I hope we never have to use that again. pb ___ Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 415-839-6885, x 6643 phili...@wikimedia.org phili...@wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging
No, that was clumsy wording. I did not mean that it could have been used in THIS instance; I meant that in future instances, I can see circumstances where it could be used. ___ Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 415-839-6885, x 6643 phili...@wikimedia.org On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote: Philippe Beaudette, 03/07/2012 21:05: And that's precisely why we would like a global ban policy implemented. We would prefer an established, community-monitored process that we can turn to when at all possible (and make no mistake, in this case it was needed; I wish we could give all the specifics, but for privacy reasons, we just can't). Because we didn't have that, we had to break new ground with the Office actions policy. I hope we never have to use that again. Unless the current draft is completely off track, what you're saying here is that the proposed system could have been used here, which implies the specifics *could* be discussed publicly, as the proposed system requires a public RfC. https://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Global_bans#Obtaining_** consensus_for_a_global_banhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_bans#Obtaining_consensus_for_a_global_ban Nemo __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Philippe Beaudette phili...@wikimedia.orgwrote: To the best of my knowledge, no. And that's precisely why we would like a global ban policy implemented. We would prefer an established, community-monitored process that we can turn to when at all possible (and make no mistake, in this case it was needed; I wish we could give all the specifics, but for privacy reasons, we just can't). Because we didn't have that, we had to break new ground with the Office actions policy. I hope we never have to use that again. Thanks Pb. Most of the discussion archived on Jimmy's page reveals majority of the issue. I have more to say I suppose, about crime being separate from a criminal. There is something to be said about privacy also, how there are expectations that re-affirm anonymity. But everyone I know and trust on this issue, is saying that it was justified, so I won't talk about this case. I would ask about a hypothetical, is someone's off-wiki opinion or behavior or even criminal past, grounds for a block? There are Arbcomm members here, and I have known of cases of harassment following editors off-wiki. But what about privacy rights? doesn't someone has the expectation of privacy? if so, then no action on wiki can be directly linked to off-wiki opinion or behavior. The only exception, would be ongoing abuse or on-wiki abuse making its way off-wiki. The projects are fragmented with their own communities and policies, this is exactly why sweeping global actions make a bold general statement, especially so, when they are done by staff under the aegis of OFFICE action. If this is global block policy is going to stand, I hope this can be fleshed out more, like the work Steven has been doing and discussing on Meta, with some oversight or community based body to balance the staff. Regards Theo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!
On 03/07/2012 11:09 AM, Delirium wrote: 1) the sources really are *very* good in that case, not merely ok sources like newspaper articles; My own (admitedly radical) point of view is that popular media - and that includes newspapers nowadays - are not reliable sources at all in the first place. If you use that filter, you suddenly notice most of the more controversial articles (regarding notability) instantly find themselves without sources. I don't believe that's a coincidence. Even at their best, popular media has no interest beyond what's hot and topical at the moment, and attracting eyeballs with sensationalism is paramount -- accuracy be damned if needed. -- Coren / Marc ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?
Since 2008 I wonder, why the logo of Wikimedia projects are under copyright? I see it as something contradictory. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com +55 11 7971-8884 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?
hummm... No! I've read all this, I can give workshops about it, my question is more about values, why not believe in what we preach and release our logos? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com +55 11 7971-8884 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?
What purpose would it serve to release the WMF's logos? Surely it would damage the project rather than help it... copyright isn't always a bad thing! Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Disclaimer viewable at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk On 3 July 2012 22:09, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argen...@gmail.comwrote: hummm... No! I've read all this, I can give workshops about it, my question is more about values, why not believe in what we preach and release our logos? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com +55 11 7971-8884 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?
The trademark doesn't protect only the owner, it can protect also the user. Imagine that a fashion house would release his trademark under free license. Imagine that you buy a Gucci or Armani shirt and you are sure that it's a Gucci or Armani shirt. And you pay as you may pay the original one or probably more. It's look like a high quality product and the trademark looks like the original trademark because it has been released under free license. You are sure that you have in your hand a high quality product, but you have a copy and nothing else, and this copy costs much more than the original. Next time you will not buy a product with this trademark because the trademark cannot assure that you have an original product. On 03.07.2012 23:09, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote: hummm... No! I've read all this, I can give workshops about it, my question is more about values, why not believe in what we preach and release our logos? -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging
is someone's off-wiki opinion or behavior or even criminal past, grounds for a block? In my opinion, yes. I have carried out many blocks (and bans) based partly on the off-wiki behaviour of an editor. It's really only necessary in very serious cases involving violence, stalking, child protection etc - although it can also involve other things - there are many situations! If an editor was, for example, a young child (8 years old) who was posting their personal information again and again, and not listening to warnings not to, I would block them for their own safety. If an editor puts another editor, or themselves, in danger, I would have no qualms about blocking them immediately. I would probably block them if I thought that there was a strong, or even medium chance that people would be harmed. Looking after our younger or more vulnerable users is really, really important. As to privacy, yes: people (even criminals) do have the expectation (but maybe not the right? I don't know) of privacy. That is why so many of these blocks are only discussed by advanced permissions users and the office. If they were discussed by the community, the discussion would rapidly turn into a lynch-mob or a slander factory. Richard Symonds On 3 July 2012 20:23, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Philippe Beaudette phili...@wikimedia.orgwrote: To the best of my knowledge, no. And that's precisely why we would like a global ban policy implemented. We would prefer an established, community-monitored process that we can turn to when at all possible (and make no mistake, in this case it was needed; I wish we could give all the specifics, but for privacy reasons, we just can't). Because we didn't have that, we had to break new ground with the Office actions policy. I hope we never have to use that again. Thanks Pb. Most of the discussion archived on Jimmy's page reveals majority of the issue. I have more to say I suppose, about crime being separate from a criminal. There is something to be said about privacy also, how there are expectations that re-affirm anonymity. But everyone I know and trust on this issue, is saying that it was justified, so I won't talk about this case. I would ask about a hypothetical, is someone's off-wiki opinion or behavior or even criminal past, grounds for a block? There are Arbcomm members here, and I have known of cases of harassment following editors off-wiki. But what about privacy rights? doesn't someone has the expectation of privacy? if so, then no action on wiki can be directly linked to off-wiki opinion or behavior. The only exception, would be ongoing abuse or on-wiki abuse making its way off-wiki. The projects are fragmented with their own communities and policies, this is exactly why sweeping global actions make a bold general statement, especially so, when they are done by staff under the aegis of OFFICE action. If this is global block policy is going to stand, I hope this can be fleshed out more, like the work Steven has been doing and discussing on Meta, with some oversight or community based body to balance the staff. Regards Theo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?
A mark is not a simple image. A mark it's a symbol. On 03.07.2012 23:32, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote: So in your view, free images can be harmful? So why would I release a picture? And you're telling me is more important to believe in the logo, instead of checking the validity of what you are consuming? But we do not talk to our volunteers always check the sources and not to believe blindly in a single source? -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?
I don't know how it is handled after US law, but if i consider German law then logos and trademarks are often even in the public domain, but protected as a trademark itself. But i also think that our logo is something to protect while being free at the same time. If we go strictly after the policies the logos aren't free and should be deleted (especially with Commons in mind, because it is violation of the policies ;-) ). This is somehow contradictory to the mission itself. So i can understand the point that Rodrigo put up as well. Am 03.07.2012 23:37, schrieb Ilario Valdelli: A mark is not a simple image. A mark it's a symbol. On 03.07.2012 23:32, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote: So in your view, free images can be harmful? So why would I release a picture? And you're telling me is more important to believe in the logo, instead of checking the validity of what you are consuming? But we do not talk to our volunteers always check the sources and not to believe blindly in a single source? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging
On 03/07/2012 3:23 PM, Theo10011 wrote: I would ask about a hypothetical, is someone's off-wiki opinion or behavior or even criminal past, grounds for a block? It may well be. Both for our protection and that of other editors. There are cases of real, dangerous persons using Wikipedia to pursue criminal harrasment, that we cannot allow. There are also cases of illness and threats of harm for which the best action is to exclude the person from participating. But what about privacy rights? doesn't someone has the expectation of privacy? if so, then no action on wiki can be directly linked to off-wiki opinion or behavior. Which is exactly why those cases are not discussed in public, or debated by the community in the first place. WP:CHILDPROTECT is a good example where we necessarily err on the side of caution yet make no public note of our actions exactly because of privacy concerns (especially since a mistake is always possible: erroneously disapearing someone innocent is unpleasant, but erroneously discussing whether someone is or is not a child abuser in a public venue can very well ruin someone's life!) -- Coren / Marc ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?
Think of a logo or a trademark as an identity; the arguments for releasing free informational content are totally separate from allowing others to make free use of your (or WMFs) identity. You might as well ask why not release your name for any possible commercial use. I suspect you wouldn't agree to do that. On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com wrote: So in your view, free images can be harmful? So why would I release a picture? And you're telling me is more important to believe in the logo, instead of checking the validity of what you are consuming? But we do not talk to our volunteers always check the sources and not to believe blindly in a single source? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com +55 11 7971-8884 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?
Again, the logo is a symbol, it's not an image. I don't agree with your concept because you can move the Commons content in another website also commercial. So you should split content and repository. The content may be free, the repository may be not free. Following your concept if a newspaper would use the Commons content, it should release under free license his website, his logo, his content. On 03.07.2012 23:47, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: I don't know how it is handled after US law, but if i consider German law then logos and trademarks are often even in the public domain, but protected as a trademark itself. But i also think that our logo is something to protect while being free at the same time. If we go strictly after the policies the logos aren't free and should be deleted (especially with Commons in mind, because it is violation of the policies ;-) ). This is somehow contradictory to the mission itself. So i can understand the point that Rodrigo put up as well. Am 03.07.2012 23:37, schrieb Ilario Valdelli: A mark is not a simple image. A mark it's a symbol. On 03.07.2012 23:32, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote: So in your view, free images can be harmful? So why would I release a picture? And you're telling me is more important to believe in the logo, instead of checking the validity of what you are consuming? But we do not talk to our volunteers always check the sources and not to believe blindly in a single source? -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?
Ilario, please keep apart copyright and trademarks. Rodrigo did not question the decision to have the logos trademarked. He just questioned the decision to keep them copyrighted. As Tobias Oelgarte pointed out, a logo can be in the public domain and still be protected as a trademark. The Coca Cola logo for example is pre-1923 and therefore public domain. But the copyright status does not affect the status as a trademark. Coca Cola is still a strong trademark and there is no cheaply produced low-quality fake counterfeit Cola that tries to ship as Coca Cola. Trademark laws work fine without copyright. The reason why the WMF claims copyright on our logos is, that it's easier to get rid of people who do stuff the WMF doesn't like. Even if that stuff is perfectly legal under trademark law. Let me try to construct an example: A company hosts an evil ad-ridden, malware-infested copy of Wikipedia with a Wikipedia logo on the front page saying all content from Wikipedia [LOGO]. The WMF wants to get rid of it. They sue for trademark infringement. The court decides against the WMF, because it thinks that the Wikipedia logo on the front page will not be understood by readers as affiliation but as a source statement. The WMF can now say Hah, we lost our case, but now we sue them a second time, this time for copyright infringement! So the WMF's copyright claim is a method to have an ace up your sleeve if you're actually in the wrong legally. I don't like the concept. I'd rather see the logos freely licensed. Marcus Buck User:Slomox An'n 03.07.2012 23:29, hett Ilario Valdelli schreven: The trademark doesn't protect only the owner, it can protect also the user. Imagine that a fashion house would release his trademark under free license. Imagine that you buy a Gucci or Armani shirt and you are sure that it's a Gucci or Armani shirt. And you pay as you may pay the original one or probably more. It's look like a high quality product and the trademark looks like the original trademark because it has been released under free license. You are sure that you have in your hand a high quality product, but you have a copy and nothing else, and this copy costs much more than the original. Next time you will not buy a product with this trademark because the trademark cannot assure that you have an original product. On 03.07.2012 23:09, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote: hummm... No! I've read all this, I can give workshops about it, my question is more about values, why not believe in what we preach and release our logos? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 03/07/2012 11:09 AM, Delirium wrote: 1) the sources really are *very* good in that case, not merely ok sources like newspaper articles; My own (admitedly radical) point of view is that popular media - and that includes newspapers nowadays - are not reliable sources at all in the first place. If you use that filter, you suddenly notice most of the more controversial articles (regarding notability) instantly find themselves without sources. I don't believe that's a coincidence. Even at their best, popular media has no interest beyond what's hot and topical at the moment, and attracting eyeballs with sensationalism is paramount -- accuracy be damned if needed. -- Coren / Marc I agree with Marc. The other day, someone said here on the list, It's almost as if what the press say and what the facts are in reality are two different things that have only a very tenuous relationship. This was in reference to reporting on a Wikimedia-related matter. In this field, many Wikimedians recognise readily that media reporting is often inept, and the level of accuracy of the information given to the public is very poor. What people fail to do is to apply this insight to the wider situation. Two of my favourite quotes: ---o0o--- What people outside do not appreciate is that a newspaper is like a soufflé, prepared in a hurry for immediate consumption. This of course is why whenever you read a newspaper account of some event of which you have personal knowledge it is nearly always inadequate or inaccurate. Journalists are as aware as anyone of this defect; it is simply that if the information is to reach as many readers as possible, something less than perfection has often to be accepted. —David E. H. Jones, in New Scientist, Vol. 26 Actually, I'd say newspapers are more like commercial fast-food than soufflé. It isn't just that they are prepared in haste, it is that unwholesome additives and artificial sweeteners are added to true content, in order to make the whole thing more tasty. No one really asks whether the result is edifying or healthy, because it is generally consumed with a pinch of (even more superfluous) salt. —User:Scott MacDonald ---o0o--- What would a Wikipedia look like that did not make use of press sources? It would look a hell of a lot more like an encyclopedia. Thousands of silly arguments would never arise. Thousands of apposite criticisms of Wikipedia would never arise. These are good things. Unfortunately, such a Wikipedia would also have vastly impoverished coverage of popular culture and current affairs. The articles on Lady Gaga and Barack Obama would be years behind events; the articles on the Japan earthquakes, which I believe Wikipedia was widely praised for, would only now begin to be written, articles on many towns and villages would lack colour and detail. If Wikipedia stopped using press sources, you'd have to have a news-based 'pedia somewhere else (and I don't mean Wikinews). ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?
You will have to split between trademark laws and copyright laws. Both concepts exist separately from each other. There are a lot of logos that are not copyright protected. For example very simple text logos, depending on country even more complex logos that don't reach the needed threshold of originality or even works that are by now in public domain. Still this logos and it's use is restricted due to trademark laws. So i don't see a true reason why the Wikipedia logos should not be licensed freely, while trademark laws still apply and we promote free content at the same time. Am 04.07.2012 00:06, schrieb Ilario Valdelli: Again, the logo is a symbol, it's not an image. I don't agree with your concept because you can move the Commons content in another website also commercial. So you should split content and repository. The content may be free, the repository may be not free. Following your concept if a newspaper would use the Commons content, it should release under free license his website, his logo, his content. On 03.07.2012 23:47, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: I don't know how it is handled after US law, but if i consider German law then logos and trademarks are often even in the public domain, but protected as a trademark itself. But i also think that our logo is something to protect while being free at the same time. If we go strictly after the policies the logos aren't free and should be deleted (especially with Commons in mind, because it is violation of the policies ;-) ). This is somehow contradictory to the mission itself. So i can understand the point that Rodrigo put up as well. Am 03.07.2012 23:37, schrieb Ilario Valdelli: A mark is not a simple image. A mark it's a symbol. On 03.07.2012 23:32, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote: So in your view, free images can be harmful? So why would I release a picture? And you're telling me is more important to believe in the logo, instead of checking the validity of what you are consuming? But we do not talk to our volunteers always check the sources and not to believe blindly in a single source? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!
On 4 July 2012 00:04, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with Marc. The other day, someone said here on the list, It's almost as if what the press say and what the facts are in reality are two different things that have only a very tenuous relationship. Yes, in response to you trying to support a claim by reference to a newspaper report. Does that mean you actually changed your mind? Excellent. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:15 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 July 2012 00:04, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with Marc. The other day, someone said here on the list, It's almost as if what the press say and what the facts are in reality are two different things that have only a very tenuous relationship. Yes, in response to you trying to support a claim by reference to a newspaper report. Does that mean you actually changed your mind? Excellent. It's not really what we are talking about here, but – no, actually, I haven't changed my mind, because the press's tendency towards simplification was quite consciously exploited in this case (to link the Wikipedia name to opposition to the extradition of O'Dwyer). The press can be manipulated to all sorts of ends, sacrificing accuracy and nuance in the process. That's precisely the problem. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 03/07/2012 7:04 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: What would a Wikipedia look like that did not make use of press sources? It would look a hell of a lot more like an encyclopedia. Thousands of silly arguments would never arise. Thousands of apposite criticisms of Wikipedia would never arise. These are good things. Unfortunately, such a Wikipedia would also have vastly impoverished coverage of popular culture and current affairs. The articles on Lady Gaga and Barack Obama would be years behind events; the articles on the Japan earthquakes, which I believe Wikipedia was widely praised for, would only now begin to be written, articles on many towns and villages would lack colour and detail. Well, if I were suddenly named dictator of Wikipedia, I'd probably suggest that a recent event namespace be created, where popular media were acceptable sources, and make them verbotten in mainspace. Mainspace articles might have a hatnote with a link to the other namespace along the lines of for recent, less authoritative coverage. We'd have our cake and eat it too. How would you deal with biographies of people like heads of state, who are subjects of serious academic study as well as daily news articles? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!
On 03/07/2012 7:42 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: How would you deal with biographies of people like heads of state, who are subjects of serious academic study as well as daily news articles? There's nothing that prevents a subject from having an article in both namespaces. One can be seen as the complement of the other; mainspace would become more encyclopedic and there would be a neat space where the more recent coverage can be found for further information. It'd only be a matter of educating editors and readers; the mainspace is the most reliable and seriously sourced base of articles, at the cost of being possibly a bit dated or drier. The space below the fold is more timely, and possibly more detailed at the cost of being possibly less reliable. I mean, the whole point is to be able to both have a reliable encyclopedia /and/ have a legitimate place for popular culture coverage and recent information. Readers would have access to both, with a better way of knowing which is which. Not perfect, I know, but I'm pretty sure that would be a long-term win. -- Coren / Marc ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!
On 4 July 2012 00:48, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: There's nothing that prevents a subject from having an article in both namespaces. One can be seen as the complement of the other; mainspace would become more encyclopedic and there would be a neat space where the more recent coverage can be found for further information. We could call it Wikinews. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!
On 03/07/2012 7:49 PM, David Gerard wrote: We could call it Wikinews. Arguably, that was the intent behind that project in the first place. That said, the news article format (as opposed to living prose) is demonstrably not what the readers want - they already voted with their browsers there. And shuffling off to a different project (as opposed to another namespace on the same project) has logistical problems that are hard to overcome - and you want to be sharing infrastructure, rules, editors, et al. -- Coren / Marc ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!
On 4 July 2012 00:49, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 July 2012 00:48, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: There's nothing that prevents a subject from having an article in both namespaces. One can be seen as the complement of the other; mainspace would become more encyclopedic and there would be a neat space where the more recent coverage can be found for further information. We could call it Wikinews. God-dammit, that's my line. ;) Tom ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?
I can't disagree with your understanding of the different IP laws, however this not a very commonly understood nuance. Many people, when seeing the logo listed as free regarding copyright, will assume they can use it the same as any other copyleft or PD image. They will not necessarily understand that trademark protections will interfere with their actually being able to use the symbol as an image. People who mistakenly use the symbol, and receive the required lawyerly letter to stop this, will feel betrayed by the fact it was listed as free of copyright. However strictly accurate the plan to treat the two areas of IP law separately might be, it cannot be executed very well. Those people, misled by their poor understanding of how these separate areas of laws achieve very similar results, will feel burned. Their goodwill will be lost. They may even become convinced they had been intentionally tricked with mixed messages. It much more pragmatic to simply reserve the copyright on trademarks. To maintain a consistent message of Do not use. Birgitte SB On Jul 3, 2012, at 6:06 PM, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote: You will have to split between trademark laws and copyright laws. Both concepts exist separately from each other. There are a lot of logos that are not copyright protected. For example very simple text logos, depending on country even more complex logos that don't reach the needed threshold of originality or even works that are by now in public domain. Still this logos and it's use is restricted due to trademark laws. So i don't see a true reason why the Wikipedia logos should not be licensed freely, while trademark laws still apply and we promote free content at the same time. Am 04.07.2012 00:06, schrieb Ilario Valdelli: Again, the logo is a symbol, it's not an image. I don't agree with your concept because you can move the Commons content in another website also commercial. So you should split content and repository. The content may be free, the repository may be not free. Following your concept if a newspaper would use the Commons content, it should release under free license his website, his logo, his content. On 03.07.2012 23:47, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: I don't know how it is handled after US law, but if i consider German law then logos and trademarks are often even in the public domain, but protected as a trademark itself. But i also think that our logo is something to protect while being free at the same time. If we go strictly after the policies the logos aren't free and should be deleted (especially with Commons in mind, because it is violation of the policies ;-) ). This is somehow contradictory to the mission itself. So i can understand the point that Rodrigo put up as well. Am 03.07.2012 23:37, schrieb Ilario Valdelli: A mark is not a simple image. A mark it's a symbol. On 03.07.2012 23:32, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote: So in your view, free images can be harmful? So why would I release a picture? And you're telling me is more important to believe in the logo, instead of checking the validity of what you are consuming? But we do not talk to our volunteers always check the sources and not to believe blindly in a single source? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: There's nothing that prevents a subject from having an article in both namespaces. One can be seen as the complement of the other; mainspace would become more encyclopedic and there would be a neat space where the more recent coverage can be found for further information. It'd only be a matter of educating editors and readers; the mainspace is the most reliable and seriously sourced base of articles, at the cost of being possibly a bit dated or drier. The space below the fold is more timely, and possibly more detailed at the cost of being possibly less reliable. This is a good idea, and you can take it further, as suggested in the past: we need a space in which one can draft verifiable articles about any topic, without arguments about notability. Just as Wikipedia was a 'simple, unreliable scratch space' to let everyone draft articles for nupedia, we need the same sort of space to let everyone draft articles for [what we currently think of as] wikipedia. SJ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?
We have special templates for this case which prominently inform the user that the image is free due to reason XYZ but can't be used in any context due to additional trademark restrictions. This concept does not only apply to logos or trademarks, but also for public domain cases. Commons hosts images which are public domain in some countries (needs to include US) but not in other countries due to different copyright laws. The same way some language Wikis host content that is free after local law but not after US law. Another case are personal rights. For example the German Recht am eigenen Bild is very restrictive and does not allow any usage of a free image from any person. What i mean is: We already have such restrictions for various images in our collection and the re-user has to be careful to comply with all laws aside the copyright law. Releasing the Logos under a free license and including a template which mentions the restrictions would be common practice. Hosting images with no free license is actual exception. Am 04.07.2012 02:16, schrieb birgitte...@yahoo.com: I can't disagree with your understanding of the different IP laws, however this not a very commonly understood nuance. Many people, when seeing the logo listed as free regarding copyright, will assume they can use it the same as any other copyleft or PD image. They will not necessarily understand that trademark protections will interfere with their actually being able to use the symbol as an image. People who mistakenly use the symbol, and receive the required lawyerly letter to stop this, will feel betrayed by the fact it was listed as free of copyright. However strictly accurate the plan to treat the two areas of IP law separately might be, it cannot be executed very well. Those people, misled by their poor understanding of how these separate areas of laws achieve very similar results, will feel burned. Their goodwill will be lost. They may even become convinced they had been intentionally tricked with mixed messages. It much more pragmatic to simply reserve the copyright on trademarks. To maintain a consistent message of Do not use. Birgitte SB On Jul 3, 2012, at 6:06 PM, Tobias Oelgartetobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote: You will have to split between trademark laws and copyright laws. Both concepts exist separately from each other. There are a lot of logos that are not copyright protected. For example very simple text logos, depending on country even more complex logos that don't reach the needed threshold of originality or even works that are by now in public domain. Still this logos and it's use is restricted due to trademark laws. So i don't see a true reason why the Wikipedia logos should not be licensed freely, while trademark laws still apply and we promote free content at the same time. Am 04.07.2012 00:06, schrieb Ilario Valdelli: Again, the logo is a symbol, it's not an image. I don't agree with your concept because you can move the Commons content in another website also commercial. So you should split content and repository. The content may be free, the repository may be not free. Following your concept if a newspaper would use the Commons content, it should release under free license his website, his logo, his content. On 03.07.2012 23:47, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: I don't know how it is handled after US law, but if i consider German law then logos and trademarks are often even in the public domain, but protected as a trademark itself. But i also think that our logo is something to protect while being free at the same time. If we go strictly after the policies the logos aren't free and should be deleted (especially with Commons in mind, because it is violation of the policies ;-) ). This is somehow contradictory to the mission itself. So i can understand the point that Rodrigo put up as well. Am 03.07.2012 23:37, schrieb Ilario Valdelli: A mark is not a simple image. A mark it's a symbol. On 03.07.2012 23:32, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote: So in your view, free images can be harmful? So why would I release a picture? And you're telling me is more important to believe in the logo, instead of checking the validity of what you are consuming? But we do not talk to our volunteers always check the sources and not to believe blindly in a single source? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?
That reasoning seems to be begging the question a bit. That we should not make an exception so that there will be no exceptions. I suggested some pragmatic reasons why making an exception for these trademarks more successfully communicates the message for reuse than not doing so. And also how an unsuccessful communication on this point could be harmful. You do not seem to argue that any of my reasoning is inaccurate. Do you really find these practical difficulties to be less important than a perfect record of having no exceptions? What purpose do you see in refusing to make an exception where it seems to make practical sense? Something that can't be used in any context can have no possible purpose for a copyright release. So far as I imagine it, such a release would lead to unnecessary confusion (debatable only to what degree) while offering no practical benefit. I am not at all bothered by the fact that maintaining copyrights on trademarks is inconsistent with the copyrights maintained on non-trademarks. I believe consistency to only be a worthwhile goal so long as it tends to promote clarity, which, in this particular case, it does not. I do not find that consistency is inherently desirable. Birgitte SB On Jul 3, 2012, at 8:03 PM, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote: We have special templates for this case which prominently inform the user that the image is free due to reason XYZ but can't be used in any context due to additional trademark restrictions. This concept does not only apply to logos or trademarks, but also for public domain cases. Commons hosts images which are public domain in some countries (needs to include US) but not in other countries due to different copyright laws. The same way some language Wikis host content that is free after local law but not after US law. Another case are personal rights. For example the German Recht am eigenen Bild is very restrictive and does not allow any usage of a free image from any person. What i mean is: We already have such restrictions for various images in our collection and the re-user has to be careful to comply with all laws aside the copyright law. Releasing the Logos under a free license and including a template which mentions the restrictions would be common practice. Hosting images with no free license is actual exception. Am 04.07.2012 02:16, schrieb birgitte...@yahoo.com: I can't disagree with your understanding of the different IP laws, however this not a very commonly understood nuance. Many people, when seeing the logo listed as free regarding copyright, will assume they can use it the same as any other copyleft or PD image. They will not necessarily understand that trademark protections will interfere with their actually being able to use the symbol as an image. People who mistakenly use the symbol, and receive the required lawyerly letter to stop this, will feel betrayed by the fact it was listed as free of copyright. However strictly accurate the plan to treat the two areas of IP law separately might be, it cannot be executed very well. Those people, misled by their poor understanding of how these separate areas of laws achieve very similar results, will feel burned. Their goodwill will be lost. They may even become convinced they had been intentionally tricked with mixed messages. It much more pragmatic to simply reserve the copyright on trademarks. To maintain a consistent message of Do not use. Birgitte SB On Jul 3, 2012, at 6:06 PM, Tobias Oelgartetobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote: You will have to split between trademark laws and copyright laws. Both concepts exist separately from each other. There are a lot of logos that are not copyright protected. For example very simple text logos, depending on country even more complex logos that don't reach the needed threshold of originality or even works that are by now in public domain. Still this logos and it's use is restricted due to trademark laws. So i don't see a true reason why the Wikipedia logos should not be licensed freely, while trademark laws still apply and we promote free content at the same time. Am 04.07.2012 00:06, schrieb Ilario Valdelli: Again, the logo is a symbol, it's not an image. I don't agree with your concept because you can move the Commons content in another website also commercial. So you should split content and repository. The content may be free, the repository may be not free. Following your concept if a newspaper would use the Commons content, it should release under free license his website, his logo, his content. On 03.07.2012 23:47, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: I don't know how it is handled after US law, but if i consider German law then logos and trademarks are often even in the public domain, but protected as a trademark itself. But i also think that our logo is something to protect while
Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!
I love it when individuals decide that they know what is important and worthy of inclusion, as opposed to the mindless masses. Because that's such a healthy way to ensure an open, neutral, and comprehensive encyclopedia. On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Tarc Meridian t...@hotmail.com wrote: I think that is a very dismissive misreading of the discussion. Some people have it in their heads that appears in reliable sources equates to article-worthiness, but the problem here is that the doings of celebrities is covered in excruciating detial by the media, including what tey eat, the clothes they wear, and so on. Same for some politicians, such as every Thanksgiving some poor sod gets to stand outside the White House gate and breathlessly report what is on the President's table, or at XMas the reports of what the First Family bought each other. Reliably sourced? Yes. Encyclopedic worthiness of White House Thanksgiving 2009 Dinner Table ? None at all. Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 12:02:46 +0100 From: t...@tommorris.org To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists! On Tuesday, 3 July 2012 at 10:15, Svip wrote: I can't believe _I_ am not the ultimate ruler on what is valuable enough to get on Wikipedia. It seems most of the delete comments on the Justin Bieber article are mostly people who dislike Justin Bieber. Surely Lady Gaga on Twitter[3] should be deleted as well? Or perhaps that is different, because they like Lady Gaga more than they like Justin Bieber. [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Gaga_on_Twitter To be fair, 'Ashton Kutcher on Twitter' is also up for deletion too. In both the Kutcher and Bieber case, there's a lot of I don't like it, therefore it can't be notable! I just cannot see any legitimate argument for deletion being presented. They all basically boil down to don't like it! -- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!
Just think, in a few years we can set up the site to construct drafts for the site that constructs drafts for Wikipedia. On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: There's nothing that prevents a subject from having an article in both namespaces. One can be seen as the complement of the other; mainspace would become more encyclopedic and there would be a neat space where the more recent coverage can be found for further information. It'd only be a matter of educating editors and readers; the mainspace is the most reliable and seriously sourced base of articles, at the cost of being possibly a bit dated or drier. The space below the fold is more timely, and possibly more detailed at the cost of being possibly less reliable. This is a good idea, and you can take it further, as suggested in the past: we need a space in which one can draft verifiable articles about any topic, without arguments about notability. Just as Wikipedia was a 'simple, unreliable scratch space' to let everyone draft articles for nupedia, we need the same sort of space to let everyone draft articles for [what we currently think of as] wikipedia. SJ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
