Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

Just think, in a few years we can set up the site to construct drafts for the site that constructs drafts for Wikipedia. On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Samuel Klein wrote: > On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Marc A. Pelletier > wrote: > > There's nothing that prevents a subject from having an

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

I love it when individuals decide that they know what is important and worthy of inclusion, as opposed to the mindless masses. Because that's such a healthy way to ensure an open, neutral, and comprehensive encyclopedia. On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Tarc Meridian wrote: > > I think that is a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

That reasoning seems to be begging the question a bit. That we should not make an exception so that there will be no exceptions. I suggested some pragmatic reasons why making an exception for these trademarks more successfully communicates the message for reuse than not doing so. And also how an

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

We have special templates for this case which prominently inform the user that the image is free due to reason XYZ but can't be used in any context due to additional trademark restrictions. This concept does not only apply to logos or trademarks, but also for public domain cases. Commons hosts

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: > There's nothing that prevents a subject from having an article in both > namespaces. One can be seen as the complement of the other; mainspace would > become more encyclopedic and there would be a neat space where the more > recent cover

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

I can't disagree with your understanding of the different IP laws, however this not a very commonly understood nuance. Many people, when seeing the logo listed as "free" regarding copyright, will assume they can use it the same as any other copyleft or PD image. They will not necessarily unde

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:49 AM, David Gerard wrote: > On 4 July 2012 00:48, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: > > > There's nothing that prevents a subject from having an article in both > > namespaces. One can be seen as the complement of the other; mainspace > would > > become more encyclopedic and t

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

On 4 July 2012 00:49, David Gerard wrote: > On 4 July 2012 00:48, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: > > > There's nothing that prevents a subject from having an article in both > > namespaces. One can be seen as the complement of the other; mainspace > would > > become more encyclopedic and there would

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

On 03/07/2012 7:49 PM, David Gerard wrote: We could call it "Wikinews". Arguably, that was the intent behind that project in the first place. That said, the news article format (as opposed to living prose) is demonstrably not what the readers want - they already voted with their browsers the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

On 4 July 2012 00:48, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: > There's nothing that prevents a subject from having an article in both > namespaces. One can be seen as the complement of the other; mainspace would > become more encyclopedic and there would be a neat space where the more > recent coverage can be

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

On 03/07/2012 7:42 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: How would you deal with biographies of people like heads of state, who are subjects of serious academic study as well as daily news articles? There's nothing that prevents a subject from having an article in both namespaces. One can be seen as the c

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: > On 03/07/2012 7:04 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > >> What would a Wikipedia look like that did not make use of press sources? >> It >> would look a hell of a lot more like an encyclopedia. Thousands of silly >> arguments would never arise. T

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

On 03/07/2012 7:04 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: What would a Wikipedia look like that did not make use of press sources? It would look a hell of a lot more like an encyclopedia. Thousands of silly arguments would never arise. Thousands of apposite criticisms of Wikipedia would never arise. These are

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:15 AM, David Gerard wrote: > On 4 July 2012 00:04, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > > I agree with Marc. The other day, someone said here on the list, "It's > > almost as if what the press say and what the facts are in reality are two > > different things that have only a very

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

On 4 July 2012 00:04, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > I agree with Marc. The other day, someone said here on the list, "It's > almost as if what the press say and what the facts are in reality are two > different things that have only a very tenuous relationship." Yes, in response to you trying to suppo

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

You will have to split between trademark laws and copyright laws. Both concepts exist separately from each other. There are a lot of logos that are not copyright protected. For example very simple text logos, depending on country even more complex logos that don't reach the needed threshold of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: > On 03/07/2012 11:09 AM, Delirium wrote: > >> 1) the sources really are *very* good in that case, not merely "ok" >> sources like newspaper articles; >> > > My own (admitedly radical) point of view is that popular media - and that > includ

Re: [Wikimedia-l] SOPA protest may have had effect

> > Techdirt is a rather *hopeful* source, but ... > > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120703/12112119569/ustrs-surprise-turnaround-now-advocating-limitations-exceptions-to-copyright.shtml > > "Given the USTR's general lack of transparency and intellectually

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

Ilario, please keep apart copyright and trademarks. Rodrigo did not question the decision to have the logos trademarked. He just questioned the decision to keep them copyrighted. As Tobias Oelgarte pointed out, a logo can be in the public domain and still be protected as a trademark. The Coc

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

Again, the logo is a symbol, it's not an image. I don't agree with your concept because you can move the Commons content in another website also commercial. So you should split content and repository. The content may be free, the repository may be not free. Following your concept if a newsp

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

Think of a logo or a trademark as an identity; the arguments for releasing free informational content are totally separate from allowing others to make free use of your (or WMFs) identity. You might as well ask why not release your name for any possible commercial use. I suspect you wouldn't agree

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging

On 03/07/2012 3:23 PM, Theo10011 wrote: I would ask about a hypothetical, is someone's off-wiki opinion or behavior or even criminal past, grounds for a block? It may well be. Both for our protection and that of other editors. There are cases of real, dangerous persons using Wikipedia to pur

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

I don't know how it is handled after US law, but if i consider German law then logos and trademarks are often even in the public domain, but protected as a trademark itself. But i also think that our logo is something to protect while being free at the same time. If we go strictly after the pol

[Wikimedia-l] SOPA protest may have had effect

Techdirt is a rather *hopeful* source, but ... http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120703/12112119569/ustrs-surprise-turnaround-now-advocating-limitations-exceptions-to-copyright.shtml "Given the USTR's general lack of transparency and intellectually insulting attitude towards

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

A mark is not a simple image. A mark it's a symbol. On 03.07.2012 23:32, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote: So in your view, free images can be harmful? So why would I release a picture? And you're telling me is more important to believe in the logo, instead of checking the validity of what you ar

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

So in your view, free images can be harmful? So why would I release a picture? And you're telling me is more important to believe in the logo, instead of checking the validity of what you are consuming? But we do not talk to our volunteers always check the sources and not to believe blindly in a s

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging

> > is someone's off-wiki opinion or behavior or even criminal past, grounds > for a block? In my opinion, yes. I have carried out many blocks (and bans) based partly on the off-wiki behaviour of an editor. It's really only necessary in very serious cases involving violence, stalking, child prote

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

The trademark doesn't protect only the owner, it can protect also the user. Imagine that a fashion house would release his trademark under free license. Imagine that you buy a Gucci or Armani shirt and you are sure that it's a Gucci or Armani shirt. And you pay as you may pay the original one o

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

What purpose would it serve to release the WMF's logos? Surely it would damage the project rather than help it... copyright isn't always a bad thing! Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Disclaimer viewable at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer Visit http://www.wikimedia

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

hummm... No! I've read all this, I can give workshops about it, my question is more about values​​, why not believe in what we preach and release our logos? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com +55 11 7971-8884 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

Maybe this could be clarified in the FAQ http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_policy#FAQ Also here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logo_of_Wikipedia -- Fajro ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://li

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote: > Since 2008 I wonder, why the logo of Wikimedia projects are under copyright? I > see it as something contradictory. > > -- > Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton > rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com > +55 11 7971-8884 > __

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

On 03/07/2012 11:09 AM, Delirium wrote: 1) the sources really are *very* good in that case, not merely "ok" sources like newspaper articles; My own (admitedly radical) point of view is that popular media - and that includes newspapers nowadays - are not reliable sources at all in the first pl

[Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

Since 2008 I wonder, why the logo of Wikimedia projects are under copyright? I see it as something contradictory. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com +55 11 7971-8884 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubsc

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging

On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Philippe Beaudette wrote: > To the best of my knowledge, no. > > And that's precisely why we would like a global ban policy implemented. We > would prefer an established, community-monitored process that we can turn > to when at all possible (and make no mistake, i

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging

No, that was clumsy wording. I did not mean that it could have been used in THIS instance; I meant that in future instances, I can see circumstances where it could be used. ___ Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 415-839-6885, x 6643 phili..

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging

Philippe Beaudette, 03/07/2012 21:05: And that's precisely why we would like a global ban policy implemented. We would prefer an established, community-monitored process that we can turn to when at all possible (and make no mistake, in this case it was needed; I wish we could give all the specifi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 3 July 2012 20:05, Philippe Beaudette wrote: >> And that's precisely why we would like a global ban policy implemented. We >> would prefer an established, community-monitored process that we can turn >> to when at all possible (and make no

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging

IMO Office staff do not "count" in that way. An Office Action is by definition something directed from on high to resolve a matter that a local community is either unable or (in this particular case) unwilling to do i na timely manner. Issues of legality take precedence over sometimes-byzanti

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging

On 3 July 2012 20:05, Philippe Beaudette wrote: > And that's precisely why we would like a global ban policy implemented. We > would prefer an established, community-monitored process that we can turn > to when at all possible (and make no mistake, in this case it was needed; I > wish we could giv

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging

I should say that I was involved in some discussion as an admin/functionary, in the block of this user on en-wp, before the office action happened. I've seen some of the evidence independently of the office, and based on evidence I've seen as a volunteer, I support the global lock. Beta M was not a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging

Nathan, 03/07/2012 20:40: Except as I then described, in fact the specifics are known - it was done at Sue's request, in mid-March, after she consulted with the GC and after Jimbo weighed in. This is exactly why nobody is deemed responsible except an anonymous OTRS queue, le...@wikimedia.org (

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote: > > To the best of my knowledge, no. > > And that's precisely why we would like a global ban policy implemented. We > would prefer an established, community-monitored process that we can turn > to when at all possible (and make no mistake,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging

Phillipe, a global ban, even by the policy proposed, requires more than 2 communities agreeing that the ban is necessary, as far as I know, even if we count the office staff as one "community" that is only one. At least the guy know why he was blocked? And what is the guarantee we have that tomorr

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Theo10011 wrote: > my > question was simple was OFFICE action used before to block someone, > globally or locally? > To the best of my knowledge, no. And that's precisely why we would like a global ban policy implemented. We would prefer an established, communi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging

On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Nathan wrote: > Except as I then described, in fact the specifics are known - it was done > at Sue's request, in mid-March, after she consulted with the GC and after > Jimbo weighed in. Several other WMF staffers then commented about its > status as an office acti

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Deryck Chan wrote: > On 3 July 2012 19:08, Nathan wrote: > > > I love it when people send e-mails to the public list, and purposefully > > refrain from actually discussing the actual events at issue. You have to > > read 3/4ths of the e-mail to get an idea that it

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Theo10011 wrote: > Office actions have historically been used to blank or delete pages, the > current listed policy on Meta and commons[3][4] make no mention of Global > bans or blocking a user locally, or even globally. I have not known for > office actions to ex

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging

On 3 July 2012 19:08, Nathan wrote: > I love it when people send e-mails to the public list, and purposefully > refrain from actually discussing the actual events at issue. You have to > read 3/4ths of the e-mail to get an idea that it's about someone being > blocked, but you still don't know why

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Nathan wrote: > So, can you say what it is about this that made you bring it up now, in > July? I heard about this issue fairly recently, on a private list. So, you probably already know more than I do. I really don't care about the specifics of the issue to be

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging

I love it when people send e-mails to the public list, and purposefully refrain from actually discussing the actual events at issue. You have to read 3/4ths of the e-mail to get an idea that it's about someone being blocked, but you still don't know why, when, or by whom. Following the yellow bric

[Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging

Hi I would like to bring up an issue with office actions that was brought up elsewhere. There has been an issue on commons with User:Saibo tagging images from WMF staff. He disagreed with a particular office action taken by WMF staff. He gives an explanation with relevant diffs here[1]. The issue

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Help decide about more than $10 million of movement funds in the coming year

Hi, Nemo. On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: > Only ten millions? This sounds wrong. > The precise size of the "envelope" the FDC will be tasked (by the board) with allocating is to be determined by the board, but it is safe to say at this point that it would not be sma

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Deutschland Monthly Report June 2012

Dear all, Wikimedia Deutschland's monthly report for June 2012 is online now! Find out about the work of our first Wikipedian in Residence, who won the Zedler Prize for Free Knowledge

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

On 3 July 2012 14:49, Svip wrote: > On 3 July 2012 15:35, Tarc Meridian wrote: > What does 'encyclopaedic worthiness' even mean? If Wikipedia is an > encyclopaedia, then all those niche-wikis are encyclopaedia too. Well, yes, they basically replace the specialist encyclopedias. (Main differen

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

On 7/3/12 3:56 PM, Thomas Morton wrote: It is hard to say where the line goes. I agree that _just_ because something is reliably sourced, does not make it worthy for an entire Wikipedia article. But _what_ does make it worthy of Wikipedia's attention? This is the crux of the problem. Our nota

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

Would it be possible to get copies of the older non-notable articles? I would like to add them all to speedydeletion.wikia.com thanks, mike James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozi

[Wikimedia-l] Wikidata logo vote

Hi folks! We've gotten a lot of great proposals for the Wikidata logo and now it's time to chose. All the details about the vote are here: http://blog.wikimedia.de/2012/07/03/wikidata-logo-its-time-to-pick-a-winner/ I'd be delighted if you all took part in the vote and we decide on a great logo fo

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

On 3 July 2012 14:49, Svip wrote: > On 3 July 2012 15:35, Tarc Meridian wrote: > > > Same for some politicians, such as every Thanksgiving some poor > > sod gets to stand outside the White House gate and breathlessly > > report what is on the President's table, or at XMas the reports of > > what

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

On 3 July 2012 15:35, Tarc Meridian wrote: > Same for some politicians, such as every Thanksgiving some poor > sod gets to stand outside the White House gate and breathlessly > report what is on the President's table, or at XMas the reports of > what the First Family bought each other.  Reliably

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

> > I think that is a very dismissive misreading of the discussion. > > Some people have it in their heads that "appears in reliable sources > equates to article-worthiness", but the problem here is that the doings > of celebrities is covered in excruciating detial by the media, including > what te

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

I think that is a very dismissive misreading of the discussion. Some people have it in their heads that "appears in reliable sources equates to article-worthiness", but the problem here is that the doings of celebrities is covered in excruciating detial by the media, including what tey eat, the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

On 3 July 2012 12:02, Tom Morris wrote: > On Tuesday, 3 July 2012 at 10:15, Svip wrote: > > I can't believe _I_ am not the ultimate ruler on what is valuable > > enough to get on Wikipedia. It seems most of the delete comments on > > the Justin Bieber article are mostly people who dislike Justin

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

On Tuesday, 3 July 2012 at 10:15, Svip wrote: > I can't believe _I_ am not the ultimate ruler on what is valuable > enough to get on Wikipedia. It seems most of the delete comments on > the Justin Bieber article are mostly people who dislike Justin Bieber. > > Surely Lady Gaga on Twitter[3] should

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] The Signpost -- Volume 8, Issue 27 -- 02 July 2012

Analysis: Uncovering scientific plagiarism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-07-02/Analysis Op-ed: Representing knowledge – metadata, data and linked data http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-07-02/Op-ed News and notes: RfC on joining lobby

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

Michelle Obama's Arms seems to me to have been a perfectly reasonable deletion based on the discussion. The sources were a list of tabloid-style articles. If I had to guess, I'd say the BeebTweet AFD will be closed as "no consensus" despite all the ILikeIt, IDon'tLikeIt and OtherStuffExists crap

Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer

Home Office to ignore Wikipedia founder's petition against O'Dwyer extradition http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2188558/home-office-ignore-anti-odwyer-extradition-petition ---o0o--- The Home Office has confirmed home secretary Theresa May will not block TVShack founder Richard O'Dwyer's US extradi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

On 3 July 2012 10:52, Ryan Kaldari wrote: > First they deleted Michelle Obama's arms,[1] now they want to get rid of > Justin Bieber on Twitter.[2] What is the world coming to! I can't believe _I_ am not the ultimate ruler on what is valuable enough to get on Wikipedia. It seems most of the del

[Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

First they deleted Michelle Obama's arms,[1] now they want to get rid of Justin Bieber on Twitter.[2] What is the world coming to! [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michelle_Obama%27s_arms [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Justin_Bi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Help decide about more than $10 million of movement funds in the coming year

Only ten millions? This sounds wrong. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l