Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 136, Issue 47

2015-07-20 Thread Jon Davies
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

2015-07-20 Thread rupert THURNER
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

2015-07-20 Thread Isabella Apriyana
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

2015-07-20 Thread Jane Darnell
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

2015-07-20 Thread Robert Rohde
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

2015-07-20 Thread Craig Franklin
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

2015-07-20 Thread Dennis During
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

2015-07-20 Thread Pine W
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

2015-07-20 Thread Newyorkbrad
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

2015-07-20 Thread Andy Mabbett
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

2015-07-20 Thread Oona Castro
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

2015-07-20 Thread Richard Symonds
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

2015-07-20 Thread Robert Rohde
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

2015-07-20 Thread Gerard Meijssen
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

2015-07-20 Thread Robert Rohde
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

2015-07-20 Thread Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
***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

2015-07-20 Thread Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
***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

2015-07-20 Thread Lilburne

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

2015-07-20 Thread Robert Rohde
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

2015-07-20 Thread Pine W
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

2015-07-20 Thread Philippe Beaudette
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

2015-07-20 Thread Keilana
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

2015-07-20 Thread Sydney Poore
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