Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 136, Issue 47
Fantastic news and long overdue - I hope the women editors will receive all the support they need. On 19 July 2015 at 14:43, wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org You can reach the person managing the list at wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest... Today's Topics: 1. Re: Recognition of WikiWomen's User Group (Katherine Casey) 2. Geohack (Nou Nouill) 3. press edit in facebook to edit wikipedia, how many? (rupert THURNER) 4. Re: 400 days of lila tretikov and 60 million dollars spent - where is mobile editing? (rupert THURNER) 5. Re: Recognition of WikiWomen's User Group (Jan-Bart de Vreede) 6. Re: Recognition of WikiWomen's User Group (Shlomi Fish) 7. Re: Recognition of Wikimedia Community UG Belarus (Raymond Leonard) 8. Re: Recognition of Iranian Wikimedians UG (Raymond Leonard) -- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 08:36:19 -0400 From: Katherine Casey fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Recognition of WikiWomen's User Group Message-ID: CA+arXE_-G1MVF38+ephoNvFAb6TweHc-qj8uznRQ= uepv1g...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Awesome news, I'm always glad to see more efforts to be welcoming to women! -- Message: 2 Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 14:26:30 +0200 From: Nou Nouill nounou...@gmail.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Geohack Message-ID: caa6runxjbkg1uted9ajs9u2-nxbckkaybvpftcjcv+qxqpr...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi ! So today Geohack don't work few hours, once gain. It has been many times that Geohack is down these last months (and years). The previous issue was linked with the Tools labs problems (but not today, Tools Labs was working). In addition to that maintenance problem, I don't see Geohack evolve those last years. The tool have a old design. It has different configurations for each language, so when a user do translation, he has to adapt to each configuration. Moreover, in plenty of language, Geohack have long lists of hundred links, with lot of useless links, because languages communities want to describe exhaustively web mappings service. So the presentation of Geohack is often very weighed down. For me, Geohack is the more useful tools on Tools Labs with a massive visibility for the viewers (each coordinate on WM use Geohack and there are several hundred thousands coordinates). Geohack is also use by contributors (when I translate a article with a coordinate, It's usually more practice to check coordinate in Geohack). So, I want to ask if the Foundation have a plan to improve Geohack ? I have the impression when I see https://tools.wmflabs.org that Geohack was mainly maintain by volunteer, but for me Geohack is a core item of the Wikimedia sphere. So I don't understand that situation since few years. I hope it's the place to do this comment. Nouill. -- Message: 3 Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 15:02:37 +0200 From: rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] press edit in facebook to edit wikipedia, how many? Message-ID: cajs9az-ass4+f5y8jerktmbfgsqjyszmoizgouvqdcgtwh_...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 hi, for the first time i tried pressing edit in facebook and came out in the wiki-text editor. are there statistics available how many persons come along this way? best, rupert -- Message: 4 Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 15:12:35 +0200 From: rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, Dan Garry dga...@wikimedia.org, Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] 400 days of lila tretikov and 60 million dollars spent - where is mobile editing? Message-ID: CAJs9aZ8mBiHgiK3VZ3Axhx= sk8wy7aakvtmtkkmmvw_qnzo...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 i created two tasks in phabricator for it, hope that is ok like this: * https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T106266 * https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T106267 i did not find the correct project though? best, rupert On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 11:02 PM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote: hi dan, many
[Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images for the wikimedia foundation and then suing users
hi, may i propose to fix the attribution problem for the one common use case do it like wikipedia does. somebody who refers to images from commons like wikipedia does it should be on legal safe grounds. there is a recent incident of non-wiki-love where user harald bischoff states comes into situations where pictures for the WMF are created, here: https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer:Haraldbischoffdiff=prevoldid=143679802 komme ich regelmässig in Situationen in denen auch das eine oder andere Foto für die wikimedia-foundation harald bischoff then uploads these pictures with cc-by-sa-3.0 license, and sues users who use such fotos. the complaint here from a blogger who paid 900 euro, who used a foto, with backlink to commons, and attributing in mouseover: http://diefreiheitsliebe.de/politik/in-eigener-sache-fast-900-euro-verlust-die-freiheitsliebe-wurde-abgemahnt/ what i would really love to see is that wikipedia is the role model, i.e. wikipedia refers the pictures as they should be referred by any website. the distinction because wikipedia is owned by wmf we refer differently to commons than anybody else needs to go away imo. be it only for the educational effect. personally i do not understand why a link to the works is not good enough as attribution. i thought cc-by-sa 4.0 fixes this problem anyway? to summarize, i propose to legalize the use case do it as wikipedia does when attributing images. to make the site look good anyway we should either fix the software, or the license. best, rupert ___ 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] Recognition of WikiWomen's User Group
Congratulations! On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Carlos M. Colina ma...@wikimedia.org.ve wrote: Dear all, I am pleased and honoured to announce on behalf of the Affiliations Committe the recognition [1] of a new member of the family of Wikimedia affiliates: The WikiWomen's User Group. Among their goals are providing a collaborative space for women to work on projects, discuss gender-related issues (but not limited to) and work towards the increase in content and contributor diversity. Please, join us in welcoming them!! :-) 1: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Resolutions/WikiWomen's_User_Group_-_Liaison_approval,_July_2015 -- *Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain. Carlos M. Colina Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.wikimedia.org.ve http://wikimedia.org.ve Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee Phone: +972-52-4869915 Twitter: @maor_x ___ 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 -- *Isabella Apriyana* *Sekretaris Jendral **(Secretary General)* *Wikimedia Indonesia* Seluler +6281213700084 Surel isabella.apriy...@wikimedia.or.id Dukung upaya kami membebaskan pengetahuan! http://wikimedia.or.id/wiki/Wikimedia_Indonesia:Donasi Support us to free the knowledge! http://wikimedia.or.id/wiki/Wikimedia_Indonesia:Donasi ___ 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] harald bischoff advertising to make images for the wikimedia foundation and then suing users
I would agree - it has annoyed me for years that on Dutch Wikipedia, if you use a painting image from Commons in an article, you may attribute the painter (though it's not required) but you may NOT attribute the painting's owner (often a museum and this seems ridiculous to me). I agree we should reopen the discussion about image attributions on all projects. On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:07 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote: hi, may i propose to fix the attribution problem for the one common use case do it like wikipedia does. somebody who refers to images from commons like wikipedia does it should be on legal safe grounds. there is a recent incident of non-wiki-love where user harald bischoff states comes into situations where pictures for the WMF are created, here: https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer:Haraldbischoffdiff=prevoldid=143679802 komme ich regelmässig in Situationen in denen auch das eine oder andere Foto für die wikimedia-foundation harald bischoff then uploads these pictures with cc-by-sa-3.0 license, and sues users who use such fotos. the complaint here from a blogger who paid 900 euro, who used a foto, with backlink to commons, and attributing in mouseover: http://diefreiheitsliebe.de/politik/in-eigener-sache-fast-900-euro-verlust-die-freiheitsliebe-wurde-abgemahnt/ what i would really love to see is that wikipedia is the role model, i.e. wikipedia refers the pictures as they should be referred by any website. the distinction because wikipedia is owned by wmf we refer differently to commons than anybody else needs to go away imo. be it only for the educational effect. personally i do not understand why a link to the works is not good enough as attribution. i thought cc-by-sa 4.0 fixes this problem anyway? to summarize, i propose to legalize the use case do it as wikipedia does when attributing images. to make the site look good anyway we should either fix the software, or the license. best, rupert ___ 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] harald bischoff advertising to make images for the wikimedia foundation and then suing users
What do you mean by legalize? The license is what the license is, while we might influence future versions of the license, we don't really control how current licenses are interpreted. That is an issue for the courts. There is a modest ambiguity in CC BY-SA 3.0 about the attribution clauses (e.g. you must ... provide attribution and license information) that at least allows for an argument that reusers should be personally providing author and license information. In CC BY-SA 4.0, clauses were added to make explicit that linking to a page that includes that information is sufficient (at least in cases where using a hyperlink is reasonable). I am unaware of any legal cases that have actually delved into the issue of what is sufficient attribution, which in practice means we don't really know how the attribution requirements will be applied by the courts. In practice, most people are friendly about it and publishers work with content creators (within reason) to satisfy the creator's expectations about attribution. However, this would not be the first case of a publisher getting and paying a monetary demand on the basis of not meeting a content creator's expectations about attribution. Are you suggesting that we stop using older CC licenses (and GFDL, etc.) that don't explicitly say that a hyperlink to the source can be sufficient attribution? If not, what are you actually asking for? ___ 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 Foundation quarterly reviews for April-June 2015
Indeed, as Kirill says, the grants process is owned by the WMF (albeit one hosted on Meta), not by the community, so I'm not sure why the Meta community needs to get involved. It actually seems to me that the foundation wiki would be a better home for processes like this so that community bureaucracy can be avoided, but since the events of a couple of years ago that seems like it's not a plausible option in the short term. I do have to say I'm a bit disappointed that a lot of the negative feedback that certain aspects of the friendly space policy got from the GAC seem to have been handwaved away; with its feeble provisions for enforcement, it seems like the sort of policy you have when you want to look like you're doing something about a problem, without actually taking responsibility, or addressing the difficult root causes that caused the issue in the first place. If saying no to harassment in WMF processes isn't worth upturning a few apple carts over, then what is? I do hope that the Community department will have a change of heart and take a much harder line against offwiki harassment, starting from here. On a completely different note, I do hope that the legal team will share their protocol for appearance (or threat of it) at events by banned users. I've been given softly-softly unofficial advice before on the expectations if globally banned users show up at a community event, but it would be good if this could be made available for everyone that wants to hold an event where there is a chance that banned or otherwise problematic individuals might show up, so as to ensure a consistent approach. Cheers, Craig On 20 July 2015 at 07:15, Kirill Lokshin kirill.loks...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: 1. Will the friendly-space expectations (policy?) for grants spaces on Meta be proposed as an RfC on Meta? The documentation on the rollout plan doesn't mention and RfC. My understanding is that the right way to implement a policy change like this on Meta is for it to go through an open and transparent RfC process, and that the implementation decision is ultimately the community's to make. The experience would inform further discussions about (1) a project-wide friendly space policy on Meta, and (2) a wider consultation on a friendly space amendment to the ToS that the WMF Board may eventually ratify. I don't see any reason why an RFC would be required (or appropriate) here. The grantmaking process is a WMF function, and the associated pages on meta are managed by the WMF grantmaking team; they are free to impose requirements (such as compliance with a friendly space standard) on anyone participating in that process (whether as an applicant or as a commenter or reviewer). Kirill ___ 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] Book Grant program
Is the omission of sister projects (Commons, Species, Wiktionary) intentional? On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Tito Dutta trulyt...@gmail.com wrote: That's great. :) if you add something for queries please contact joh@example.org or something like that on the Book Grant page too ( http://wikimediadc.org/wiki/Book_Grants), non-members and non mailing list readers can easily contact from there. On 19 July 2015 at 22:15, Keilana keilanaw...@gmail.com wrote: Announcing: Wikimedia DC's Exciting New Program: BOOK GRANTS! http://wikimediadc.org/wiki/Book_Grants We are offering book grants to people in the United States to support their editing. Please contact me at keilanaw...@gmail.com if you have any questions. -Emily Temple-Wood ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@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 -- Dennis C. During ___ 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 Foundation quarterly reviews for April-June 2015
I agree that if the grants discussions were on Foundation wiki that WMF staff would have more leeway to make decisions without going through the Board or community. It seems to me that Meta is a community project wiki that is governed by community leadership and community content moderation, and it would be scope creep for WMF to control portions of Meta. Especially if the intention is for grants processes to be community led, then community process should be followed. (In general I would like to see more community leadership for Community Resources processes and for WMF to have a support/backstop role. This worked well in IEGCom when I was on that committee, and I appreciate the very cooperative relationship that we had with Siko.) Being lax on enforcement provisions for a friendly space policy is something that the community could address if a friendly space policy goes through an RfC. Thanks, Pine On Jul 20, 2015 4:14 AM, Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.net wrote: Indeed, as Kirill says, the grants process is owned by the WMF (albeit one hosted on Meta), not by the community, so I'm not sure why the Meta community needs to get involved. It actually seems to me that the foundation wiki would be a better home for processes like this so that community bureaucracy can be avoided, but since the events of a couple of years ago that seems like it's not a plausible option in the short term. I do have to say I'm a bit disappointed that a lot of the negative feedback that certain aspects of the friendly space policy got from the GAC seem to have been handwaved away; with its feeble provisions for enforcement, it seems like the sort of policy you have when you want to look like you're doing something about a problem, without actually taking responsibility, or addressing the difficult root causes that caused the issue in the first place. If saying no to harassment in WMF processes isn't worth upturning a few apple carts over, then what is? I do hope that the Community department will have a change of heart and take a much harder line against offwiki harassment, starting from here. On a completely different note, I do hope that the legal team will share their protocol for appearance (or threat of it) at events by banned users. I've been given softly-softly unofficial advice before on the expectations if globally banned users show up at a community event, but it would be good if this could be made available for everyone that wants to hold an event where there is a chance that banned or otherwise problematic individuals might show up, so as to ensure a consistent approach. Cheers, Craig On 20 July 2015 at 07:15, Kirill Lokshin kirill.loks...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: 1. Will the friendly-space expectations (policy?) for grants spaces on Meta be proposed as an RfC on Meta? The documentation on the rollout plan doesn't mention and RfC. My understanding is that the right way to implement a policy change like this on Meta is for it to go through an open and transparent RfC process, and that the implementation decision is ultimately the community's to make. The experience would inform further discussions about (1) a project-wide friendly space policy on Meta, and (2) a wider consultation on a friendly space amendment to the ToS that the WMF Board may eventually ratify. I don't see any reason why an RFC would be required (or appropriate) here. The grantmaking process is a WMF function, and the associated pages on meta are managed by the WMF grantmaking team; they are free to impose requirements (such as compliance with a friendly space standard) on anyone participating in that process (whether as an applicant or as a commenter or reviewer). Kirill ___ 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] harald bischoff advertising to make images for the wikimedia foundation and then suing users
I would have a serious problem with someone litigating, or threatening to litigate, over an instance of technical non-compliance with the license terms; much less so if the (alleged) infringer persisted in republishing without requested attribution information after warnings. Has anyone directly contacted Mr. Bischoff and asked him what he is doing and why? Regards, Newyorkbrad On Monday, July 20, 2015, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org wrote: snip Since when has that ever been a thing? With respect to licenses such as CC, we follow the same rules as anyone else. Not really. Commons actually recommends that an explicit credit line accompany CC BY images, which is something that Wikipedia doesn't do in articles. See below. If the description here is accurate, it sounds to me like this harald bischoff should be blocked and possibly have his files deleted as incorrectly licensed (since he apparently doesn't accept the usual interpretation of CC BY), unless he publicly renounces the behavior of suing reusers. But I'll leave that to Commons and dewiki to work out. Commons' own guidance to reusers [1][2][3] recommends including an explicit credit line alongside CC BY images, e.g. You must attribute the work to the author(s), and when re-using the work or distributing it, you must mention the license terms or a link to them... [R]eusers must attribute the work by providing a credit line And recommends credit lines of the form: John Doe / CC-BY-SA-3.0, with an included link to the license. As I understand it, Harald sent a demand letter to a reuser who failed to mention his name and the license. In other words, he demanded compensation from a reuser who failed to do precisely the things that Commons actually says that CC BY image reusers are supposed to do. While I agree that Harald's actions are not friendly, it is also hard for me to get behind the notion of punishing someone for demanding that reusers due the things that Commons actually recommends that they do. His behavior is either A) a mean-spirited attempt to extract money from unexpecting people by fighting against the spirit of the license, or B) a vigorous defense of his rights under the license. And I'm not really sure which. Suppose, hypothetically, that Harald actually sued someone (as opposed to just sending demand letters) and the courts actually agreed that the 3.0 license requires that reusers provide a credit line (not an impossible outcome). Would that change how we viewed his behavior? CC BY 4.0 explicitly says that a link to a page with attribution and license terms is sufficient, but prior to 4.0 it isn't clear whether such a link actually compiles with the license. There has been enough recurring doubt over the issue that CC decided to explicitly address the linking issue in the 4.0 version. Wikipedia behaves as if merely linking to an attribution page is always okay, but Commons' advice to reusers seems to be written with the perspective that it might not be. (I don't know the history of the Commons pages, so I'm not really sure of the community's thinking here.) I do think there is something of a problem that Wikipedia models a behavior (i.e. linking) that is different from what Commons recommends (i.e. credit lines). -Robert Rohde [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia/licenses [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Credit_line ___ 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] harald bischoff advertising to make images for the wikimedia foundation and then suing users
On 20 July 2015 at 18:09, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote: it is also hard for me to get behind the notion of punishing someone for demanding that reusers due the things that Commons actually recommends that they do. It's not a question of punishment, but of protecting Commons' reputation (from being brought into disrepute, as it might be termed) -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ 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 Board of Trustees Chair and Vice Chair positions
Very good news! Congratulations, Patricio! I'm happy for you and for Wikimedia movement! Oona 2015-07-17 15:48 GMT-03:00 Nasir Khan nasir8...@gmail.com: Great news! Congratulations Patricio and Alice! thanks Nasir Khan Wikimedia Bangladesh -- *Nasir Khan Saikat* www.nasirkhn.com On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Tito Dutta trulyt...@gmail.com wrote: Congratulations Patricio and Alice On 17 July 2015 at 17:11, Erik Zachte erikzac...@infodisiac.com wrote: Congratulations to Patricio and Alice for their well deserved recognition. Many thanks to Phoebe, Samuel and Maria for all the time and efforts they devoted to our shared passion. Welcome to Dariusz, James and Denny and proficiat (again) for the trust they earned from the community. Kudos too all board members, new and old, for their willingess to bear this enormous responsibility. Special mention for Jan-Bart. May you and your family enjoy the step-wise growing control over your personal timetable :-) Erik Zachte -Original Message- From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Rodrigo Padula Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 4:23 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Board of Trustees Chair and Vice Chair positions Congratulations Patricio and Alice! Regards from Brazil!!! Rodrigo Padula 2015-07-16 19:04 GMT-03:00 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org : Hello Everyone I am happy to inform you that the Board has unanimously appointed a new Chair and Vice Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. Patricio Lorente will be the new Chair and Alice Wiegand will be the new Vice-Chair. Both have several.years of experience on the board and we are confident that they will help the board grow and be successful in the coming years. Personally I am looking forward to helping them get acquainted with their new role in the coming months as my time on the Wikimedia Board ends in December. I hope you can join me in congratulating them on their new position and wish them success in the challenges facing them. Jan-Bart de Vreede Wikimedia Board of Trustees ___ 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 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] harald bischoff advertising to make images for the wikimedia foundation and then suing users
I think the next step is for someone to notify him that he's being talked about. :-) On 20 Jul 2015 13:39, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 20 July 2015 at 18:09, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote: it is also hard for me to get behind the notion of punishing someone for demanding that reusers due the things that Commons actually recommends that they do. It's not a question of punishment, but of protecting Commons' reputation (from being brought into disrepute, as it might be termed) -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ 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] harald bischoff advertising to make images for the wikimedia foundation and then suing users
Poking around I found the following related discussions listed below (all in German) dealing with the current issue and a similar 2013 complaint. In the second link Harald responds a couple times to the 2013 complaint. The Google translate versions of the linked discussions are somewhat hard to follow so I'll leave it to someone with a native understanding to summarize. As far as I can tell no one has raised the current issue on his talk page (either at DE or Commons). It is also worth noting that Harald has about 800 photos on Commons, mostly of athletes or minor celebrities. Spot checking a couple dozen suggests that the majority of his photos are unused, but at least a small fraction are widely used across many Wikipedias. Current German Wikipedia Discussion: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Caf%C3%A9#In_eigener_Sache_.E2.80.94_Fast_900_Euro_Verlust:_Die_Freiheitsliebe_wurde_abgemahnt.21 2013 German Wikipedia Discussion about Harald's behavior: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administratoren/Notizen/Archiv/2013/08#WP:URF.23Fotos_werden_Hochgeladen_-_gesucht_und_dann_gezielt_abgemahnt_.3F 2013 Commons Discussion about same: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Forum/Archiv/2013/August#de:WP:URF.23Fotos_werden_Hochgeladen_-_gesucht_und_dann_gezielt_abgemahnt_.3F -Robert Rohde On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 7:56 PM, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote: I would have a serious problem with someone litigating, or threatening to litigate, over an instance of technical non-compliance with the license terms; much less so if the (alleged) infringer persisted in republishing without requested attribution information after warnings. Has anyone directly contacted Mr. Bischoff and asked him what he is doing and why? Regards, Newyorkbrad On Monday, July 20, 2015, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org wrote: snip Since when has that ever been a thing? With respect to licenses such as CC, we follow the same rules as anyone else. Not really. Commons actually recommends that an explicit credit line accompany CC BY images, which is something that Wikipedia doesn't do in articles. See below. If the description here is accurate, it sounds to me like this harald bischoff should be blocked and possibly have his files deleted as incorrectly licensed (since he apparently doesn't accept the usual interpretation of CC BY), unless he publicly renounces the behavior of suing reusers. But I'll leave that to Commons and dewiki to work out. Commons' own guidance to reusers [1][2][3] recommends including an explicit credit line alongside CC BY images, e.g. You must attribute the work to the author(s), and when re-using the work or distributing it, you must mention the license terms or a link to them... [R]eusers must attribute the work by providing a credit line And recommends credit lines of the form: John Doe / CC-BY-SA-3.0, with an included link to the license. As I understand it, Harald sent a demand letter to a reuser who failed to mention his name and the license. In other words, he demanded compensation from a reuser who failed to do precisely the things that Commons actually says that CC BY image reusers are supposed to do. While I agree that Harald's actions are not friendly, it is also hard for me to get behind the notion of punishing someone for demanding that reusers due the things that Commons actually recommends that they do. His behavior is either A) a mean-spirited attempt to extract money from unexpecting people by fighting against the spirit of the license, or B) a vigorous defense of his rights under the license. And I'm not really sure which. Suppose, hypothetically, that Harald actually sued someone (as opposed to just sending demand letters) and the courts actually agreed that the 3.0 license requires that reusers provide a credit line (not an impossible outcome). Would that change how we viewed his behavior? CC BY 4.0 explicitly says that a link to a page with attribution and license terms is sufficient, but prior to 4.0 it isn't clear whether such a link actually compiles with the license. There has been enough recurring doubt over the issue that CC decided to explicitly address the linking issue in the 4.0 version. Wikipedia behaves as if merely linking to an attribution page is always okay, but Commons' advice to reusers seems to be written with the perspective that it might not be. (I don't know the history of the Commons pages, so I'm not really sure of the community's thinking here.) I do think there is something of a problem that Wikipedia models a behavior (i.e. linking) that is different from what Commons recommends (i.e. credit lines). -Robert Rohde [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation quarterly reviews for April-June 2015
Pine, As you insist on such formality, can you imagine that it is a huge turn-off for others? The thing that troubles ME most, is that a friendly space policy is something that is so obvious in so many ways, that I cannot fathom what the objection could be and therefore what the added value is of your insistence. When you talk about leadership, I hate such officiousness. For what, what are the benefits, who will benefit and, yes this is a rhetorical question. Thanks, GerardM On 20 July 2015 at 16:55, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: I agree that if the grants discussions were on Foundation wiki that WMF staff would have more leeway to make decisions without going through the Board or community. It seems to me that Meta is a community project wiki that is governed by community leadership and community content moderation, and it would be scope creep for WMF to control portions of Meta. Especially if the intention is for grants processes to be community led, then community process should be followed. (In general I would like to see more community leadership for Community Resources processes and for WMF to have a support/backstop role. This worked well in IEGCom when I was on that committee, and I appreciate the very cooperative relationship that we had with Siko.) Being lax on enforcement provisions for a friendly space policy is something that the community could address if a friendly space policy goes through an RfC. Thanks, Pine On Jul 20, 2015 4:14 AM, Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.net wrote: Indeed, as Kirill says, the grants process is owned by the WMF (albeit one hosted on Meta), not by the community, so I'm not sure why the Meta community needs to get involved. It actually seems to me that the foundation wiki would be a better home for processes like this so that community bureaucracy can be avoided, but since the events of a couple of years ago that seems like it's not a plausible option in the short term. I do have to say I'm a bit disappointed that a lot of the negative feedback that certain aspects of the friendly space policy got from the GAC seem to have been handwaved away; with its feeble provisions for enforcement, it seems like the sort of policy you have when you want to look like you're doing something about a problem, without actually taking responsibility, or addressing the difficult root causes that caused the issue in the first place. If saying no to harassment in WMF processes isn't worth upturning a few apple carts over, then what is? I do hope that the Community department will have a change of heart and take a much harder line against offwiki harassment, starting from here. On a completely different note, I do hope that the legal team will share their protocol for appearance (or threat of it) at events by banned users. I've been given softly-softly unofficial advice before on the expectations if globally banned users show up at a community event, but it would be good if this could be made available for everyone that wants to hold an event where there is a chance that banned or otherwise problematic individuals might show up, so as to ensure a consistent approach. Cheers, Craig On 20 July 2015 at 07:15, Kirill Lokshin kirill.loks...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: 1. Will the friendly-space expectations (policy?) for grants spaces on Meta be proposed as an RfC on Meta? The documentation on the rollout plan doesn't mention and RfC. My understanding is that the right way to implement a policy change like this on Meta is for it to go through an open and transparent RfC process, and that the implementation decision is ultimately the community's to make. The experience would inform further discussions about (1) a project-wide friendly space policy on Meta, and (2) a wider consultation on a friendly space amendment to the ToS that the WMF Board may eventually ratify. I don't see any reason why an RFC would be required (or appropriate) here. The grantmaking process is a WMF function, and the associated pages on meta are managed by the WMF grantmaking team; they are free to impose requirements (such as compliance with a friendly space standard) on anyone participating in that process (whether as an applicant or as a commenter or reviewer). Kirill ___ 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:
Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images for the wikimedia foundation and then suing users
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org wrote: snip Since when has that ever been a thing? With respect to licenses such as CC, we follow the same rules as anyone else. Not really. Commons actually recommends that an explicit credit line accompany CC BY images, which is something that Wikipedia doesn't do in articles. See below. If the description here is accurate, it sounds to me like this harald bischoff should be blocked and possibly have his files deleted as incorrectly licensed (since he apparently doesn't accept the usual interpretation of CC BY), unless he publicly renounces the behavior of suing reusers. But I'll leave that to Commons and dewiki to work out. Commons' own guidance to reusers [1][2][3] recommends including an explicit credit line alongside CC BY images, e.g. You must attribute the work to the author(s), and when re-using the work or distributing it, you must mention the license terms or a link to them... [R]eusers must attribute the work by providing a credit line And recommends credit lines of the form: John Doe / CC-BY-SA-3.0, with an included link to the license. As I understand it, Harald sent a demand letter to a reuser who failed to mention his name and the license. In other words, he demanded compensation from a reuser who failed to do precisely the things that Commons actually says that CC BY image reusers are supposed to do. While I agree that Harald's actions are not friendly, it is also hard for me to get behind the notion of punishing someone for demanding that reusers due the things that Commons actually recommends that they do. His behavior is either A) a mean-spirited attempt to extract money from unexpecting people by fighting against the spirit of the license, or B) a vigorous defense of his rights under the license. And I'm not really sure which. Suppose, hypothetically, that Harald actually sued someone (as opposed to just sending demand letters) and the courts actually agreed that the 3.0 license requires that reusers provide a credit line (not an impossible outcome). Would that change how we viewed his behavior? CC BY 4.0 explicitly says that a link to a page with attribution and license terms is sufficient, but prior to 4.0 it isn't clear whether such a link actually compiles with the license. There has been enough recurring doubt over the issue that CC decided to explicitly address the linking issue in the 4.0 version. Wikipedia behaves as if merely linking to an attribution page is always okay, but Commons' advice to reusers seems to be written with the perspective that it might not be. (I don't know the history of the Commons pages, so I'm not really sure of the community's thinking here.) I do think there is something of a problem that Wikipedia models a behavior (i.e. linking) that is different from what Commons recommends (i.e. credit lines). -Robert Rohde [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia/licenses [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Credit_line ___ 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] harald bischoff advertising to make images for the wikimedia foundation and then suing users
***note this reply is entirely in my personal capacity and in no way represents anything official*** On Jul 20, 2015 3:09 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote: the distinction because wikipedia is owned by wmf we refer differently to commons than anybody else needs to go away imo. Since when has that ever been a thing? With respect to licenses such as CC, we follow the same rules as anyone else. If the description here is accurate, it sounds to me like this harald bischoff should be blocked and possibly have his files deleted as incorrectly licensed (since he apparently doesn't accept the usual interpretation of CC BY), unless he publicly renounces the behavior of suing reusers. But I'll leave that to Commons and dewiki to work out. ___ 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] harald bischoff advertising to make images for the wikimedia foundation and then suing users
***note this reply is still entirely in my personal capacity and in no way represents anything official*** On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote: Since when has that ever been a thing? With respect to licenses such as CC, we follow the same rules as anyone else. Not really. Commons actually recommends that an explicit credit line accompany CC BY images, which is something that Wikipedia doesn't do in articles. See below. Sigh. I think I'll refrain from further comment on Commons' statement. On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote: but in another narrative you are telling content creators that the few rights they are nominally granted by the required license (e.g. attribution) are worthless because if they try to enforce those rights we'll kick them out. No, we'd just be telling them that a non-standard reading of the CC license's requirements on attribution (namely the reading that You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author in the *non-binding description* of the license means the creator is allowed to specify exactly how and where the attribution appears,[1] rather than in any reasonable manner, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing, and at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors as the license actually says) aren't welcome. [1]: To the extent of magenta 24pt Comic Sans, presumably. ___ 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] harald bischoff advertising to make images for the wikimedia foundation and then suing users
On 20/07/2015 19:38, Andy Mabbett wrote: On 20 July 2015 at 18:09, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote: it is also hard for me to get behind the notion of punishing someone for demanding that reusers due the things that Commons actually recommends that they do. It's not a question of punishment, but of protecting Commons' reputation (from being brought into disrepute, as it might be termed) If you start deleting the images from Commons you put all re-users absolutely at risk who have linked to Commons. Why? Because you will now have removed the link to the attributions and license that they were relying on. This is why anyone that links like that is a fool. It is one thing to link to a page containing attribution/license on your site. Quite another to link to some other site you have no control over for the attribution/license. ___ 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] harald bischoff advertising to make images for the wikimedia foundation and then suing users
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 20 July 2015 at 18:09, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote: it is also hard for me to get behind the notion of punishing someone for demanding that reusers due the things that Commons actually recommends that they do. It's not a question of punishment, but of protecting Commons' reputation (from being brought into disrepute, as it might be termed) There are two ways of looking at it though. In one narrative you block Harald and delete his images to protect reusers, but in another narrative you are telling content creators that the few rights they are nominally granted by the required license (e.g. attribution) are worthless because if they try to enforce those rights we'll kick them out. Ultimately though, I wonder if this mailing list is rather a poor venue for this discussion. Isn't it more an issue for Commons? -Robert Rohde ___ 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 Foundation quarterly reviews for April-June 2015
Hi Gerard, The process for starting an RfC is relatively easy, and I'm generally willing to be the initiator of one. Likewise, board resolutions happen freqently, can be straightforward, and could take place to support a friendly space policy. If there isn't an RfC or board resolution or some kind of process for saying that a document that governs community behavior is actually a policy that has gone through a quality control and transparent approval process, then we could go down the path of letting WMF staff write policies for the community without explicit Board or community involvement and consent; in this case the policy in question will govern community content and behavior, including meta content and community speech which are especially sensitive subjects for WMF to be regulating. I don't think that's a good idea in the semi-democratic movement of Wikimedia. Staff can make proposals, facilitate discussion, and ask questions. The policymakers should be the Board and/or the community. There is a role for the WMF staff to play here. In particular it would be great for WMF Legal and Community Advocacy to facilitate discussion and make suggestions about a friendly space policy with the goal of having a final product that receives approval from the community or the Board and is enforceable by community administrators as a genuine policy of the community. Pine On Jul 20, 2015 9:53 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Pine, As you insist on such formality, can you imagine that it is a huge turn-off for others? The thing that troubles ME most, is that a friendly space policy is something that is so obvious in so many ways, that I cannot fathom what the objection could be and therefore what the added value is of your insistence. When you talk about leadership, I hate such officiousness. For what, what are the benefits, who will benefit and, yes this is a rhetorical question. Thanks, GerardM On 20 July 2015 at 16:55, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: I agree that if the grants discussions were on Foundation wiki that WMF staff would have more leeway to make decisions without going through the Board or community. It seems to me that Meta is a community project wiki that is governed by community leadership and community content moderation, and it would be scope creep for WMF to control portions of Meta. Especially if the intention is for grants processes to be community led, then community process should be followed. (In general I would like to see more community leadership for Community Resources processes and for WMF to have a support/backstop role. This worked well in IEGCom when I was on that committee, and I appreciate the very cooperative relationship that we had with Siko.) Being lax on enforcement provisions for a friendly space policy is something that the community could address if a friendly space policy goes through an RfC. Thanks, Pine On Jul 20, 2015 4:14 AM, Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.net wrote: Indeed, as Kirill says, the grants process is owned by the WMF (albeit one hosted on Meta), not by the community, so I'm not sure why the Meta community needs to get involved. It actually seems to me that the foundation wiki would be a better home for processes like this so that community bureaucracy can be avoided, but since the events of a couple of years ago that seems like it's not a plausible option in the short term. I do have to say I'm a bit disappointed that a lot of the negative feedback that certain aspects of the friendly space policy got from the GAC seem to have been handwaved away; with its feeble provisions for enforcement, it seems like the sort of policy you have when you want to look like you're doing something about a problem, without actually taking responsibility, or addressing the difficult root causes that caused the issue in the first place. If saying no to harassment in WMF processes isn't worth upturning a few apple carts over, then what is? I do hope that the Community department will have a change of heart and take a much harder line against offwiki harassment, starting from here. On a completely different note, I do hope that the legal team will share their protocol for appearance (or threat of it) at events by banned users. I've been given softly-softly unofficial advice before on the expectations if globally banned users show up at a community event, but it would be good if this could be made available for everyone that wants to hold an event where there is a chance that banned or otherwise problematic individuals might show up, so as to ensure a consistent approach. Cheers, Craig On 20 July 2015 at 07:15, Kirill Lokshin kirill.loks...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: 1.
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation quarterly reviews for April-June 2015
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: 2. CA says that there are ...a (legal-approved) list of... event banned users, a protocol for appearance (or threat of it) at events by banned users and that it will Supply to Conference Coordinators for events beginning in Q1 (6/30). Here at Cascadia Wikimedians, I didn't receive the list or the protocol. I'm not sure that we need the list, but having access to the protocol would be helpful, and I suggest that it be circulated among the leaders of affiliate organizations which have in-person meetings even if they are not conferences, since we may want to use WMF's protocol as a basis for developing our own, keeping in mind that local laws may vary. This aligns with the general goal of having friendly spaces in Wikimedia, both physical and virtual. Quite right - you haven't received it... because it was just finished before Wikimania. Give us a bit of time to breathe, please. :-) It will be circulated as necessary - meaning, we will likely not be providing the list of names, except to event organizers. I believe the current intent is to share the protocol with those who are interested, but I'm honestly not sure of this - while it was developed on my team, I honestly didn't have day to day involvement with it, so I need to refresh my memory. :-) pb *Philippe Beaudette * \\ Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | phili...@wikimedia.org | : @Philippewiki https://twitter.com/Philippewiki ___ 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] Book Grant program
Re: contact information - there is now contact information! Re: sister projects - we're focusing on article writing for the pilot since it's so small - to make measuring impact a little less onerous - but if the pilot goes well I think we will definitely open it up more! -Emily On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Dennis During dcdur...@gmail.com wrote: Is the omission of sister projects (Commons, Species, Wiktionary) intentional? On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Tito Dutta trulyt...@gmail.com wrote: That's great. :) if you add something for queries please contact joh@example.org or something like that on the Book Grant page too ( http://wikimediadc.org/wiki/Book_Grants), non-members and non mailing list readers can easily contact from there. On 19 July 2015 at 22:15, Keilana keilanaw...@gmail.com wrote: Announcing: Wikimedia DC's Exciting New Program: BOOK GRANTS! http://wikimediadc.org/wiki/Book_Grants We are offering book grants to people in the United States to support their editing. Please contact me at keilanaw...@gmail.com if you have any questions. -Emily Temple-Wood ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@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 -- Dennis C. During ___ 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] Recognition of WikiWomen's User Group
Thank you everyone for the warm welcome for this new WikiWomen's User Group. Help us spread the work all around the world to chapters and other affiliated organizations that are working on the gender gap already and would find this group an useful place to connect with other people with similar interests. Also, any women and allies working on any WMF project who are interested in the gender gap is welcome to join. All languages welcome. Help us translate the pages. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiWomen%27s_User_Group#Interested_in_participating Sydney Sydney Poore User:FloNight Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane Collaboration On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 6:24 AM, Carlos M. Colina ma...@wikimedia.org.ve wrote: Dear all, I am pleased and honoured to announce on behalf of the Affiliations Committe the recognition [1] of a new member of the family of Wikimedia affiliates: The WikiWomen's User Group. Among their goals are providing a collaborative space for women to work on projects, discuss gender-related issues (but not limited to) and work towards the increase in content and contributor diversity. Please, join us in welcoming them!! :-) 1: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Resolutions/WikiWomen's_User_Group_-_Liaison_approval,_July_2015 -- *Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain. Carlos M. Colina Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.wikimedia.org.ve http://wikimedia.org.ve Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee Phone: +972-52-4869915 Twitter: @maor_x ___ 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