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

2012-07-03 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)

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


[Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

2012-07-03 Thread Ryan Kaldari
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_Bieber_on_Twitter


Ryan Kaldari

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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

2012-07-03 Thread Wikipedia Signpost
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 group; JSTOR accounts for Wikipedians and 
the article feedback tool
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-07-02/News_and_notes

In the news: Public relations on Wikipedia: friend or foe?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-07-02/In_the_news

Discussion report: Discussion reports and miscellaneous articulations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-07-02/Discussion_report

WikiProject report: Summer sports series: Burning rubber with WikiProject 
Motorsport
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-07-02/WikiProject_report

Featured content: Heads up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-07-02/Featured_content

Arbitration report: Three open cases
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-07-02/Arbitration_report

Technology report: Initialisms abound: QA and HTML5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-07-02/Technology_report


Single page view
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single

PDF version
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-07-02


http://identi.ca/wikisignpost / https://twitter.com/wikisignpost
--
Wikipedia Signpost Staff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost

___
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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

2012-07-03 Thread Thomas Morton
On 3 July 2012 12:02, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org 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 Bieber.
 
  Surely Lady Gaga on Twitter[3] should be deleted as well? Or perhaps
  that is different, because they like Lady Gaga more than they like
  Justin Bieber.
 
  [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Gaga_on_Twitter

 To be fair, 'Ashton Kutcher on Twitter' is also up for deletion too. In
 both the Kutcher and Bieber case, there's a lot of I don't like it,
 therefore it can't be notable!

 I just cannot see any legitimate argument for deletion being presented.
 They all basically boil down to don't like it!


Hammersoft makes a compelling argument.

I've been keeping track of the discussion (no particular personal opinion
on it) and currently some of the deletion arguments seems to be holding
strong sway; particularly comments about NOTDIR  content forking etc.

The keep arguments largely centre around ILIKEIT; some assert notability
under GNG but so far no one has presented a source that adequately covers
this. I've been through a big portion of the sources looking for one that
covers this intersection/topic in sufficient depth to assert notability and
so far there isn't one.

It's essentially a collection of trivial mentions  news/gossip reports.

Whether that adds up to GNG I don't know. The keep votes aren't doing a
good job of convincing me.

Tom
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

2012-07-03 Thread Fred Bauder

 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 clothes they wear, and so on.  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 sourced?  Yes.  Encyclopedic worthiness of White
 House Thanksgiving 2009 Dinner Table ?  None at all.


I guess anything that people are interested in is our guideline; however
those who are interested it are going to have to write, and monitor, most
of this stuff themselves. It can be interesting. I remember a TV show
about Queen Elizabeth's kitchen; fascinating, in a way...

Actually, White House cuisine is an issue; prime rib, real prime rib, is
readily available to the White House; eating a lot of that, a favorite of
Nixon, will clog up blood circulation to the brain.

Fred


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

2012-07-03 Thread Mike Dupont
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
Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

2012-07-03 Thread Delirium

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 notability guidelines don't help
define a line between what should be included and what shouldn't. Many many
many things can be written about that would pass GNG. As Hammersoft points
out, if we take this article as notable then there are several other JB on
XYZ articles that could be written,

Question is; do we need that level of detail.

Decisions over levels of detail are haphazard and varying across all of
Wikipedia, to the extent that no one can answer this question.

I think that's true, but I think that's because it's a *relatively* 
small problem overall, as a proportion of deletion discussions and 
controversy, so there just hasn't been a lot of need to undertake the 
nearly-impossible task of specifying what level of detail we should 
cover, and in which areas.


The biggest angst producer in my view is actually the opposite case: 
something that seems like it should be covered, since it's notable, 
but for which the extant sources are really lacking, making it 
hard/impossible to write a well-sourced article. People get very angry 
when something they view as clearly notable (a programming language, 
say) is deleted due to lack of 3rd-party sources. I think the root 
problem here is a feeling that sources should or even must track 
notability, so given that something is clearly important (at least in a 
community), the lack of sources we consider acceptable is unexpected. 
Imo the problem is just that the literature sometimes lags and sometimes 
has blind spots; journalists, sociologists, historians, etc. don't cover 
everything important in full detail, instantly. I wrote a bit about that 
last year:

http://www.kmjn.org/notes/wikipedia_notability_verifiability.html

In the other direction, the vast majority of things we really shouldn't 
cover I think are axed by the same verifiability guideline, without need 
to declare them un-notable, since they don't have good sources on them.  
This strange case of well-sourced, but perhaps too detailed for 
Wikipedia, is I think a much smaller issue. In addition, it seems to 
only produce any sort of controversy in certain areas of pop culture: 
details about celebrities, too-in-depth plot summarization by 
tv/film/novel fans, too blow-by-blow summary of a musician's every doing 
(also by fans), etc. In many areas there really is no controversy about 
going every bit as deep as we can find sources for, within some level of 
common sense that does not seem to often be exceeded. Are there multiple 
good sources for one particular piece of pottery found in a Minoan site? 
Well, let's have an article on that pottery piece, then, even if we end 
up with 500 such articles. Perhaps that seems less problematic to people 
because: 1) the sources really are *very* good in that case, not merely 
ok sources like newspaper articles; and 2) Wikipedia here isn't doing 
anything too groundbreaking, but just annexing the kind of content that 
subject-specialist encyclopedias would traditionally cover.


-Mark


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

2012-07-03 Thread David Gerard
On 3 July 2012 14:49, Svip svi...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 3 July 2012 15:35, Tarc Meridian t...@hotmail.com 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
difference from Wikipedia: original research allowed; a different
standard of what's article-worthy.)


 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?


You seem to be saying that we must have a bright line. The evidence
appears to be against this. Consistency is not a terminal goal.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


[Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging

2012-07-03 Thread Theo10011
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 is rather complicated, and the specifics of it seem to be in secret.
And that is mostly the problem here. He asked for an explanation is several
places, but so far, the response from Philippe, and the rest of the staff
has been that office actions are not explained - that is the crux of the
entire offered explanation.

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 extend to users and global bans, the last I know was a
discussion going on with Steven on Meta about this. This might be its first
usage. The proposed policy[5] and open RfC[6], have not concluded yet. The
RfC received comments just today. Is that proposed policy already being
used on commons?

Office actions, have been limited to blanking pages, though sometimes
contentious, they have been exercised with caution. It is a different
ball-game when it goes from just blanking a page, to instantly blocking a
user globally, and giving no explanation to community members who have
known that user for years. if it is stretched to banning a 2 year old user
with no explanation beyond, OFFICE ACTION it is going to do more than
just raise eyebrows. I understand the specifics of the issue here, but
banning users with absolutely no explanation can not be this widely
accepted.

Regards
Theo

[1]http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Saibo/WMF
[2]
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philippe_(WMF)#Why_did_you_block_a_user_without_a_reason.3F
[3]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_actions
[4]http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Office_actions
[5]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_bans
[6]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Request_for_comment/Global_bans
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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

2012-07-03 Thread Theo10011
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com 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 honest, my
question was simple was OFFICE action used before to block someone,
globally or locally? The policy pages I read on Meta, make no mention of it
beyond it being used to blank or delete pages without an explanation.

Regards
Theo
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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

2012-07-03 Thread Deryck Chan
On 3 July 2012 19:08, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com 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, when, or by whom.


That's precisely the crux of the problem: office actions often aren't
properly explained and documented. No one who wasn't involved in the
original office action decision really knows why, when, or by whose
authority was the office action taken out.



 Following the yellow brick road, however, leads you to discover that this
 is about a global ban of user Beta_M, performed by the WMF as an office
 action seemingly in March of this year. Phillipe, Maggie Dennis, Jimbo and
 Sue have all weighed in on the issue, saying that they are unable to
 disclose specifics for this case but that the decision was made by Sue in
 consultation with the WMF general counsel.

 So, can you say what it is about this that made you bring it up now, in
 July?

 On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:

  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 is rather complicated, and the specifics of it seem to be in
 secret.
  And that is mostly the problem here. He asked for an explanation is
 several
  places, but so far, the response from Philippe, and the rest of the staff
  has been that office actions are not explained - that is the crux of the
  entire offered explanation.
 
  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 extend to users and global bans, the last I know was a
  discussion going on with Steven on Meta about this. This might be its
 first
  usage. The proposed policy[5] and open RfC[6], have not concluded yet.
 The
  RfC received comments just today. Is that proposed policy already being
  used on commons?
 
  Office actions, have been limited to blanking pages, though sometimes
  contentious, they have been exercised with caution. It is a different
  ball-game when it goes from just blanking a page, to instantly blocking a
  user globally, and giving no explanation to community members who have
  known that user for years. if it is stretched to banning a 2 year old
 user
  with no explanation beyond, OFFICE ACTION it is going to do more than
  just raise eyebrows. I understand the specifics of the issue here, but
  banning users with absolutely no explanation can not be this widely
  accepted.
 
  Regards
  Theo
 
  [1]http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Saibo/WMF
  [2]
 
 
 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philippe_(WMF)#Why_did_you_block_a_user_without_a_reason.3F
  [3]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_actions
  [4]http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Office_actions
  [5]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_bans
  [6]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Request_for_comment/Global_bans
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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

2012-07-03 Thread Steven Walling
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com 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 extend to users and global bans, the last I know was a
 discussion going on with Steven on Meta about this. This might be its first
 usage. The proposed policy[5] and open RfC[6], have not concluded yet. The
 RfC received comments just today. Is that proposed policy already being
 used on commons?


To answer in a word: no. The proposed global bans policy is not related to
that situation at all, and has not been applied yet. The policy is one
where any banning decision is made in public via a cross-wiki discussion,
and as such is very different than office actions.

Steven
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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

2012-07-03 Thread Nathan
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Deryck Chan deryckc...@wikimedia.hk wrote:

 On 3 July 2012 19:08, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com 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, when, or by whom.
 

 That's precisely the crux of the problem: office actions often aren't
 properly explained and documented. No one who wasn't involved in the
 original office action decision really knows why, when, or by whose
 authority was the office action taken out.



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 action and their inability to publicly justify it. I
understand why people will have a problem with that reply, it's just
irritating to get a discussion prompt with vague allusions that you then
have to go digging through in order to understand what the heck is going on
:-P
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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

2012-07-03 Thread Philippe Beaudette
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com 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, 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 specifics, but for privacy reasons, we just
can't).  Because we didn't have that, we had to break new ground with the
Office actions policy.  I hope we never have to use that again.

pb
___
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

415-839-6885, x 6643

phili...@wikimedia.org
phili...@wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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

2012-07-03 Thread Béria Lima
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 tomorrow you (you here as staff) won't block me or anyone else using
office action as reason?
_
*Béria Lima*

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*


On 3 July 2012 16:05, Philippe Beaudette phili...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com 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, 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 specifics, but for privacy reasons, we just
 can't).  Because we didn't have that, we had to break new ground with the
 Office actions policy.  I hope we never have to use that again.

 pb
 ___
 Philippe Beaudette
 Director, Community Advocacy
 Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

 415-839-6885, x 6643

 phili...@wikimedia.org
 phili...@wikimedia.org
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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

2012-07-03 Thread Philippe Beaudette
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...@wikimedia.org



On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote:

 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 specifics, but for privacy reasons, we just
 can't).  Because we didn't have that, we had to break new ground with the
 Office actions policy.  I hope we never have to use that again.


 Unless the current draft is completely off track, what you're saying here
 is that the proposed system could have been used here, which implies the
 specifics *could* be discussed publicly, as the proposed system requires a
 public RfC. https://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Global_bans#Obtaining_**
 consensus_for_a_global_banhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_bans#Obtaining_consensus_for_a_global_ban
 

 Nemo


 __**_
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: 
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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

2012-07-03 Thread Theo10011
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Philippe Beaudette
phili...@wikimedia.orgwrote:

 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, in this case it was needed; I
 wish we could give all the specifics, but for privacy reasons, we just
 can't).  Because we didn't have that, we had to break new ground with the
 Office actions policy.  I hope we never have to use that again.


Thanks Pb.

Most of the discussion archived on Jimmy's page reveals majority of the
issue. I have more to say I suppose, about crime being separate from a
criminal. There is something to be said about privacy also, how there are
expectations that re-affirm anonymity. But everyone I know and trust on
this issue, is saying that it was justified, so I won't talk about this
case.

I would ask about a hypothetical, is someone's off-wiki opinion or behavior
or even criminal past, grounds for a block? There are Arbcomm members here,
and I have known of cases of harassment following editors off-wiki. But
what about privacy rights? doesn't someone has the expectation of privacy?
if so, then no action on wiki can be directly linked to off-wiki opinion or
behavior. The only exception, would be ongoing abuse or on-wiki abuse
making its way off-wiki. The projects are fragmented with their own
communities and policies, this is exactly why sweeping global actions make
a bold general statement, especially so, when they are done by staff under
the aegis of OFFICE action.

If this is global block policy is going to stand, I hope this can be
fleshed out more, like the work Steven has been doing and discussing on
Meta, with some oversight or community based body to balance the staff.

Regards
Theo
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

2012-07-03 Thread Marc A. Pelletier

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 place.  If you use that filter, you suddenly notice most of 
the more controversial articles (regarding notability) instantly find 
themselves without sources.


I don't believe that's a coincidence.  Even at their best, popular media 
has no interest beyond what's hot and topical at the moment, and 
attracting eyeballs with sensationalism is paramount -- accuracy be 
damned if needed.


-- Coren / Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


[Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

2012-07-03 Thread Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
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
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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

2012-07-03 Thread Pedro Sanchez
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com 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
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

It had something to do with defending the trademark, if I recall
correctly, although I think Commons makes a difference between
copyrighted and trademarked images. 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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

2012-07-03 Thread Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
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 list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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

2012-07-03 Thread Richard Symonds
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.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk



On 3 July 2012 22:09, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argen...@gmail.comwrote:

 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 list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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

2012-07-03 Thread Ilario Valdelli

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 or 
probably more.


It's look like a high quality product and the trademark looks like the 
original trademark because it has been released under free license.


You are sure that you have in your hand a high quality product, but you 
have a copy and nothing else, and this copy costs much more than the 
original.


Next time you will not buy a product with this trademark because the 
trademark cannot assure that you have an original product.


On 03.07.2012 23:09, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote:

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?




--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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

2012-07-03 Thread Richard Symonds

 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 protection etc - although
it can also involve other things - there are many situations! If an editor
was, for example, a young child (8 years old) who was posting their
personal information again and again, and not listening to warnings not to,
I would block them for their own safety. If an editor puts another editor,
or themselves, in danger, I would have no qualms about blocking them
immediately. I would probably block them if I thought that there was a
strong, or even medium chance that people would be harmed. Looking after
our younger or more vulnerable users is really, really important.

As to privacy, yes: people (even criminals) do have the expectation (but
maybe not the right? I don't know) of privacy. That is why so many of these
blocks are only discussed by advanced permissions users and the office. If
they were discussed by the community, the discussion would rapidly turn
into a lynch-mob or a slander factory.

Richard Symonds


On 3 July 2012 20:23, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Philippe Beaudette
 phili...@wikimedia.orgwrote:

  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, in this case it was
 needed; I
  wish we could give all the specifics, but for privacy reasons, we just
  can't).  Because we didn't have that, we had to break new ground with the
  Office actions policy.  I hope we never have to use that again.
 

 Thanks Pb.

 Most of the discussion archived on Jimmy's page reveals majority of the
 issue. I have more to say I suppose, about crime being separate from a
 criminal. There is something to be said about privacy also, how there are
 expectations that re-affirm anonymity. But everyone I know and trust on
 this issue, is saying that it was justified, so I won't talk about this
 case.

 I would ask about a hypothetical, is someone's off-wiki opinion or behavior
 or even criminal past, grounds for a block? There are Arbcomm members here,
 and I have known of cases of harassment following editors off-wiki. But
 what about privacy rights? doesn't someone has the expectation of privacy?
 if so, then no action on wiki can be directly linked to off-wiki opinion or
 behavior. The only exception, would be ongoing abuse or on-wiki abuse
 making its way off-wiki. The projects are fragmented with their own
 communities and policies, this is exactly why sweeping global actions make
 a bold general statement, especially so, when they are done by staff under
 the aegis of OFFICE action.

 If this is global block policy is going to stand, I hope this can be
 fleshed out more, like the work Steven has been doing and discussing on
 Meta, with some oversight or community based body to balance the staff.

 Regards
 Theo
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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

2012-07-03 Thread Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
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 single
source?

-- 
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com
+55 11 7971-8884
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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

2012-07-03 Thread Ilario Valdelli

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 are consuming? But we do not talk to our
volunteers always check the sources and not to believe blindly in a single
source?




--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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

2012-07-03 Thread Tobias Oelgarte
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 policies the logos aren't free and should be deleted 
(especially with Commons in mind, because it is violation of the 
policies ;-) ). This is somehow contradictory to the mission itself. So 
i can understand the point that Rodrigo put up as well.


Am 03.07.2012 23:37, schrieb Ilario Valdelli:

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 are consuming? But we do not talk 
to our
volunteers always check the sources and not to believe blindly in a 
single

source?







___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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

2012-07-03 Thread Marc A. Pelletier

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 pursue 
criminal harrasment, that we cannot allow.  There are also cases of 
illness and threats of harm for which the best action is to exclude the 
person from participating.


But what about privacy rights? doesn't someone has the expectation of 
privacy? if so, then no action on wiki can be directly linked to 
off-wiki opinion or behavior.


Which is exactly why those cases are not discussed in public, or debated 
by the community in the first place.  WP:CHILDPROTECT is a good example 
where we necessarily err on the side of caution yet make no public note 
of our actions exactly because of privacy concerns (especially since a 
mistake is always possible: erroneously disapearing someone innocent 
is unpleasant, but erroneously discussing whether someone is or is not a 
child abuser in a public venue can very well ruin someone's life!)


-- Coren / Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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

2012-07-03 Thread Nathan
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 to do that.

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 
rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com 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 are consuming? But we do not talk to our
 volunteers always check the sources and not to believe blindly in a single
 source?

 --
 Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
 rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com
 +55 11 7971-8884
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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

2012-07-03 Thread Ilario Valdelli

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 newspaper would use the Commons content, it 
should release under free license his website, his logo, his content.




On 03.07.2012 23:47, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
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 policies the logos aren't free and should be 
deleted (especially with Commons in mind, because it is violation of 
the policies ;-) ). This is somehow contradictory to the mission 
itself. So i can understand the point that Rodrigo put up as well.


Am 03.07.2012 23:37, schrieb Ilario Valdelli:

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 are consuming? But we do not talk 
to our
volunteers always check the sources and not to believe blindly in a 
single

source?









--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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

2012-07-03 Thread Marcus Buck
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 Coca Cola logo for example is pre-1923 and therefore public domain. 
But the copyright status does not affect the status as a trademark. Coca 
Cola is still a strong trademark and there is no cheaply produced 
low-quality fake counterfeit Cola that tries to ship as Coca Cola. 
Trademark laws work fine without copyright.


The reason why the WMF claims copyright on our logos is, that it's 
easier to get rid of people who do stuff the WMF doesn't like. Even if 
that stuff is perfectly legal under trademark law.


Let me try to construct an example: A company hosts an evil ad-ridden, 
malware-infested copy of Wikipedia with a Wikipedia logo on the front 
page saying all content from Wikipedia [LOGO]. The WMF wants to get 
rid of it. They sue for trademark infringement. The court decides 
against the WMF, because it thinks that the Wikipedia logo on the front 
page will not be understood by readers as affiliation but as a source 
statement. The WMF can now say Hah, we lost our case, but now we sue 
them a second time, this time for copyright infringement!


So the WMF's copyright claim is a method to have an ace up your sleeve 
if you're actually in the wrong legally.


I don't like the concept. I'd rather see the logos freely licensed.

Marcus Buck
User:Slomox

An'n 03.07.2012 23:29, hett Ilario Valdelli schreven:
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 or probably more.


It's look like a high quality product and the trademark looks like the 
original trademark because it has been released under free license.


You are sure that you have in your hand a high quality product, but 
you have a copy and nothing else, and this copy costs much more than 
the original.


Next time you will not buy a product with this trademark because the 
trademark cannot assure that you have an original product.


On 03.07.2012 23:09, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote:

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?








___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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

2012-07-03 Thread Przykuta
  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 anyone who questions TPP and ACTA
 transparency, I don't trust the USTR on its commitment to this... but
 I have been hearing from multiple sources that the protests against
 SOPA and ACTA have had a big impact on the administration's thinking
 on intellectual property issues... and that the MPAA/RIAA folks are
 not at all happy about the latest version of the USTR's IP chapter.
 There have also been multiple assurances that the USTR will fight
 strongly to make sure that this language on exceptions remains in the
 agreement, even if some of its advisers from the legacy content
 industry don't like it. That suggests that maybe, just maybe, some
 voices of reason have gotten through to the USTR.
 
 Well done, all. The SOPA protest would have gone nowhere without Wikipedia.
 
 
 - d.
 

A propos ACTA and protests:

http://www.change.org/petitions/european-parliament-acta-stop-mixing-human-rights-with-trade

Przykuta






___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

2012-07-03 Thread Andreas Kolbe
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org 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
 includes newspapers nowadays - are not reliable sources at all in the first
 place.  If you use that filter, you suddenly notice most of the more
 controversial articles (regarding notability) instantly find themselves
 without sources.

 I don't believe that's a coincidence.  Even at their best, popular media
 has no interest beyond what's hot and topical at the moment, and attracting
 eyeballs with sensationalism is paramount -- accuracy be damned if needed.

 -- Coren / Marc



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.

This was in reference to reporting on a Wikimedia-related matter. In this
field, many Wikimedians recognise readily that media reporting is often
inept, and the level of accuracy of the information given to the public is
very poor. What people fail to do is to apply this insight to the wider
situation. Two of my favourite quotes:

---o0o---

What people outside do not appreciate is that a newspaper is like a
soufflé, prepared in a hurry for immediate consumption. This of course is
why whenever you read a newspaper account of some event of which you have
personal knowledge it is nearly always inadequate or inaccurate.
Journalists are as aware as anyone of this defect; it is simply that if the
information is to reach as many readers as possible, something less than
perfection has often to be accepted. —David E. H. Jones, in New Scientist,
Vol. 26

Actually, I'd say newspapers are more like commercial fast-food than
soufflé. It isn't just that they are prepared in haste, it is that
unwholesome additives and artificial sweeteners are added to true content,
in order to make the whole thing more tasty. No one really asks whether the
result is edifying or healthy, because it is generally consumed with a
pinch of (even more superfluous) salt. —User:Scott MacDonald

---o0o---

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 good things.

Unfortunately, such a Wikipedia would also have vastly impoverished
coverage of popular culture and current affairs. The articles on Lady Gaga
and Barack Obama would be years behind events; the articles on the Japan
earthquakes, which I believe Wikipedia was widely praised for, would only
now begin to be written, articles on many towns and villages would lack
colour and detail.

If Wikipedia stopped using press sources, you'd have to have a news-based
'pedia somewhere else (and I don't mean Wikinews).
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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

2012-07-03 Thread Tobias Oelgarte
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 originality or even works that are by now in public domain. 
Still this logos and it's use is restricted due to trademark laws. So i 
don't see a true reason why the Wikipedia logos should not be licensed 
freely, while trademark laws still apply and we promote free content at 
the same time.


Am 04.07.2012 00:06, schrieb Ilario Valdelli:

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 newspaper would use the Commons content, 
it should release under free license his website, his logo, his content.




On 03.07.2012 23:47, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
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 policies the logos aren't free and should be 
deleted (especially with Commons in mind, because it is violation of 
the policies ;-) ). This is somehow contradictory to the mission 
itself. So i can understand the point that Rodrigo put up as well.


Am 03.07.2012 23:37, schrieb Ilario Valdelli:

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 are consuming? But we do not talk 
to our
volunteers always check the sources and not to believe blindly in a 
single

source?












___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

2012-07-03 Thread David Gerard
On 4 July 2012 00:04, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com 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 support a claim by reference to a
newspaper report. Does that mean you actually changed your mind?
Excellent.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

2012-07-03 Thread Andreas Kolbe
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:15 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 4 July 2012 00:04, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com 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 support a claim by reference to a
 newspaper report. Does that mean you actually changed your mind?
 Excellent.



It's not really what we are talking about here, but – no, actually, I
haven't changed my mind, because the press's tendency towards
simplification was quite consciously exploited in this case (to link the
Wikipedia name to opposition to the extradition of O'Dwyer).

The press can be manipulated to all sorts of ends, sacrificing accuracy and
nuance in the process. That's precisely the problem.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

2012-07-03 Thread Andreas Kolbe
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org 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. Thousands of apposite criticisms of Wikipedia
 would never arise. These are good things.

 Unfortunately, such a Wikipedia would also have vastly impoverished
 coverage of popular culture and current affairs. The articles on Lady Gaga
 and Barack Obama would be years behind events; the articles on the Japan
 earthquakes, which I believe Wikipedia was widely praised for, would only
 now begin to be written, articles on many towns and villages would lack
 colour and detail.


 Well, if I were suddenly named dictator of Wikipedia, I'd probably suggest
 that a recent event namespace be created, where popular media were
 acceptable sources, and make them verbotten in mainspace.  Mainspace
 articles might have a hatnote with a link to the other namespace along the
 lines of for recent, less authoritative coverage.

 We'd have our cake and eat it too.



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?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

2012-07-03 Thread Marc A. Pelletier

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 complement of the other; mainspace 
would become more encyclopedic and there would be a neat space where the 
more recent coverage can be found for further information.


It'd only be a matter of educating editors and readers; the mainspace is 
the most reliable and seriously sourced base of articles, at the cost 
of being possibly a bit dated or drier.  The space below the fold is 
more timely, and possibly more detailed at the cost of being possibly 
less reliable.


I mean, the whole point is to be able to both have a reliable 
encyclopedia /and/ have a legitimate place for popular culture coverage 
and recent information.  Readers would have access to both, with a 
better way of knowing which is which.


Not perfect, I know, but I'm pretty sure that would be a long-term win.

-- Coren / Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

2012-07-03 Thread David Gerard
On 4 July 2012 00:48, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org 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 found for further information.


We could call it Wikinews.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

2012-07-03 Thread Marc A. Pelletier

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 there.  And shuffling off to a different project (as opposed to 
another namespace on the same project) has logistical problems that are 
hard to overcome - and you want to be sharing infrastructure, rules, 
editors, et al.


-- Coren / Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

2012-07-03 Thread Thomas Morton
On 4 July 2012 00:49, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 4 July 2012 00:48, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org 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 found for further information.


 We could call it Wikinews.



God-dammit, that's my line.

;)

Tom
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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

2012-07-03 Thread Birgitte_sb
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 understand that 
trademark protections will interfere with their actually being able to use the 
symbol as an image. People who mistakenly use the symbol, and receive the 
required lawyerly letter to stop this, will feel betrayed by the fact it was 
listed as free of copyright.  However strictly accurate the plan to treat the 
two areas of IP law separately might be, it cannot be executed very well. Those 
people, misled by their poor understanding of how these separate areas of laws 
achieve very similar results, will feel burned. Their goodwill will be lost. 
They may even become convinced they had been intentionally tricked with mixed 
messages. 

It much more pragmatic to simply reserve the copyright on trademarks. To 
maintain a consistent message of Do not use. 

Birgitte SB

On Jul 3, 2012, at 6:06 PM, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com 
wrote:

 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 
 originality or even works that are by now in public domain. Still this logos 
 and it's use is restricted due to trademark laws. So i don't see a true 
 reason why the Wikipedia logos should not be licensed freely, while trademark 
 laws still apply and we promote free content at the same time.
 
 Am 04.07.2012 00:06, schrieb Ilario Valdelli:
 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 newspaper would use the Commons content, it 
 should release under free license his website, his logo, his content.
 
 
 
 On 03.07.2012 23:47, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
 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 policies the logos aren't free and should be deleted (especially 
 with Commons in mind, because it is violation of the policies ;-) ). This 
 is somehow contradictory to the mission itself. So i can understand the 
 point that Rodrigo put up as well.
 
 Am 03.07.2012 23:37, schrieb Ilario Valdelli:
 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 are consuming? But we do not talk to our
 volunteers always check the sources and not to believe blindly in a single
 source?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

2012-07-03 Thread Samuel Klein
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org 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 found for further information.

 It'd only be a matter of educating editors and readers; the mainspace is the
 most reliable and seriously sourced base of articles, at the cost of being
 possibly a bit dated or drier.  The space below the fold is more timely,
 and possibly more detailed at the cost of being possibly less reliable.

This is a good idea, and you can take it further, as suggested in the
past:  we need a space in which one can draft verifiable articles
about any topic, without arguments about notability.

Just as Wikipedia was a 'simple, unreliable scratch space' to let
everyone draft articles for nupedia, we need the same sort of space to
let everyone draft articles for [what we currently think of as]
wikipedia.

SJ

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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

2012-07-03 Thread Tobias Oelgarte
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 images which are public domain in 
some countries (needs to include US) but not in other countries due to 
different copyright laws. The same way some language Wikis host content 
that is free after local law but not after US law. Another case are 
personal rights. For example the German Recht am eigenen Bild is very 
restrictive and does not allow any usage of a free image from any person.


What i mean is: We already have such restrictions for various images in 
our collection and the re-user has to be careful to comply with all laws 
aside the copyright law. Releasing the Logos under a free license and 
including a template which mentions the restrictions would be common 
practice. Hosting images with no free license is actual exception.


Am 04.07.2012 02:16, schrieb birgitte...@yahoo.com:

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 understand that trademark protections will interfere with their actually being able to 
use the symbol as an image. People who mistakenly use the symbol, and receive the required lawyerly 
letter to stop this, will feel betrayed by the fact it was listed as free of copyright. 
 However strictly accurate the plan to treat the two areas of IP law separately might be, it cannot 
be executed very well. Those people, misled by their poor understanding of how these separate areas 
of laws achieve very similar results, will feel burned. Their goodwill will be lost. They may even 
become convinced they had been intentionally tricked with mixed messages.

It much more pragmatic to simply reserve the copyright on trademarks. To maintain a 
consistent message of Do not use.

Birgitte SB

On Jul 3, 2012, at 6:06 PM, Tobias Oelgartetobias.oelga...@googlemail.com  
wrote:


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 originality or 
even works that are by now in public domain. Still this logos and it's use is 
restricted due to trademark laws. So i don't see a true reason why the 
Wikipedia logos should not be licensed freely, while trademark laws still apply 
and we promote free content at the same time.

Am 04.07.2012 00:06, schrieb Ilario Valdelli:

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 newspaper would use the Commons content, it should 
release under free license his website, his logo, his content.



On 03.07.2012 23:47, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:

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 policies the logos 
aren't free and should be deleted (especially with Commons in mind, because it 
is violation of the policies ;-) ). This is somehow contradictory to the 
mission itself. So i can understand the point that Rodrigo put up as well.

Am 03.07.2012 23:37, schrieb Ilario Valdelli:

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 are consuming? But we do not talk to our
volunteers always check the sources and not to believe blindly in a single
source?







___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l





___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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

2012-07-03 Thread Birgitte_sb
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 
unsuccessful communication on this point could be harmful. You do not seem to 
argue that any of my reasoning is inaccurate. Do you really find these 
practical difficulties to be less important than a perfect record of having no 
exceptions? What purpose do you see in refusing to make an exception where it 
seems to make practical sense?

Something that can't be used in any context can have no possible purpose for a 
copyright release. So far as I imagine it, such a release would lead to 
unnecessary confusion (debatable only to what degree) while offering no 
practical benefit. I am not at all bothered by the fact that maintaining 
copyrights on trademarks is inconsistent with the copyrights maintained on 
non-trademarks. I believe consistency to only be a worthwhile goal so long as 
it tends to promote clarity, which, in this particular case, it does not. I do 
not find that consistency is inherently desirable.

Birgitte SB

On Jul 3, 2012, at 8:03 PM, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com 
wrote:

 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 images which are public domain in some countries 
 (needs to include US) but not in other countries due to different copyright 
 laws. The same way some language Wikis host content that is free after local 
 law but not after US law. Another case are personal rights. For example the 
 German Recht am eigenen Bild is very restrictive and does not allow any 
 usage of a free image from any person.
 
 What i mean is: We already have such restrictions for various images in our 
 collection and the re-user has to be careful to comply with all laws aside 
 the copyright law. Releasing the Logos under a free license and including a 
 template which mentions the restrictions would be common practice. Hosting 
 images with no free license is actual exception.
 
 Am 04.07.2012 02:16, schrieb birgitte...@yahoo.com:
 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 
 understand that trademark protections will interfere with their actually 
 being able to use the symbol as an image. People who mistakenly use the 
 symbol, and receive the required lawyerly letter to stop this, will feel 
 betrayed by the fact it was listed as free of copyright.  However strictly 
 accurate the plan to treat the two areas of IP law separately might be, it 
 cannot be executed very well. Those people, misled by their poor 
 understanding of how these separate areas of laws achieve very similar 
 results, will feel burned. Their goodwill will be lost. They may even become 
 convinced they had been intentionally tricked with mixed messages.
 
 It much more pragmatic to simply reserve the copyright on trademarks. To 
 maintain a consistent message of Do not use.
 
 Birgitte SB
 
 On Jul 3, 2012, at 6:06 PM, Tobias Oelgartetobias.oelga...@googlemail.com  
 wrote:
 
 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 
 originality or even works that are by now in public domain. Still this 
 logos and it's use is restricted due to trademark laws. So i don't see a 
 true reason why the Wikipedia logos should not be licensed freely, while 
 trademark laws still apply and we promote free content at the same time.
 
 Am 04.07.2012 00:06, schrieb Ilario Valdelli:
 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 newspaper would use the Commons content, it 
 should release under free license his website, his logo, his content.
 
 
 
 On 03.07.2012 23:47, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
 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 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

2012-07-03 Thread The Cunctator
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 t...@hotmail.com wrote:


 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 clothes they wear, and so on.  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 sourced?
  Yes.  Encyclopedic worthiness of White House Thanksgiving 2009 Dinner
 Table ?  None at all.


  Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 12:02:46 +0100
  From: t...@tommorris.org
  To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Subject: 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 be deleted as well? Or perhaps
   that is different, because they like Lady Gaga more than they like
   Justin Bieber.
  
   [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Gaga_on_Twitter
 
  To be fair, 'Ashton Kutcher on Twitter' is also up for deletion too. In
 both the Kutcher and Bieber case, there's a lot of I don't like it,
 therefore it can't be notable!
 
  I just cannot see any legitimate argument for deletion being presented.
 They all basically boil down to don't like it!
 
  --
  Tom Morris
  http://tommorris.org/
 
 
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

2012-07-03 Thread The Cunctator
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 meta...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org
 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 found for further information.
 
  It'd only be a matter of educating editors and readers; the mainspace is
 the
  most reliable and seriously sourced base of articles, at the cost of
 being
  possibly a bit dated or drier.  The space below the fold is more
 timely,
  and possibly more detailed at the cost of being possibly less reliable.

 This is a good idea, and you can take it further, as suggested in the
 past:  we need a space in which one can draft verifiable articles
 about any topic, without arguments about notability.

 Just as Wikipedia was a 'simple, unreliable scratch space' to let
 everyone draft articles for nupedia, we need the same sort of space to
 let everyone draft articles for [what we currently think of as]
 wikipedia.

 SJ

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l