Re: [Wikimedia-l] Recognition of WikiWomen's User Group

[Nasir Khan]

Great news, congrats :D

Nasir Khan
Wikimedia Bangladesh


--
*Nasir Khan Saikat*
www.nasirkhn.com


On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Sydney Poore 
wrote:

> 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 
> 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
> > 
> > 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,
> > 
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Recognition of WikiWomen's User Group

[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 
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
> 
> 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,
> 
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Book Grant program

[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  wrote:

> Is the omission of sister projects (Commons, Species, Wiktionary)
> intentional?
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Tito Dutta  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  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,
> > > 
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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,
> 
>
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation quarterly reviews for April-June 2015

[Philippe Beaudette]

On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Pine W  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

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation quarterly reviews for April-June 2015

[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" 
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  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" 
> > 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 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users

[Lilburne]

On 20/07/2015 19:38, Andy Mabbett wrote:

On 20 July 2015 at 18:09, Robert Rohde  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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users

[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  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  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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users

[Robert Rohde]

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On 20 July 2015 at 18:09, Robert Rohde  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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users

[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"  wrote:

> On 20 July 2015 at 18:09, Robert Rohde  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,
> 
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users

[Andy Mabbett]

On 20 July 2015 at 18:09, Robert Rohde  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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users

[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  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  wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) <
> bjor...@wikimedia.org
> >> 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.
> >
> >
> >> 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
> > li

Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users

[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  wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) <
bjor...@wikimedia.org
>> 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.
>
>
>> 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,

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Board of Trustees Chair and Vice Chair positions

[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 :

> 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  wrote:
>
> > Congratulations Patricio and Alice
> >
> > On 17 July 2015 at 17:11, Erik Zachte  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  >:
> > >
> > > > 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,
> > > > 
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > > 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users

[Robert Rohde]

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie)  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.


> 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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation quarterly reviews for April-June 2015

[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  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" 
> 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 
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Pine W  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,
> > > 
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users

[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"  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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation quarterly reviews for April-June 2015

[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" 
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  wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Pine W  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,
> > 
> >
> ___
> 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,
> 
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Book Grant program

[Dennis During]

Is the omission of sister projects (Commons, Species, Wiktionary)
intentional?

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Tito Dutta  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  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,
> > 
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation quarterly reviews for April-June 2015

[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  wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Pine W  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,
> 
>
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users

[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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users

[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 
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:Haraldbischoff&diff=prev&oldid=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,
> 
___
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, 

[Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users

[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:Haraldbischoff&diff=prev&oldid=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, 

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

[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,  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 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Recognition of WikiWomen's User Group
> Message-ID:
>  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 
> 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 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> 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 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List ,   Dan
> Garry , Luis Villa 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] 400 days of lila tretikov and 60 million
> dollars spent - where is mobile editing?
> Message-ID:
>  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
>  wrote:
> > hi dan,
> >
> > many thanks for the quick reaction! i need to make a correction as
> > well, i was redirected to
> >
> https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Offener_Brief_an_die_Mitglieder_des_Europ%C3%A4ischen_Parlaments_zur_Erha

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Recognition of WikiWomen's User Group

[Isabella Apriyana]

Congratulations!

On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Carlos M. Colina 
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
> 
> 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,
> 




-- 
*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,