Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
No it is an administrative process. It follows its own rules IN ORDER TO do
what it does. The notion that material is to be useful to Wikipedia is NOT
covered by any legal restraints. This notion that is alive and well, the
notion that copyright can be retroactively applied never mind the original
copyright holder is that as well.

Yes, the underlying work is legal, the process is definitely not and
consequently the process has to be revisited, is to be revisited in order
for OTRS to function for all of us.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 08:09, Gnangarra  wrote:

> to quote Gerard
>
> There is no law that insists on the existing rules and regulations as put
> > forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly unfit
>
> for purpose.
>
>
> OTRS is very much a legal process because its related to Copyright laws,
> both in the US and in the country in which they reside.  Every
> transaction(image upload) is a person giving away their rights in regards
> to that work OTRS needs to ensure that the person is fully aware of the
> consequences of that action.  OTRS holds an absolute record of that action
> of when it took place, it protects all parties should there be an issue in
> the future in particular the WMF and our volunteers who were involved in
> the process.
>
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 13:57, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Thank you for demonstrating the extend OTRS is not fit for purpose. I
> > understand that OTRS is governed by rules and regulations but a reference
> > is made to "legal". There is no law that insists on the existing rules
> and
> > regulations as put forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly
> unfit
> > for purpose.
> >
> > Particularly the line: "- it must not say the use is to, for, or on
> > Wikipedia" is problematic because either this is a list as stated what
> OTRS
> > adheres to or, it is not. It is a negative and as such it reads that it
> is
> > NOT about any Wikipedia and its vagaries.
> >
> > Yet again it is brought to the attention that the negative attitude is to
> > be acceptable because of a perceived workload. Apparently it is easier to
> > say no than to say yes and that is in itself mystifying.
> >
> > OTRS has not moved on with the time and as such it does not even know
> > selfies... An issue not confined to OTRS is that understanding of
> copyright
> > and licensing is dim anyway. When a copyright holder provides us with
> > material, it is licensed by the copyright holder to be available under a
> > WMF permitted license. When the copyright holder provides it under a
> > secondary license elsewhere or when our material is used elsewhere with a
> > more restrictive license, it does not follow that we are in breach of
> > copyright. I have fought such "delete on sight" battles and the only
> result
> > is no response on the image that was to be speedily deleted. The rule
> > should be; when material is provided to us, the license is checked at the
> > time and any and all issues NOT involving the copyright holder are to be
> > seen as irrelevant.
> >
> > OTRS is a Wikimedia Foundation sanctioned function. It insists to
> function
> > as is and therefore *a new mandate is required* because as is, it does
> the
> > worst possible service. There is no Wikipedia, there are 300+, there are
> > other projects that require a functioning Commons and as it is, it is not
> > fit for purpose.
> >
> > You may remember when English Wikipedia had egg on its face because of
> the
> > deletion of what became a Nobel prize winner. There are MANY science
> awards
> > and we want a picture for all awardees in addition, in the Scholia tool
> we
> > want pictures of any and all people that authored a paper.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 02:06, Gnangarra  wrote:
> >
> > > For legal reasons OTRS requires very specific wording, it declines
> > > permissions that fail to meet that very strict wording.
> > >
> > > The person must;
> > >
> > >- establish their authority to license the image
> > >- the license must be a free license PD or CC-by
> > >- it must not say the use is to, for, or on Wikipedia
> > >- it needs a URL to associate the permission with
> > >
> > > If the media meets these requirements than it will be accept, if it
> > doesnt
> > > it gets rejected. Scope is something that gets decided on on Commons.
> > >
> > > Wikidata has had an impact on scope, quite literally everything is now
> > > within scope.  We havent even yet got to the issue about Wikidata items
> > > including trademarked logos and copyrighted works for which Commons
> cant
> > > have images under fairuse
> > >
> > > Commons has fallen behind when it comes to the capability of taking
> > photos
> > > of ones self (selfies) the default position when Commons started was
> that
> > > taking a high quality photograph of yourself wasnt possible there must
> > have
> > > been someone else pushing the button. What happens is Common

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects

[Gnangarra]

YEs Commons does have it all laid out at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS so that everyone can follow
those steps.

On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 15:08, Gnangarra  wrote:

> to quote Gerard
>
> There is no law that insists on the existing rules and regulations as put
>> forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly unfit
>
> for purpose.
>
>
> OTRS is very much a legal process because its related to Copyright laws,
> both in the US and in the country in which they reside.  Every
> transaction(image upload) is a person giving away their rights in regards
> to that work OTRS needs to ensure that the person is fully aware of the
> consequences of that action.  OTRS holds an absolute record of that action
> of when it took place, it protects all parties should there be an issue in
> the future in particular the WMF and our volunteers who were involved in
> the process.
>
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 13:57, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> Thank you for demonstrating the extend OTRS is not fit for purpose. I
>> understand that OTRS is governed by rules and regulations but a reference
>> is made to "legal". There is no law that insists on the existing rules and
>> regulations as put forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly unfit
>> for purpose.
>>
>> Particularly the line: "- it must not say the use is to, for, or on
>> Wikipedia" is problematic because either this is a list as stated what
>> OTRS
>> adheres to or, it is not. It is a negative and as such it reads that it is
>> NOT about any Wikipedia and its vagaries.
>>
>> Yet again it is brought to the attention that the negative attitude is to
>> be acceptable because of a perceived workload. Apparently it is easier to
>> say no than to say yes and that is in itself mystifying.
>>
>> OTRS has not moved on with the time and as such it does not even know
>> selfies... An issue not confined to OTRS is that understanding of
>> copyright
>> and licensing is dim anyway. When a copyright holder provides us with
>> material, it is licensed by the copyright holder to be available under a
>> WMF permitted license. When the copyright holder provides it under a
>> secondary license elsewhere or when our material is used elsewhere with a
>> more restrictive license, it does not follow that we are in breach of
>> copyright. I have fought such "delete on sight" battles and the only
>> result
>> is no response on the image that was to be speedily deleted. The rule
>> should be; when material is provided to us, the license is checked at the
>> time and any and all issues NOT involving the copyright holder are to be
>> seen as irrelevant.
>>
>> OTRS is a Wikimedia Foundation sanctioned function. It insists to function
>> as is and therefore *a new mandate is required* because as is, it does the
>> worst possible service. There is no Wikipedia, there are 300+, there are
>> other projects that require a functioning Commons and as it is, it is not
>> fit for purpose.
>>
>> You may remember when English Wikipedia had egg on its face because of the
>> deletion of what became a Nobel prize winner. There are MANY science
>> awards
>> and we want a picture for all awardees in addition, in the Scholia tool we
>> want pictures of any and all people that authored a paper.
>> Thanks,
>>   GerardM
>>
>> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 02:06, Gnangarra  wrote:
>>
>> > For legal reasons OTRS requires very specific wording, it declines
>> > permissions that fail to meet that very strict wording.
>> >
>> > The person must;
>> >
>> >- establish their authority to license the image
>> >- the license must be a free license PD or CC-by
>> >- it must not say the use is to, for, or on Wikipedia
>> >- it needs a URL to associate the permission with
>> >
>> > If the media meets these requirements than it will be accept, if it
>> doesnt
>> > it gets rejected. Scope is something that gets decided on on Commons.
>> >
>> > Wikidata has had an impact on scope, quite literally everything is now
>> > within scope.  We havent even yet got to the issue about Wikidata items
>> > including trademarked logos and copyrighted works for which Commons cant
>> > have images under fairuse
>> >
>> > Commons has fallen behind when it comes to the capability of taking
>> photos
>> > of ones self (selfies) the default position when Commons started was
>> that
>> > taking a high quality photograph of yourself wasnt possible there must
>> have
>> > been someone else pushing the button. What happens is Commons asks for
>> the
>> > subject to obtain permission from the photographer and submit that to
>> OTRS,
>> > the systems falls over because the photographer cant prove that the
>> photo
>> > they took of themselves was taken by themselves because the underlying
>> > assumption is that that isnt possible.  The vast majority of agents on
>> the
>> > commons permission queue are people from commons who have learnt the
>> > policies and have the tools to do the work.
>> >
>> > OTRS permission b

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects

[Gnangarra]

to quote Gerard

There is no law that insists on the existing rules and regulations as put
> forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly unfit

for purpose.


OTRS is very much a legal process because its related to Copyright laws,
both in the US and in the country in which they reside.  Every
transaction(image upload) is a person giving away their rights in regards
to that work OTRS needs to ensure that the person is fully aware of the
consequences of that action.  OTRS holds an absolute record of that action
of when it took place, it protects all parties should there be an issue in
the future in particular the WMF and our volunteers who were involved in
the process.

On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 13:57, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Thank you for demonstrating the extend OTRS is not fit for purpose. I
> understand that OTRS is governed by rules and regulations but a reference
> is made to "legal". There is no law that insists on the existing rules and
> regulations as put forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly unfit
> for purpose.
>
> Particularly the line: "- it must not say the use is to, for, or on
> Wikipedia" is problematic because either this is a list as stated what OTRS
> adheres to or, it is not. It is a negative and as such it reads that it is
> NOT about any Wikipedia and its vagaries.
>
> Yet again it is brought to the attention that the negative attitude is to
> be acceptable because of a perceived workload. Apparently it is easier to
> say no than to say yes and that is in itself mystifying.
>
> OTRS has not moved on with the time and as such it does not even know
> selfies... An issue not confined to OTRS is that understanding of copyright
> and licensing is dim anyway. When a copyright holder provides us with
> material, it is licensed by the copyright holder to be available under a
> WMF permitted license. When the copyright holder provides it under a
> secondary license elsewhere or when our material is used elsewhere with a
> more restrictive license, it does not follow that we are in breach of
> copyright. I have fought such "delete on sight" battles and the only result
> is no response on the image that was to be speedily deleted. The rule
> should be; when material is provided to us, the license is checked at the
> time and any and all issues NOT involving the copyright holder are to be
> seen as irrelevant.
>
> OTRS is a Wikimedia Foundation sanctioned function. It insists to function
> as is and therefore *a new mandate is required* because as is, it does the
> worst possible service. There is no Wikipedia, there are 300+, there are
> other projects that require a functioning Commons and as it is, it is not
> fit for purpose.
>
> You may remember when English Wikipedia had egg on its face because of the
> deletion of what became a Nobel prize winner. There are MANY science awards
> and we want a picture for all awardees in addition, in the Scholia tool we
> want pictures of any and all people that authored a paper.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 02:06, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > For legal reasons OTRS requires very specific wording, it declines
> > permissions that fail to meet that very strict wording.
> >
> > The person must;
> >
> >- establish their authority to license the image
> >- the license must be a free license PD or CC-by
> >- it must not say the use is to, for, or on Wikipedia
> >- it needs a URL to associate the permission with
> >
> > If the media meets these requirements than it will be accept, if it
> doesnt
> > it gets rejected. Scope is something that gets decided on on Commons.
> >
> > Wikidata has had an impact on scope, quite literally everything is now
> > within scope.  We havent even yet got to the issue about Wikidata items
> > including trademarked logos and copyrighted works for which Commons cant
> > have images under fairuse
> >
> > Commons has fallen behind when it comes to the capability of taking
> photos
> > of ones self (selfies) the default position when Commons started was that
> > taking a high quality photograph of yourself wasnt possible there must
> have
> > been someone else pushing the button. What happens is Commons asks for
> the
> > subject to obtain permission from the photographer and submit that to
> OTRS,
> > the systems falls over because the photographer cant prove that the photo
> > they took of themselves was taken by themselves because the underlying
> > assumption is that that isnt possible.  The vast majority of agents on
> the
> > commons permission queue are people from commons who have learnt the
> > policies and have the tools to do the work.
> >
> > OTRS permission behaves as expected because there is a very narrow
> > definition of whats acceptable, anything that doesnt fit gets rejected.
> The
> > very real need to be pro-active in ensuring the permissions queue doesnt
> > get overwhelmed and backlogged  contributes to the fact that the grey is
> > treated as black -- c

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Treatment of newbies with mild CoI

[Peter Southwood]

Also, overworked groups with large backlogs struggling to maintain high quality 
tend to have less patience with the inexperienced and not-yet-competent than we 
might like. It is also possible that some of the workers in those groups are 
not as competent as we would like them to be, but at those wages, what can you 
expect? The work probably also attracts a share of people who get their kicks 
out of telling other people what they can't do. Again, they are volunteers, we 
accept their offer to help in good faith until they prove otherwise. The 
competent and really incompetent are the easy cases. The not quite competent 
are harder to deal with. Will they get better or worse with experience?
Some competence is required to edit Wikipedia. A suitable personality also 
helps a lot. However, an enormous amount of work gets done quietly and without 
fanfare and drama, if one chooses the topic carefully, and edits with 
discretion and a reasonable level of willingness to cooperate.
Cheers,
Peter


-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Paulo Santos Perneta
Sent: 25 February 2020 20:03
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Treatment of newbies with mild CoI

As a rule, (at least) in Wikipedia, with very rare exceptions,  established
communities of editors treat newbies as unwelcome invaders.
No idea how to solve that, since it's a problem related to the nature of
humane beings, not something technical.
But the result is a very low rate of retention, indeed - and increasingly
reduced diversity and cultural richness, which eventually ends up reflected
on content. At some point those established editors also start preying at
other established editors, specially when newbies are not available. The
environment is awful and toxic in general.

For outreach activities to have at least a minimal rate of success, the
participants need to have some kind of protection shield, such as some
privileged contact with established editors willing to help them.
Otherwise, edithatons and other outreach activities are basically sending
lambs to the slaughterhouse. As for newbies that come to Wikipedia by
themselves, they are generally on their own.

Best,
Paulo

Aron Demian  escreveu no dia domingo, 23/02/2020
à(s) 23:30:

> On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 22:35, Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:
>
> > I have just come across a case on en.Wikipedia where the daughter of
> > an article subject added details of his funeral (his death in 1984,w
> > as already recorded) and his view about an indent in his life.
>
> [...]
> >
> As well as being reverted, she now has three templates on her talk
> > page; two warning her of a CoI, and sandwiching one notifying her of a
> > discussion about her on the COI noticeboard. These total 4094
> > characters or 665 words.
> >
>
> This is a topic that's seldom discussed and somewhat taboo in certain
> areas, therefore not many people are aware of what experiences many
> newcomers have. These events go generally unnoticed, but if you were
> wondering why editor retention is a constant issue, the pattern that lies
> behind this single case you brought to our attention is a top reason.
>
> I've tried to help in a similar case of a footballer unknown in
> English-speaking countries. She was repeatedly reverted without the edits
> being evaluated or the rules being explained. She never returned and I was
> frowned upon by the admin, who was involved, for trying to help.
>
> I've noticed this "shoot first, ask later" pattern in many cases, not just
> with newcomers. Unfortunately, this is all too common and a contributing
> factor to the toxicity.
>
> I've noticed the following issues:
> 1) The general unwelcoming treatment of newcomers: "noobs" are considered
> lacking the proper understanding and necessary knowledge, unless they jump
> right into RC patrolling, which is not the sign of a new editor.
> 2) The lack of protection given to newcomers:  "You have no rights" being
> explicitly said to one newcomer, that I recall.
> 3) Preferential treatment and authority bias: the experienced/established
> user is "trusted", thus must be right, therefore unwelcoming - and often
> hostile - conduct is not considered uncivil or it's "not actionable".
> 4) The excessively vilifying application of the most frowned-upon rules
> such as COI, socking. Editors tagged as such are treated the same
> regardless of the effect of their actions and whether that has caused any
> damage, which can scale from none to introducing bias to many articles for
> years.
>
> Currently, there is no effort to mitigate these issues, to improve the
> policies and community practices. It's also a problem that while the
> "biting newbies" and "civility" policies are very well written, these are
> almost never applied and definitely not in the protection of newcomers. By
> that I don't mean these should always result in sanctions, but that the
> community - and primarily who get

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects

[Peter Southwood]

This does seem unreasonable. Do they have an explanation at Commons?
This is happening without standardising in one label Wikipedia, so it is 
jumping to quite a conclusion to assume that the issue is related.
For the record, I am also opposed to rebranding to Wikipedia, but I do not 
think this issue is necessarily related.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 6:10 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other 
projects

Hoi,
Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support
Wikipedia.

At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards. We
are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The best
suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at
Commons.

When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia, it
is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects. The
projects who operate to different standards who have notability criteria
different from English Wikipedia.
Thanks,
  GerardM
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Thank you for demonstrating the extend OTRS is not fit for purpose. I
understand that OTRS is governed by rules and regulations but a reference
is made to "legal". There is no law that insists on the existing rules and
regulations as put forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly unfit
for purpose.

Particularly the line: "- it must not say the use is to, for, or on
Wikipedia" is problematic because either this is a list as stated what OTRS
adheres to or, it is not. It is a negative and as such it reads that it is
NOT about any Wikipedia and its vagaries.

Yet again it is brought to the attention that the negative attitude is to
be acceptable because of a perceived workload. Apparently it is easier to
say no than to say yes and that is in itself mystifying.

OTRS has not moved on with the time and as such it does not even know
selfies... An issue not confined to OTRS is that understanding of copyright
and licensing is dim anyway. When a copyright holder provides us with
material, it is licensed by the copyright holder to be available under a
WMF permitted license. When the copyright holder provides it under a
secondary license elsewhere or when our material is used elsewhere with a
more restrictive license, it does not follow that we are in breach of
copyright. I have fought such "delete on sight" battles and the only result
is no response on the image that was to be speedily deleted. The rule
should be; when material is provided to us, the license is checked at the
time and any and all issues NOT involving the copyright holder are to be
seen as irrelevant.

OTRS is a Wikimedia Foundation sanctioned function. It insists to function
as is and therefore *a new mandate is required* because as is, it does the
worst possible service. There is no Wikipedia, there are 300+, there are
other projects that require a functioning Commons and as it is, it is not
fit for purpose.

You may remember when English Wikipedia had egg on its face because of the
deletion of what became a Nobel prize winner. There are MANY science awards
and we want a picture for all awardees in addition, in the Scholia tool we
want pictures of any and all people that authored a paper.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 02:06, Gnangarra  wrote:

> For legal reasons OTRS requires very specific wording, it declines
> permissions that fail to meet that very strict wording.
>
> The person must;
>
>- establish their authority to license the image
>- the license must be a free license PD or CC-by
>- it must not say the use is to, for, or on Wikipedia
>- it needs a URL to associate the permission with
>
> If the media meets these requirements than it will be accept, if it doesnt
> it gets rejected. Scope is something that gets decided on on Commons.
>
> Wikidata has had an impact on scope, quite literally everything is now
> within scope.  We havent even yet got to the issue about Wikidata items
> including trademarked logos and copyrighted works for which Commons cant
> have images under fairuse
>
> Commons has fallen behind when it comes to the capability of taking photos
> of ones self (selfies) the default position when Commons started was that
> taking a high quality photograph of yourself wasnt possible there must have
> been someone else pushing the button. What happens is Commons asks for the
> subject to obtain permission from the photographer and submit that to OTRS,
> the systems falls over because the photographer cant prove that the photo
> they took of themselves was taken by themselves because the underlying
> assumption is that that isnt possible.  The vast majority of agents on the
> commons permission queue are people from commons who have learnt the
> policies and have the tools to do the work.
>
> OTRS permission behaves as expected because there is a very narrow
> definition of whats acceptable, anything that doesnt fit gets rejected. The
> very real need to be pro-active in ensuring the permissions queue doesnt
> get overwhelmed and backlogged  contributes to the fact that the grey is
> treated as black -- close it, delete it, move on.
>
> In an ideal scenario a closer relationship with google via flickr to make
> it possible for Wikidata to link in there as well would be a potential
> solution to those areas where copyright is an issue as  it would still
> enable the ability of having an image accessible via a link.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 05:00, Michael Maggs  wrote:
>
> > This has nothing to do with Commons only supporting Wikipedia. Commons
> > supports ALL of the Wikimedia projects, and always has.
> >
> > As is quite clearly set out in the Commons SCOPE policy, “a file that is
> > used in good faith on a Wikimedia project is always considered
> > educational”, and hence is in scope. Of course, that includes Wikidata.
> >
> > Under the same policy, Commons does not editorialise on behalf of any of
> > the projects, and an image that is acceptable to Wikidata is by desi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects

[Gnangarra]

For legal reasons OTRS requires very specific wording, it declines
permissions that fail to meet that very strict wording.

The person must;

   - establish their authority to license the image
   - the license must be a free license PD or CC-by
   - it must not say the use is to, for, or on Wikipedia
   - it needs a URL to associate the permission with

If the media meets these requirements than it will be accept, if it doesnt
it gets rejected. Scope is something that gets decided on on Commons.

Wikidata has had an impact on scope, quite literally everything is now
within scope.  We havent even yet got to the issue about Wikidata items
including trademarked logos and copyrighted works for which Commons cant
have images under fairuse

Commons has fallen behind when it comes to the capability of taking photos
of ones self (selfies) the default position when Commons started was that
taking a high quality photograph of yourself wasnt possible there must have
been someone else pushing the button. What happens is Commons asks for the
subject to obtain permission from the photographer and submit that to OTRS,
the systems falls over because the photographer cant prove that the photo
they took of themselves was taken by themselves because the underlying
assumption is that that isnt possible.  The vast majority of agents on the
commons permission queue are people from commons who have learnt the
policies and have the tools to do the work.

OTRS permission behaves as expected because there is a very narrow
definition of whats acceptable, anything that doesnt fit gets rejected. The
very real need to be pro-active in ensuring the permissions queue doesnt
get overwhelmed and backlogged  contributes to the fact that the grey is
treated as black -- close it, delete it, move on.

In an ideal scenario a closer relationship with google via flickr to make
it possible for Wikidata to link in there as well would be a potential
solution to those areas where copyright is an issue as  it would still
enable the ability of having an image accessible via a link.









On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 05:00, Michael Maggs  wrote:

> This has nothing to do with Commons only supporting Wikipedia. Commons
> supports ALL of the Wikimedia projects, and always has.
>
> As is quite clearly set out in the Commons SCOPE policy, “a file that is
> used in good faith on a Wikimedia project is always considered
> educational”, and hence is in scope. Of course, that includes Wikidata.
>
> Under the same policy, Commons does not editorialise on behalf of any of
> the projects, and an image that is acceptable to Wikidata is by design
> acceptable to Commons.
>
> If the Wikidata community considers that an item on an individual is not
> acceptable (for  example because it has been added solely for
> self-promotion), Wikidata can - under its own rules - delete it, and hence
> the link to the image on Commons.
>
> Commons would then delete the image as not in use (and not otherwise
> educational).
>
> None of this relies in any way on the specific definition of ‘notable’ as
> used on the Wikipedias; that’s simply not relevant.
>
> The problem here seems to be an additional hurdle that has apparently been
> added to the guidance given to OTRS volunteers.  OTRS has so far as I know
> no mandate to decline images that fall within Commons Scope, and if they
> are indeed doing that, the guidance should be changed.
>
> Michael
>
> > On 25 Feb 2020, at 16:11, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hoi,
> > Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support
> > Wikipedia.
> >
> > At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards. We
> > are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The
> best
> > suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at
> > Commons.
> >
> > When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia,
> it
> > is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects. The
> > projects who operate to different standards who have notability criteria
> > different from English Wikipedia.
> > Thanks,
> >  GerardM
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: 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 and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



-- 
GN.

*Power of Diverse Collabora

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Scholarships Wikimania 2020

[Gnangarra]

Wikimania is fast approaching, this year it'll be held in Bangkok and as
always the Wikimedia Foundation has a limited number of opportunities to
assist people to attend. There are two types of scholarships the first
being a full scholarship which covers, travel, accommodation, and
registration, the second a  partial scholarship that covers accommodation
and registration.

This year for the first time East, South East Asia, and Pacific  (ESEAP) as
collaboration between the region we'll be your host for Wikimania.  The
region has placed a high importance on collaboration and knowledge sharing
this years Wikimania program will reflect that. Our theme is;
*Power of Diverse Collaboration*
*Sharing knowledge brings people together*

How does this impact on scholarship? ESEAP is looking for people who are
prepared to share their knowledge to help develop potential future
leaders.  We'll be looking for two broad areas of contributions, from those
who have successfully developed programs, and those  newer contributors who
want to develop their skills to do more but have never been to a Wikimania
to broaden their support networks.

As you apply please agree to share your details with the local affiliate
should they also have scholarships available. When answering questions if
you have urls to reports, dashboards, and events reports please provide
them. Rather than writing lots of words again have your past recordings
speak.

On behalf of ESEAP community, and the Scholarship committee we look forward
to seeing you in Bangkok in August.

--
Gnangarra
Wikimania Scholarship committee Co-chair



*Power of Diverse Collaboration*
*Sharing knowledge brings people together*
Wikimania Bangkok 2020
August 5 to 9
hosted by ESEAP

Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed 
to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more 
information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects

[Michael Maggs]

This has nothing to do with Commons only supporting Wikipedia. Commons supports 
ALL of the Wikimedia projects, and always has. 

As is quite clearly set out in the Commons SCOPE policy, “a file that is used 
in good faith on a Wikimedia project is always considered educational”, and 
hence is in scope. Of course, that includes Wikidata. 

Under the same policy, Commons does not editorialise on behalf of any of the 
projects, and an image that is acceptable to Wikidata is by design acceptable 
to Commons. 

If the Wikidata community considers that an item on an individual is not 
acceptable (for  example because it has been added solely for self-promotion), 
Wikidata can - under its own rules - delete it, and hence the link to the image 
on Commons. 

Commons would then delete the image as not in use (and not otherwise 
educational).  

None of this relies in any way on the specific definition of ‘notable’ as used 
on the Wikipedias; that’s simply not relevant. 

The problem here seems to be an additional hurdle that has apparently been 
added to the guidance given to OTRS volunteers.  OTRS has so far as I know no 
mandate to decline images that fall within Commons Scope, and if they are 
indeed doing that, the guidance should be changed.

Michael

> On 25 Feb 2020, at 16:11, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
> 
> Hoi,
> Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support
> Wikipedia.
> 
> At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards. We
> are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The best
> suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at
> Commons.
> 
> When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia, it
> is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects. The
> projects who operate to different standards who have notability criteria
> different from English Wikipedia.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Treatment of newbies with mild CoI

[Vi to]

Hard to tell anything without the relevant link(s).

Vito

Il giorno mer 19 feb 2020 alle ore 22:35 Andy Mabbett <
a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> ha scritto:

> I have just come across a case on en.Wikipedia where the daughter of
> an article subject added details of his funeral (his death in 1984,w
> as already recorded) and his view about an indent in his life.
>
> Her six sequential edits - her first and only contribution to
> Wikipedia - totalled 1254 characters, and were conducted over the
> space of 30 minutes. They were no the best quality, lacking sources,
> but were benign, and exactly what one might expect an untutored novice
> to do as a first change.
>
> As well as being reverted, she now has three templates on her talk
> page; two warning her of a CoI, and sandwiching one notifying her of a
> discussion about her on the COI noticeboard. These total 4094
> characters or 665 words.
>
> How do other projects deal with such cases?
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on otherprojects

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
For me there is no difference. When Commons OTRS is not behaving as is to
be expected, they provide a serious disservice to our movement and yes, it
may be volunteering but that is not a reason to accept what is not
acceptable.

What will be done to remedy this predicament?
Thanks,
 GerardM


On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 20:31, Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 17:10, Rebecca O'Neill 
> wrote:
> >
> > I think this is what is being referenced:
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#OTRS_&_Wikidata
>
> Thank you; it is.
>
> The issue is not with Commons, but with Commons' OTRS.
>
> tl;dr = wanted photographs of individuals with items on Wikidata
> (established 2012) , that meet Wikidata's notability criteria, are
> being rejected, unseen by the Commons or Wikidata communities, by OTRS
> volunteers, based on a 2010 policy that is on a password-protected
> wiki. Requests for details how how that policy was arrived at, and how
> it can be changed, remain unanswered.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Treatment of newbies with mild CoI

[Raymond Leonard]

I hope I am one of those "rare exceptions" that Paulo Santos Perneta writes
about. I also wish that welcoming would be neither rare or exceptional.

My habit:

   - For newly registered users, which I define as someone with a redlinked
   talk page, I welcome them.
   - If I am going to revert that user's edit then warn them (via Twinkle
  almost always), I want to ensure that they are welcomed first.
   - For IP editors:
  -  If I am reverting an obviously inappropriate edit by an
  un-welcomed IP editor, I typically use one of the Twinkle welcome/warning
  combos, such as Template:Welcome-anon-test,
  Template:Welcome-anon-unconstructive, or Template:Welcome-anon-delete.
  - If an  un-welcomed IP editor, makes a revertible edit that is
  non-malicious, I usually do a Template:Welcome-anon without the article
  parameter, then add a warning
  - If an  un-welcomed IP editor, editor is doing good, I use a
  Template:Welcome-anon-constructive

Peaceray

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:58 AM Pine W  wrote:

> I have a more nuanced view.
>
> The community benefits from new editors who are acting in good faith
> and willing to learn.
>
> I agree that treatment of new editors can be problematic.
>
> On the other hand, having become one of the "insiders", I now
> understand how English Wikipedia has a limited supply of skilled labor
> from volunteers who are trying to defend Wikipedia against vandals,
> conflict of interest editors, copyright violations, and other
> problems.
>
> There is a WMF team working to improve the onboarding experience. I'm
> cc'ing Marshal Miller (WMF) here in case he would like to comment.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on otherprojects

[Andy Mabbett]

On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 17:10, Rebecca O'Neill  wrote:
>
> I think this is what is being referenced:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#OTRS_&_Wikidata

Thank you; it is.

The issue is not with Commons, but with Commons' OTRS.

tl;dr = wanted photographs of individuals with items on Wikidata
(established 2012) , that meet Wikidata's notability criteria, are
being rejected, unseen by the Commons or Wikidata communities, by OTRS
volunteers, based on a 2010 policy that is on a password-protected
wiki. Requests for details how how that policy was arrived at, and how
it can be changed, remain unanswered.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Treatment of newbies with mild CoI

[Pine W]

I have a more nuanced view.

The community benefits from new editors who are acting in good faith
and willing to learn.

I agree that treatment of new editors can be problematic.

On the other hand, having become one of the "insiders", I now
understand how English Wikipedia has a limited supply of skilled labor
from volunteers who are trying to defend Wikipedia against vandals,
conflict of interest editors, copyright violations, and other
problems.

There is a WMF team working to improve the onboarding experience. I'm
cc'ing Marshal Miller (WMF) here in case he would like to comment.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FY1819 Fundraising Report

[effe iets anders]

+1

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 9:46 AM Philip Kopetzky 
wrote:

> Hi Chuck,
>
> since this is hopefully a less busy season of the year, have the internal
> discussions yielded anything that might help in breaking these numbers down
> a little bit more? :-)
>
> Best,
> Philip
>
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 at 03:59, Chuck Roslof  wrote:
>
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Thanks for sharing your thoughts about how this information could be
> useful
> > for local affiliates and communities. We'll discuss internally to see if
> we
> > might be able to share more information in the future in order to achieve
> > those benefits in ways that don't raise legal concerns or create
> excessive
> > overhead for our fundraising team. We're entering into the busiest time
> of
> > the year for online fundraising, though, so it'll be at least a few
> months
> > before we are able to address the question internally.
> >
> >  - Chuck
> >
> > ==
> > Charles M. Roslof
> > Legal Counsel
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > Pronouns: they /he
> > 
> >
> > NOTICE: As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
> > reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for,
> community
> > members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For
> more
> > on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
> > .
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 2:27 AM Philip Kopetzky <
> philip.kopet...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Chuck for digging out that old email, it does explain why this
> > isn't
> > > done for every country.
> > > Chris and Sandra have a point though, because this can't be a legal
> issue
> > > for most European countries for example. In return, the local
> > organisations
> > > and communities would benefit from an added layer of feedback based on
> > > their work.
> > >
> > > Furthermore, how and how much we fundraise will be one of the important
> > > talking points when implementing the recommendations, especially to
> set a
> > > benchmark to evaluate if involving local organisations in the
> fundraising
> > > process actually works or not.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Philip
> > >
> > > On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 at 09:38, Sandra Rientjes - Wikimedia Nederland <
> > > rient...@wikimedia.nl> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I agree with Chris.
> > > > Furthermore: Wikimedia Nederland, like all chapters, puts a lot of
> > effort
> > > > in raising awareness of and support for the Wikimedia projects.  I
> > would
> > > > really like to know if these efforts 'pay off'.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sandra Rientjes
> > > > Directeur/Executive Director Wikimedia Nederland
> > > >
> > > > tel.(+31) (0)30 3200238 (ma, di, do)
> > > > mob. (+31) (0)6  31786379 (wo, vrij)
> > > >
> > > > www.wikimedia.nl
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Mariaplaats 3
> > > > 3511 LH  Utrecht
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Op do 3 okt. 2019 om 09:13 schreef Chris Keating <
> > > > chriskeatingw...@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Chuck,
> > > > >
> > > > > The reasons the question keeps getting asked is because it was
> never
> > > > really
> > > > > answered in the first place.
> > > > >
> > > > > The only good reason I can think of for not publishing
> country-level
> > > data
> > > > > is that there are some countries where that could create risks to
> the
> > > WMF
> > > > > or individuals because they're places where giving donations to a
> US
> > > > > nonprofit is either illegal or politically risky.
> > > > >
> > > > > However that doesn't apply to most countries, so why not publish
> the
> > > data
> > > > > for most of the world?
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 1:34 AM Chuck Roslof  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Philip,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We do not publish country-level fundraising numbers. My colleague
> > > > Stephen
> > > > > > discussed why on this list a few years back, so rather than
> > > > paraphrasing
> > > > > > his previous email I'll just provide a link to it:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-November/085576.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > Chuck
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ==
> > > > > > Charles M. Roslof
> > > > > > Legal Counsel
> > > > > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > > > > Pronouns: they /he
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > NOTICE: This message might have confidential or legally
> privileged
> > > > > > information in it. If you have received this message by accident,
> > > > please
> > > > > > delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for
> the
> > > > > > Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give
> legal
> > > > > advice
> > > > > > to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or
> > staff
> > > > > > members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means,
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects

[Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l]

 I see. If I am reading it right I think that in that case I would never tried 
a direct OTRS , mostly because I know how the system is designed and its 
possible rigid reaction. IMHO it's not designed to minimize these points of 
stress but to encourage them. It looks more like a play when some people are 
confortable with a certain role. I am not interested in that play, so I try to 
skip it as much as possible.
I have noticed for example people like these discussions about notability on 
Wikidata, but not the solution. In practice I see millions of items with 
acceptable IDs which will be completed by images and these discussions are 
already old. Just to be clear... I hate poorly created items, since I mostly 
teach who to manually improve them and even I don't care so much, so why people 
from other projects should bother inventing apocalyptic scenarios just makes me 
smile. They will stop when they will find something else to complain. Still, I 
don't know you but to me It looks more of a social thing than a fucntional one. 
There is really nothing more to discuss if you look into that, we need 
bibliometric items for precise application within the scope of Wikidata, and 
they require images. 
I am not going to write the more time-consuming steps I would have used to 
prepare or encourage or process that import, I simply would have assumed that 
the most direct way for that situation was just pointless to try. There is 
always some issues with one file in a batch or the phrasing of a sentence, 
there is always a confusion between notability guidelines... there is always a 
person who would precisely do what will escalate the situation. So, if the 
chance are more than 50% to go bad... why bother? 

I prefer to find ways to make the longer road more time efficient and 
meaningful. Of course if you don't go that way you are not presenting things in 
a nice clear single passage so you cannot often take the spotlight... but I am 
not committed to that aspect, so It's not an issue for me. I still meet a lot 
of very interesting people on the way.
Still, you have my support to remove that rigidi interpretation of notability 
on OTRS. If I can help to more people sapre time, I totally support it.

Alessadro





   Il martedì 25 febbraio 2020, 18:21:18 CET, Gerard Meijssen 
 ha scritto:  
 
 Hoi,This is the chat (too long) at Wikidata 
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Images_for_Wikidata_-_%22Global_Young_Academy%22This
 is the chat at Commons 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#OTRS_&_WikidataThanks,
     GerardM
On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 17:45, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l 
 wrote:

 Can you provide some links?
I keep asking images for Wikidata items since years and I do not recall any 
issue at all. I have the feeling that as long everything is formally correct 
(all categories prepared and linked via wikidata infobox) nobody digs into that 
very much.
It's true however that I have a cynical approach. In general, I think that 
whoever spends his/her time on this and not on deleting unused low resolution 
old images or cropping files or improving categorization is probably more 
focused on chasing users than actually cleaning up. As soon as you assume that 
this is the core source of the behavior, you can teach newbies quite well how 
to avoid it. It's not "good faith" but... it kinda works.
Alessandro

    Il martedì 25 febbraio 2020, 17:11:44 CET, Gerard Meijssen 
 ha scritto:  

 Hoi,
Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support
Wikipedia.

At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards. We
are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The best
suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at
Commons.

When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia, it
is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects. The
projects who operate to different standards who have notability criteria
different from English Wikipedia.
Thanks,
      GerardM
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: 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/Mailin

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Treatment of newbies with mild CoI

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

As a rule, (at least) in Wikipedia, with very rare exceptions,  established
communities of editors treat newbies as unwelcome invaders.
No idea how to solve that, since it's a problem related to the nature of
humane beings, not something technical.
But the result is a very low rate of retention, indeed - and increasingly
reduced diversity and cultural richness, which eventually ends up reflected
on content. At some point those established editors also start preying at
other established editors, specially when newbies are not available. The
environment is awful and toxic in general.

For outreach activities to have at least a minimal rate of success, the
participants need to have some kind of protection shield, such as some
privileged contact with established editors willing to help them.
Otherwise, edithatons and other outreach activities are basically sending
lambs to the slaughterhouse. As for newbies that come to Wikipedia by
themselves, they are generally on their own.

Best,
Paulo

Aron Demian  escreveu no dia domingo, 23/02/2020
à(s) 23:30:

> On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 22:35, Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:
>
> > I have just come across a case on en.Wikipedia where the daughter of
> > an article subject added details of his funeral (his death in 1984,w
> > as already recorded) and his view about an indent in his life.
>
> [...]
> >
> As well as being reverted, she now has three templates on her talk
> > page; two warning her of a CoI, and sandwiching one notifying her of a
> > discussion about her on the COI noticeboard. These total 4094
> > characters or 665 words.
> >
>
> This is a topic that's seldom discussed and somewhat taboo in certain
> areas, therefore not many people are aware of what experiences many
> newcomers have. These events go generally unnoticed, but if you were
> wondering why editor retention is a constant issue, the pattern that lies
> behind this single case you brought to our attention is a top reason.
>
> I've tried to help in a similar case of a footballer unknown in
> English-speaking countries. She was repeatedly reverted without the edits
> being evaluated or the rules being explained. She never returned and I was
> frowned upon by the admin, who was involved, for trying to help.
>
> I've noticed this "shoot first, ask later" pattern in many cases, not just
> with newcomers. Unfortunately, this is all too common and a contributing
> factor to the toxicity.
>
> I've noticed the following issues:
> 1) The general unwelcoming treatment of newcomers: "noobs" are considered
> lacking the proper understanding and necessary knowledge, unless they jump
> right into RC patrolling, which is not the sign of a new editor.
> 2) The lack of protection given to newcomers:  "You have no rights" being
> explicitly said to one newcomer, that I recall.
> 3) Preferential treatment and authority bias: the experienced/established
> user is "trusted", thus must be right, therefore unwelcoming - and often
> hostile - conduct is not considered uncivil or it's "not actionable".
> 4) The excessively vilifying application of the most frowned-upon rules
> such as COI, socking. Editors tagged as such are treated the same
> regardless of the effect of their actions and whether that has caused any
> damage, which can scale from none to introducing bias to many articles for
> years.
>
> Currently, there is no effort to mitigate these issues, to improve the
> policies and community practices. It's also a problem that while the
> "biting newbies" and "civility" policies are very well written, these are
> almost never applied and definitely not in the protection of newcomers. By
> that I don't mean these should always result in sanctions, but that the
> community - and primarily who get involved with handling disputes - should
> take these seriously, approach with a neutral mindset and remind the
> editors about our policies, but that almost never happens and such
> complaints are either ignored or blindly decided in favor of the editor
> with more supporters, enabling the abuse of newcomers.
>
> Tl;dr:  newcomers don't enjoy the safety net created by editors who know
> and care for each other and the community processes are not set up to
> create a welcoming and/or safe environment, this purpose is not manifested
> in any kind of endeavors or practices. If the WMF and the movement take the
> Mid-Term target of a welcoming environment seriously, that's a difficult,
> long-term target that will take a lot of effort.
>
> Aron (Demian)
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

I'm not that familiar with the photosubmissions OTRS queue, and I've no
idea if we have that rule internally on OTRS.
But it surely seems a weird rule. Anything that is on scope to Commons -
which is the case for anything used in Wikdiata too - should be accepted in
photosubmission, period.
That claimed attachment to Wikipedia, a project very well known for often
having a communities with draconian and unhelpful rules of notability,
doesn't seem productive in the least. If that rule exists at all, it should
be dropped and the images accepted.

"some people have turned Wikidata into a dumping ground for scientific
papers and a phone book for scientists" - O RLY?

Best,
Paulo


Gerard Meijssen  escreveu no dia terça,
25/02/2020 à(s) 17:21:

> Hoi,
> This is the chat (too long) at Wikidata
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Images_for_Wikidata_-_%22Global_Young_Academy%22
> This is the chat at Commons
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#OTRS_&_Wikidata
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 17:45, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> >  Can you provide some links?
> > I keep asking images for Wikidata items since years and I do not recall
> > any issue at all. I have the feeling that as long everything is formally
> > correct (all categories prepared and linked via wikidata infobox) nobody
> > digs into that very much.
> > It's true however that I have a cynical approach. In general, I think
> that
> > whoever spends his/her time on this and not on deleting unused low
> > resolution old images or cropping files or improving categorization is
> > probably more focused on chasing users than actually cleaning up. As soon
> > as you assume that this is the core source of the behavior, you can teach
> > newbies quite well how to avoid it. It's not "good faith" but... it kinda
> > works.
> > Alessandro
> >
> > Il martedì 25 febbraio 2020, 17:11:44 CET, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >
> >  Hoi,
> > Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support
> > Wikipedia.
> >
> > At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards. We
> > are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The
> best
> > suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at
> > Commons.
> >
> > When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia,
> it
> > is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects. The
> > projects who operate to different standards who have notability criteria
> > different from English Wikipedia.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: 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 and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: 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 and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
This is the chat (too long) at Wikidata
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Images_for_Wikidata_-_%22Global_Young_Academy%22
This is the chat at Commons
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#OTRS_&_Wikidata
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 17:45, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

>  Can you provide some links?
> I keep asking images for Wikidata items since years and I do not recall
> any issue at all. I have the feeling that as long everything is formally
> correct (all categories prepared and linked via wikidata infobox) nobody
> digs into that very much.
> It's true however that I have a cynical approach. In general, I think that
> whoever spends his/her time on this and not on deleting unused low
> resolution old images or cropping files or improving categorization is
> probably more focused on chasing users than actually cleaning up. As soon
> as you assume that this is the core source of the behavior, you can teach
> newbies quite well how to avoid it. It's not "good faith" but... it kinda
> works.
> Alessandro
>
> Il martedì 25 febbraio 2020, 17:11:44 CET, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>  Hoi,
> Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support
> Wikipedia.
>
> At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards. We
> are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The best
> suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at
> Commons.
>
> When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia, it
> is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects. The
> projects who operate to different standards who have notability criteria
> different from English Wikipedia.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on otherprojects

[Rebecca O'Neill]

I think this is what is being referenced:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#OTRS_&_Wikidata

On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 17:09, Phil Nash via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> I haven't seen any evidence of this on Commons. We do delete selfies of
> non-Wikimedians because we are not Facebook. Apart from that, I'd like to
> see some evidence for this. Thanks
>
> User:Rodhullandemu
>
> ---
> New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it here:
> https://www.oeclassic.com/
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Reply-To: Alessandro Marchetti , Wikimedia Mailing
> List 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Sent: 25/02/2020 16:45:02
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on
> otherprojects
>
> 
>
> Can you provide some links?
> I keep asking images for Wikidata items since years and I do not recall
> any issue at all. I have the feeling that as long everything is formally
> correct (all categories prepared and linked via wikidata infobox) nobody
> digs into that very much.
> It's true however that I have a cynical approach. In general, I think that
> whoever spends his/her time on this and not on deleting unused low
> resolution old images or cropping files or improving categorization is
> probably more focused on chasing users than actually cleaning up. As soon
> as you assume that this is the core source of the behavior, you can teach
> newbies quite well how to avoid it. It's not "good faith" but... it kinda
> works.
> Alessandro
>
> Il martedì 25 febbraio 2020, 17:11:44 CET, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
> Hoi,
> Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support
> Wikipedia.
>
> At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards. We
> are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The best
> suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at
> Commons.
>
> When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia, it
> is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects. The
> projects who operate to different standards who have notability criteria
> different from English Wikipedia.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



-- 
PhD in Digital Media
Project Coordinator Wikimedia Community Ireland 
She/Her
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on otherprojects

[Phil Nash via Wikimedia-l]

I haven't seen any evidence of this on Commons. We do delete selfies of 
non-Wikimedians because we are not Facebook. Apart from that, I'd like to see 
some evidence for this. Thanks

User:Rodhullandemu

---
New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it here:
https://www.oeclassic.com/



- Original Message -
From: Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l 
Reply-To: Alessandro Marchetti , Wikimedia Mailing List 

To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Sent: 25/02/2020 16:45:02
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on 
otherprojects


Can you provide some links?
I keep asking images for Wikidata items since years and I do not recall any 
issue at all. I have the feeling that as long everything is formally correct 
(all categories prepared and linked via wikidata infobox) nobody digs into that 
very much.
It's true however that I have a cynical approach. In general, I think that 
whoever spends his/her time on this and not on deleting unused low resolution 
old images or cropping files or improving categorization is probably more 
focused on chasing users than actually cleaning up. As soon as you assume that 
this is the core source of the behavior, you can teach newbies quite well how 
to avoid it. It's not "good faith" but... it kinda works.
Alessandro

Il martedì 25 febbraio 2020, 17:11:44 CET, Gerard Meijssen 
 ha scritto:  

Hoi,
Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support
Wikipedia.

At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards. We
are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The best
suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at
Commons.

When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia, it
is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects. The
projects who operate to different standards who have notability criteria
different from English Wikipedia.
Thanks,
  GerardM
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects

[Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l]

 Can you provide some links?
I keep asking images for Wikidata items since years and I do not recall any 
issue at all. I have the feeling that as long everything is formally correct 
(all categories prepared and linked via wikidata infobox) nobody digs into that 
very much.
It's true however that I have a cynical approach. In general, I think that 
whoever spends his/her time on this and not on deleting unused low resolution 
old images or cropping files or improving categorization is probably more 
focused on chasing users than actually cleaning up. As soon as you assume that 
this is the core source of the behavior, you can teach newbies quite well how 
to avoid it. It's not "good faith" but... it kinda works.
Alessandro

Il martedì 25 febbraio 2020, 17:11:44 CET, Gerard Meijssen 
 ha scritto:  
 
 Hoi,
Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support
Wikipedia.

At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards. We
are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The best
suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at
Commons.

When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia, it
is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects. The
projects who operate to different standards who have notability criteria
different from English Wikipedia.
Thanks,
      GerardM
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support
Wikipedia.

At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards. We
are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The best
suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at
Commons.

When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia, it
is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects. The
projects who operate to different standards who have notability criteria
different from English Wikipedia.
Thanks,
  GerardM
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Project Grant Proposal for Education Program

[Rocky Masum]

Hello All,

Hope all of you are doing well. I'm proposing a Wikimedia Foundation
Project Grant for Wikipedia Education Program in Bangladesh.

Please check it out and endorse it if you support it.

Proposal link:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Wikipedia_Education_Program_in_Bangladesh

Thank you in advance.


Regards,
Masum-al-Hasan Rocky
EC Member
,
Wikimedia Bangladesh 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,