Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copy and Paste Detection Bot
Thanks James Just out of curiosity, the other day I found two articles with a long section with identical wording, only names and numbers had been changed. Example: The town of ... has a population of .. . The town is know for its challenges in fighting poverty. According to local authorities, trhey have undertaken housing and sanitation projects bla bla bla. When I queried it, the author of the earlier article responded to say that 'it was acceptable' so that beginners could find it easier to start writing articles. From that I dug deeper and discovered that he had tutored the writer of the derived article. Regards, and a great weekend, Rui 2015-04-04 3:49 GMT+02:00 James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com: 1) Yes the source code is available. User:Eran has posted it here https://github.com/valhallasw/plagiabot 2) This bot ONLY works on new edits within a couple of hours of them occurring. This reducing the number of false positives. It DOES NOT look at old edits. 3) This requires human follow up and common sense. One needs to make sure that a) the source is not PD/CCBYSA b) that it is not wiki text that has been moved around c) that the authors of both are not the same, etc 4) True positive rate is around 50% which is from my perspective good / useful. This bot has flagged a lot of copyright issues would have been missed otherwise. -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- _ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186 Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186 ___ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] The Signpost -- Volume 11, Issue 13 -- 01 April 2015
Broken link to single page view Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Wikipedia Signpost Sent: 03 April 2015 06:42 AM To: wikimediaannounce-l Subject: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] The Signpost -- Volume 11, Issue 13 -- 01 April 2015 In focus: WMF's latest strategy document shows successes, vagueness, and the need for better data http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-04-01/In_focus In the media: Wiki-PR duo bulldoze a piñata store; Wifione arbitration case; French parliamentary plagiarism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-04-01/In_the_media Traffic report: All over the place http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-04-01/Traffic_report Featured content: Stop Press. ''Marie Celeste'' Mystery Solved. Crew Found Hiding In Wardrobe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-04-01/Featured_content Single page view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2015-04-01 PDF version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-04-01 https://www.facebook.com/wikisignpost / https://twitter.com/wikisignpost -- Wikipedia Signpost Staff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement: WMF to file suit against the NSA
I appreciate Andreas keeping this list updated, and it is not tangential but central to this thread's topic. It is very pertinent that the self-appointed spokesperson of this community (who has styled himself in this NSA suit as a worrier for freedom) was snuggling up to a truly despotic regime, helping to polish that turd in the international media and endorsing it's capture of one of the Wikipedias. (What's been done about that, by the way? Anything?) And it is pertinent that our self-appointed spokesperson has finally climbed down from that position ... to a slight degree ... at least when he's backed into a corner and forced to confront his embarrassing misstep. Kazakhstan is not the USA, but the US government is not the only one abusing the privacy of Wikipedia editors and readers. The question in parenthesis above is a serious one. What actual steps has the foundation taken to address the capture of Kazakh Wikipedia by the Kazakh government? Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote: Okay, but seriously, please stop resurrecting this thread. If you think it's important that something be done, start a new one, and *actually suggest something* rather than just copying articles from somewhere else. Austin On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:58 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Article in Eurasianet today: Wikipedia Founder Distances Himself from Kazakhstan PR Machine http://www.eurasianet.org/node/72831 ---o0o--- [...] On March 20, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales hosted an Ask Me Anything http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2zpkxx/we_are_jameel_jaffer_of_the_aclu_wikipedia/cpl4maq conversation (AMA) on Reddit, a social-networking platform. Before long the audience was questioning Wales’s and Wikipedia’s roles in helping to improve Kazakhstan’s image. Back in 2011, Wales awarded http://www.eurasianet.org/node/66343 a once-and-future Kazakh government employee, Rauan Kenzhekhanuly, the inaugural “Wikipedian of the Year” for his work with WikiBilim, a Kazakh-language platform criticized both for receiving state funds and for publishing multiple articles toeing the authoritarian government’s line. At the time, Wales told EurasiaNet.org, “As far as I know, the WikiBilim organization is not politicized.” But during the AMA, Wales backpedaled on his decision to name Kenzhekhanuly the first Wikipedian of the Year. Wales was on the receiving end of a fresh round of criticism last year when Kenzhekhanuly was named deputy governor of Kazakhstan’s Kyzylorda region. During the AMA, a commenter asked Wales if he would have bestowed the award had he known Kenzhekhanuly would go on to serve as deputy governor. “If I had known in 2011 that someone would get a job that I disapprove of in 2014, would I refuse to give them an award in 2011?” Wales responded. “Yes, I would have refused to give that award.” Wales also clarified that Kenzhekhanuly “was not a government official” at the time of the award – which is, technically, true. However, according to Kenzhekhanuly’s LinkedIn profile https://www.linkedin.com/pub/rauan-kenzhekhanuly/24/8b7/b16, before receiving the award he had served both as a policy adviser to the governor in Kazakhstan’s Mangystau region, as well as first secretary at Kazakhstan’s embassy in Moscow. After the AMA, Wales said by email that he was “not aware” Kenzhekhanuly had held those positions. [...] ---o0o--- ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] Regarding knowledge
(I just posted this with bad formatting. Would a moderator please delete that earlier version?) Among my friends and acquaintances, everybody distrusts Wikipedia and everybody uses it. — Freeman Dyson, How We Know The New York Review of Books, 10 March 2011. (Discussing recent UK survey results.) We're trusted slightly more than the BBC. Now, that's a little scary, and probably inappropriate. ... We all know it's flawed. We all know we don't do as good a job as we wish we could do ... People trusted Encyclopedia Britannica - I think it was, like - 20 points ahead of us. — Jimmy Wales, State of the Wiki Wikimania speech, 10 August 2014. The Wikimedia Foundation vision: Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. But knowledge of something implies confidence in its accuracy. While Wikipedia is untrustworthy, it is purveying something other than knowledge. This is a problem for the foundation, since it is failing to realise its vision - and for humankind, who deserves an encyclopaedia it can trust. It is also a critical, existential vulnerability for Wikipedia. Google is factoring trustworthiness into its ranking algorithm.[1][2] It has already stopped using Wikipedia's medical articles in its knowledge graph. Rightly. Soon we'll see Wikipedia's medical content (rightly) demoted from (often) the top search result to 5th or 10th - or oblivion (rightly) on page two. The recently released State of the Wikimedia Foundation 2015 Call to Action [3] lists a set of objectives. One of the items under the heading Focus on knowledge community is Improve our measures of community health and content quality, and fund effective community and content initiatives. The quality parameter that most needs measuring and improving is reliability/trustworthiness - if we take the survival of Wikipedia as an important goal. *Will the Foundation be funding any staff positions whose purpose is to measure the quality of the encyclopedia and nurture strategic initiatives specifically aimed at making Wikipedia an encyclopedia people can trust?* Five years ago the Wikimedia Movement Strategic Plan [4] resolved to measure and measurably improve the quality of our offering, and no resources were allocated and it did not happen. 1. Hal Hodson 28 February 2015 Google wants to rank websites based on facts not links New Scientist 2. Hal Hodson 20 August 2014 Google's fact-checking bots build vast knowledge bank New Scientist 3. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/State_of_the_Wikimedia_Foundation#2015_Call_to_Action 4. https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strategic_Plan_Summary/Improve_Quality Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships
hi mike, while i love irony, and value your opinion a lot, i find the tone of this email a little harsh, not to call it unfair. net neutrality targets censorship in some countries, but price to access internet in most countries, which is antitrust or competition law. You are well known for free speech advocacy, and beeing libertarian. Per definition of this you are one of the last persons on this globe I d seek advise for antitrust law and net neutrality. But at the same time you d be one of the first persons I d love to discuss this matter with. BTW, the U.S. federal communications achievement for this can be judged according the price the U.S. american clients pay for mobile internet services and its quality. they can write as many and as lengthy documents as they want, what they reached up to now is a shame for the country which created the internet, if what is written by the ITU is true [0]. as i am not a professional in this business and surely lack global knowledge i would love to get a different angle on that as well. with a lot of joy i am looking forward to your article. my personal impression is that the price is ok when 3 factors are given: first, at least four competitors in the market having to cover the whole area, two, net neutrality, and three, appropriate connection to the internet. i base this assumption from comparing austria and switzerland, both mountainous, land locked, 8 mio people, switzerland having half he surface of austria, and three times more expensive mobile data rates. austria had four competitors (now only three and prices rising), switzerland three. i cannot judge what happens in asia where indonesia looks better positioned than philippines, and africa, where eg ghana has 5 competitors, nigeria four [1][2][3] which both look in a better position than others. a couple of links: [0] http://gizmodo.com/the-price-of-500mb-of-mobile-data-across-the-world-1442047579 [1] e.g. p 100 on https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/publications/mis2013/MIS2013_without_Annex_4.pdf [2] http://technologytimes.ng/again-glo-wins-lead-over-airtel-in-telecoms-market-share-duel/ [3] http://www.nca.org.gh/40/105/Market-Share-Statistics.html rupert On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:54 AM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: Andreas writes: Prominent organisations campaigning for a free and open web very strongly disagree with your view. I said there are no facts, and you responded by citing opinion pieces. That's cool, but opinions are not themselves facts. Furthermore, in some circles, I've been considered from time to time to be someone prominent whose entire career has been dedicated to a free and open web. If you're suggesting that everyone -- or even everyone prominent -- who believes in a free and open web very strongly disagrees with me, then you are misinformed. There is an honest difference of opinion about what the developing world needs first. And, in my experience, it is only individuals in developed, industrialized countries with very little direct knowledge about the infrastructural and access challenges in developing countries who imagine that zero-rated services are categorically a threat to a free and open web. I've actually written about this issue at length, and will be publishing another article on the issue next week. I'll post the link here when I have it. Whether the U.S. government's Federal Communications is not itself a prominent organization that has committed itself to a free and open web is a proposition worth challenging is, of course, up to you. But I hope you don't expect such a challenge to be taken seriously. I know the FCC's new Report and Order on net neutrality is a very long (400-page) document, and there is of course no requirement that you actually have read it (much less some appreciable fraction of the comments that led to it). But I've done so. The FCC expressly refused to adopt the categorical, simplistic, binary approach you have posted here. My friends and colleagues at EFF, Access Now, and elsewhere -- as well as individual scholars and commentators like Marvin Ammori -- know me, and they know why I differ with them about this stuff. What I have explained to them is that my experiences of working with in-country NGOs in the developing world (who don't, in fact, disagree with me about this) have shaped my opinion. If your own experience in working on access issues in (say) Africa or Southeast Asia is stronger than my own, I'd be more likely to be persuaded by your, uh, original research than by your effort to selectively adduce footnotes in support of your assertions. At least that's my inclination after a quarter of a century of working for internet freedom. (I was the first employee at EFF, where I worked for nine years.) The Access Now editorial, in particular, was drafted by someone who had not been open to discussing why it doesn't make sense to describe Wikipedia Zero as having forged
[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Armenia
The review of the proposals for the six applicants for FDC round 2 is now open [1]. I have just reviewed a few of them and are utterly impressed by the proposal from WIkimedia Armenia [2]. And the promotional video they attach [3] is the best promotional video I have ever seen from the movement, Enjoy it and remember (again) the strength of our vision and mission! Anders [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round2 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round2/Wikimedia_Armenia/Proposal_form [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_in_Ayb_High_School.ogv ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships
Rupert Thurner writes: while i love irony, and value your opinion a lot, i find the tone of this email a little harsh, not to call it unfair. I'm strangely untroubled by harsh, but I'm glad you don't call it unfair. I don't think I was unfair. Besides, when someone is as insignificant as I am, especially in comparison to what the weighty opinion-makers at what Andreas calls prominent organizations, one has to speak with a little more bite. You are well known for free speech advocacy, and beeing libertarian. I'm not a libertarian, as those who know me personally can attest. Many things that are well-known are untrue, and this is one of them. Yes, I'm a *civil libertarian*, and I work with libertarians quite often (I work with folks of other political views as well), but the only people who know me to be libertarian are people who don't know me at all. My politics, to the extent that they can be easily characterized by people who don't know me personally, might be best described as reflexively pro-Labour (to someone in the UK) or social democrat (to someone elsewhere in the EU) or yellow-dog Democrat (to someone in the American South). Per definition of this you are one of the last persons on this globe I d seek advise for antitrust law and net neutrality. Perhaps you should reason less per definition and reason more from actual facts about what my beliefs actually are. You don't actually seem to know what my politics are. So I imagine you couldn't know that I happen to think the FCC's Report and Order is pretty good, in general, and, speaking personally, I'm pleased to see these network neutrality obligations imposed -- with an express refusal to make categorical judgments about zero-rated services, including Wikipedia Zero. i cannot judge what happens in asia where indonesia looks better positioned than philippines, and africa, where eg ghana has 5 competitors, nigeria four [1][2][3] which both look in a better position than others. Data costs in the Philippines are remarkably high, and penetration to rural areas (and islands) is low. Indonesia does a little better, not least because the problem of reaching higher percentages of the population (at lower cost) is particularly pronounced in Indonesia (every place in Indonesia is really far from every other place). As for Africa: it's a big continent (as is Asia, of course). Nigeria and Ghana are not typical. Once the folks who preach about net-neutrality-with-no-exceptions get out to developing countries and do some actual development work with local NGOs, their notions about network neutrality and development may change. But I'm perpetually bemused by individuals in developed countries who imagine that the world is better off if would-be Wikipedians have to pay extra for the privilege of reading and editing Wikipedia articles (which is apparently what opponents of Wikipedia Zero want). --Mike ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] Regarding knowledge
Among my friends and acquaintances, everybody distrusts Wikipedia and everybody uses it. — Freeman Dyson, How We Know http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/mar/10/how-we-know/ *The New York Review of Books*, 10 March 2011. (Discussing recent UK survey results.) We're trusted slightly more than the BBC. Now, that's a little scary, and probably inappropriate. ... *We* all know it's flawed. *We* all know we don't do as good a job as we wish we could do ... People trusted *Encyclopedia Britannica* - I think it was, like - 20 points ahead of us. — Jimmy Wales, State of the Wiki http://new.livestream.com/wikimania/sunday2014 Wikimania speech, 10 August 2014. The Wikimedia Foundation vision: Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. But knowledge of something implies confidence in its accuracy. While Wikipedia is untrustworthy, it is purveying something other than knowledge. This is a problem for the foundation, since it is failing to realise its vision - and for humankind, who deserves an encyclopaedia it can trust. It is also a critical, existential vulnerability for Wikipedia. Google is factoring trustworthiness into its ranking algorithm. It has already stopped using Wikipedia's medical articles in its knowledge graph. Rightly. Soon we'll see Wikipedia's medical content (rightly) demoted from (often) the top search result to 5th or 10th - or oblivion (rightly) on page two. The recently released State of the Wikimedia Foundation 2015 Call to Action [3] lists a set of objectives. One of the items under the heading *Focus on knowledge community* is Improve our measures of community health and content quality, and fund effective community and content initiatives. The quality parameter that most needs measuring and improving is reliability/trustworthiness - if we take the survival of Wikipedia as an important goal. Will the Foundation be *funding any staff positions* whose purpose is to measure the quality of the encyclopedia and nurture strategic initiatives specifically aimed at making Wikipedia an encyclopedia people can trust? Five years ago the Wikimedia Movement Strategic Plan [4] resolved to measure and measurably improve the quality of our offering, and no resources were allocated and it did not happen. 1. Hal Hodson 28 February 2015 Google wants to rank websites based on facts not links http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530102.600-google-wants-to-rank-websites-based-on-facts-not-links.html#.VPNoi-HQOtt *New Scientist* 2. Hal Hodson 20 August 2014 Google's fact-checking bots build vast knowledge bank http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329832.700-googles-factchecking-bots-build-vast-knowledge-bank.html#.VPNqO-HQOts *New Scientist* 3. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/State_of_the_Wikimedia_Foundation#2015_Call_to_Action 4. https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strategic_Plan_Summary/Improve_Quality Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships
Hoi, Reliable is not an absolute. Wikipedia is in the final analysis an encyclopaedia. It is not original research. Studies have indicated that Wikipedia is as reliable as its competitors. Wikipedia does link ever more to the VIAF indicators by the OCLC and thereby it links to the sum of all knowledge as it is available in libraries. I think you have it backward. Given that Wikipedia is best of breed, people do care about Wikipedia Zero. It is why Wikipedia Zero is not part of any walled garden; it is there for every company who cares to provide it free of charge. For the rest I find that I am getting annoyed. Thanks, GerardM On 5 April 2015 at 01:52, Anthony Cole ahcole...@gmail.com wrote: No one would care about Wikipedia Zero if Wikipedia was a reliable source. Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 1:44 AM, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Andreas, 2015-04-02 18:25 GMT+02:00 Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com: On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-04-02 15:16 GMT+02:00 Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com: As mentioned previously, what I have seen is recent additions to Internet.org, describing Internet.org app launches bundling Wikipedia Zero and Facebook Zero (along with a small and varying number of other sites) in the following countries: I need another clarification. As far as I know (and I recall a question in the board QA at Wikimania in London), it's internet.org making available Wikipedia content (as per the license) on their app. It is not an initiative of the Wikimedia Foundation and (therefore) it is not related to Wikipedia Zero. Also, internet.org/Facebook can do this thanks to our license (more below). Unless something changed in the last months you can not say that Wikipedia Zero is bundled with Facebook Zero. [...] Note that Facebook actually seems to contain a complete mirror of Wikipedia, judging by the presence of even fairly obscure Wikipedia articles on its pages (selected using Random article). See e.g. This is failry old news, these pages exists since 2010: https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/21721 Given the limitations Wikipedia Zero users labour under, it is actually fairly immaterial to users whether they see the Wikipedia article in Facebook Zero or Wikipedia Zero. The key difference is that in Facebook Zero, they will not see Wikipedia's logo and fundraising banners. (They also can't see the talk pages in Facebook.) They will have a less clear impression of Wikipedia's brand, and the whole thing will still primarily be a Facebook experience to them. I see the problem, but this is not related at all with Net Neutrality. This is what you can do with any free/libre content. There is no way to stop Facebook (or Flickr [sic et simpliciter]) from reusing our content. Let me quote SJ (again from the Board QA in London) Please reuse our content. There should be as few limitations as possible to reusing the content, in principle. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia for this very exact reason after all. Even in a world with the strongest possible Net Neutrality laws in force Facebook will be able to do this. Let me weigh in another argument, I know that the idea of a Public space on the internet is accepted even in the framework of Net Neutrality. The idea is that some list of websites that offer public services (e.g. government websites, public libraries websites, schools and universities websites) should always be accessible with no charge. In this view Wikipedia could be included in the list as an educational non-profit (other projects may also be included, e. g. the Khan Academy). Wikimedia Foundation, in this sense, is leading by example. C ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships
Hi Andreas, 2015-04-02 18:25 GMT+02:00 Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com: On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-04-02 15:16 GMT+02:00 Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com: As mentioned previously, what I have seen is recent additions to Internet.org, describing Internet.org app launches bundling Wikipedia Zero and Facebook Zero (along with a small and varying number of other sites) in the following countries: I need another clarification. As far as I know (and I recall a question in the board QA at Wikimania in London), it's internet.org making available Wikipedia content (as per the license) on their app. It is not an initiative of the Wikimedia Foundation and (therefore) it is not related to Wikipedia Zero. Also, internet.org/Facebook can do this thanks to our license (more below). Unless something changed in the last months you can not say that Wikipedia Zero is bundled with Facebook Zero. [...] Note that Facebook actually seems to contain a complete mirror of Wikipedia, judging by the presence of even fairly obscure Wikipedia articles on its pages (selected using Random article). See e.g. This is failry old news, these pages exists since 2010: https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/21721 Given the limitations Wikipedia Zero users labour under, it is actually fairly immaterial to users whether they see the Wikipedia article in Facebook Zero or Wikipedia Zero. The key difference is that in Facebook Zero, they will not see Wikipedia's logo and fundraising banners. (They also can't see the talk pages in Facebook.) They will have a less clear impression of Wikipedia's brand, and the whole thing will still primarily be a Facebook experience to them. I see the problem, but this is not related at all with Net Neutrality. This is what you can do with any free/libre content. There is no way to stop Facebook (or Flickr [sic et simpliciter]) from reusing our content. Let me quote SJ (again from the Board QA in London) Please reuse our content. There should be as few limitations as possible to reusing the content, in principle. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia for this very exact reason after all. Even in a world with the strongest possible Net Neutrality laws in force Facebook will be able to do this. Let me weigh in another argument, I know that the idea of a Public space on the internet is accepted even in the framework of Net Neutrality. The idea is that some list of websites that offer public services (e.g. government websites, public libraries websites, schools and universities websites) should always be accessible with no charge. In this view Wikipedia could be included in the list as an educational non-profit (other projects may also be included, e. g. the Khan Academy). Wikimedia Foundation, in this sense, is leading by example. C ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships
No one would care about Wikipedia Zero if Wikipedia was a reliable source. Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 1:44 AM, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Andreas, 2015-04-02 18:25 GMT+02:00 Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com: On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-04-02 15:16 GMT+02:00 Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com: As mentioned previously, what I have seen is recent additions to Internet.org, describing Internet.org app launches bundling Wikipedia Zero and Facebook Zero (along with a small and varying number of other sites) in the following countries: I need another clarification. As far as I know (and I recall a question in the board QA at Wikimania in London), it's internet.org making available Wikipedia content (as per the license) on their app. It is not an initiative of the Wikimedia Foundation and (therefore) it is not related to Wikipedia Zero. Also, internet.org/Facebook can do this thanks to our license (more below). Unless something changed in the last months you can not say that Wikipedia Zero is bundled with Facebook Zero. [...] Note that Facebook actually seems to contain a complete mirror of Wikipedia, judging by the presence of even fairly obscure Wikipedia articles on its pages (selected using Random article). See e.g. This is failry old news, these pages exists since 2010: https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/21721 Given the limitations Wikipedia Zero users labour under, it is actually fairly immaterial to users whether they see the Wikipedia article in Facebook Zero or Wikipedia Zero. The key difference is that in Facebook Zero, they will not see Wikipedia's logo and fundraising banners. (They also can't see the talk pages in Facebook.) They will have a less clear impression of Wikipedia's brand, and the whole thing will still primarily be a Facebook experience to them. I see the problem, but this is not related at all with Net Neutrality. This is what you can do with any free/libre content. There is no way to stop Facebook (or Flickr [sic et simpliciter]) from reusing our content. Let me quote SJ (again from the Board QA in London) Please reuse our content. There should be as few limitations as possible to reusing the content, in principle. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia for this very exact reason after all. Even in a world with the strongest possible Net Neutrality laws in force Facebook will be able to do this. Let me weigh in another argument, I know that the idea of a Public space on the internet is accepted even in the framework of Net Neutrality. The idea is that some list of websites that offer public services (e.g. government websites, public libraries websites, schools and universities websites) should always be accessible with no charge. In this view Wikipedia could be included in the list as an educational non-profit (other projects may also be included, e. g. the Khan Academy). Wikimedia Foundation, in this sense, is leading by example. C ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
