Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Wikimediauk-l] WMUK slide scanner

2014-02-19 Thread Richard Symonds
NYB,

Thanks for reminding me - this slipped my mind in amongst my other work.
The brief outline I did is at https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Digitisation.

The problem is that digitisation - proper digitisation - is not something
that can really be done without employing staff to do it. First there's the
scanning, obviously - which is simple enough. IMO the Coolscan is the best
for this (for under £5k anyway), but it's difficult to get hold of,  and we
don't really have the technical skills to maintain it. Tempting though -
but we'd need to prove that it was worth the cost.

WMDE did a full review into it and worked out that, with the number of
slides that need scanning, it's best (ie most cost-effective) to hire
something like a Hasselblad X5 for a day.


The other problem - and it's a big problem - is, as POTW says, the
post-processing and indexing. A good scanner will automatically
post-process for you (to a degree). And you'll need your own offline
database - Commons is not great for actually storing images because they
tend to be deleted if you're not careful, and you can't control the
categorisation (or indeed, much else - the community controls it)

A few examples from the one we have in our office are at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Files_generated_with_WMUK_Ion_Film2SD_Pro.
The slides are from a 1970s camera, so they're not amazing to begin with.
But it gives you an idea.

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*


On 19 February 2014 00:34, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote:

 I'm surprised not to see any replies to this particular thread.  It seems
 to me to be a no-brainer (to use a nonce-word that I hate) that imaging
 equipment for local wiki organizations in a position to make good use of it
 to upload free content for the projects should be a high priority for
 funding at whatever level.

 In the next funding cycle, maybe someone should propose a pilot program of
 allocating $10,000 and making ten $1,000 micro-grants for this purpose,
 with the application process to include discussion of what or whose free
 content would be made available to the projects if the equipment were
 provided.

 Newyorkbrad


 On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 3:04 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

  A message I just sent in a wikimediauk-l thread about photographic
  negative scanners, which I thought might be of general interest to
  Wikimedia organisations.
 
  tl;dr: an archival-quality negative scanner has potential to be a
  white elephant* (a donation that is actually a liability), but could
  be a useful thing that an organisation could use to make very good
  friends with GLAMs and individuals.
 
 
  - d.
 
 
  * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_elephant
 
 
  -- Forwarded message --
  From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
  Date: 15 February 2014 20:00
  Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] WMUK slide scanner
  To: UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediau...@lists.wikimedia.org
 
 
  On 15 February 2014 19:52, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
   On 15 February 2014 15:23, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
   On 15 February 2014 15:09, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk
  wrote:
 
Change of plan: Thank you, but I've been offered the use of one of
these:
  http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/scanner/scoolscan_4000/
by a friend who lives locally.
 
   Oh you lucky bugger. That's the level of archival-quality
   piece of kit we could do with for WMUK. Though it would have to live
   in the office.
 
   A nikon product at the WMUK office? Is that wise:
  
 
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Canon_EOS_DSLR_family_(selection).jpg
 
 
  :-)
 
  Seriously, though: if you want archival quality, the way to go is a
  CoolScan. Not only would we be able to scan negatives ourselves
  (though it'd be tied to the office, rather than being a loanable
  item), we'd be able to make very good friends indeed with GLAMs that
  have random piles of unscanned negatives.
 
  It'd be nice if someone with a few hundred quid bought a CoolScan,
  scanned their collection, then donated the kit to WMUK when done with
  it.
 
  The way it usually goes is: someone buys a CoolScan on eBay, scans
  their negative collection, sells it to the next person. WMUK would be
  a suitable end point for such a chain.
 
  The main catch is for it to be *someone else's* problem to make sure a
  decade-old piece of kit is in usable condition not to be a white
  

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoucement from the Executive Director of Wikimedia Argentina

2014-02-19 Thread Oona Castro
Best of luck, Osmar! And congratulations for the work you've done.
Let's keep in touch.
Oona


On 29 January 2014 07:16, Srikanth Ramakrishnan srik.r...@wikimedia.inwrote:

 Really sad to see you go!
 Wishing you the very best in your future endeavors.


 On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Michael Jahn michael.j...@wikimedia.de
 wrote:

  Take care, Osmar, and all the best to you!
 
  Michael
 
  --
  Michael Jahn
  Leiter Kommunikation
  Head of Communications
 
  Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
  Tel. (030) 219 158 260
 
  http://wikimedia.de http://www.wikimedia.de/
 
  Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch freien Zugang zu der
  Gesamtheit des Wissens der Menschheit hat. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
 
  Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
  Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
 unter
  der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
  Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
 
  2014-01-28 sydney.po...@gmail.com
 
   Osmar,
  
   Sorry to see you leaving the position. And I'm glad to you are
 assisting
   with the transition and plan to stay involved.
  
   Best of  luck with your future ventures.
  
   Sydney Poore
   User:FloNight
  
   Sent from my iPhone
  
   On Jan 28, 2014, at 11:59, Osmar Valdebenito os...@wikimedia.org.ar
   wrote:
  
Dear members of the Wikimedia Movement:
   
In the past weeks, I've taken the decision to resign to my position
 of
Executive Director of Wikimedia Argentina. This decision was
 presented
  to
the Board of the chapter past Saturday and it was accepted.
   
For personal and professional reasons, I've decided to return to my
country, Chile, in the following weeks and start a new stage of my
  life.
Two years ago, I was presented with the opportunity of living in
   Argentina
and working for one of my passions. This was a big challenge for me:
 I
   had
to leave my country and my family and work in a foreign country.
 These
   last
18 months have been a unique experience and I've learnt a lot,
  becoming a
better professional and a more mature person. However, at the same
  time I
feel that I need to move on and continue with new projects and
   challenges.
   
Certainly, this has not been an easy decision for me, because I'm
 very
   fond
of this work, the people that have participated in our activities and
  the
projects we worked on and we are still working on.
   
I leave the Association in a very different position than when I took
office. We have several ongoing projects and we regularized all the
   delayed
paperwork. We became the first organization from a developing country
  to
get an Annual Plan Grant via FDC and have been one of the best-graded
chapters in both processes. We are now a reliable and serious
   organization,
continuing a process of professionalization that can improve our
   programs,
making them more efficient and more effective. Clearly, this has not
  been
only due to my work, which is why I thank the Board of the Chapter
 that
helped me in everything and to María Cruz, which has been a great
   colleague
these months.
   
My main interest is that Wikimedia Argentina continues to grow, which
  is
why we have decided that my departure occurs at the end of March.
 This
   will
allow us to work calmly to ensure the continuity of the ongoing
  projects
   of
Wikimedia Argentina and the transfer of knowledge once the new
  Executive
Director takes office. In any case, I will continue to participate
 as a
member and Wikimedia volunteer, once this period expires. By request
 of
   our
Board, I will also attend the next Wikimedia Conference, so I will be
   able
to transmit the experiences of Wikimedia Argentina in the last year.
   
I appreciate the trust placed in me by the Board and all the members
 of
Wikimedia Argentina and their support all these months. I'm sure they
   will
continue the great work we have done lately.
   
Kind regards,
   
*Osmar Valdebenito G.*
Director Ejecutivo
A. C. Wikimedia Argentina
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
   mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
  
   ___
   Wikimedia-l mailing list
   Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
   Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
   mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
  
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Wikimediauk-l] WMUK slide scanner

2014-02-19 Thread geni
On 19 February 2014 00:34, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote:

 I'm surprised not to see any replies to this particular thread.  It seems
 to me to be a no-brainer (to use a nonce-word that I hate) that imaging
 equipment for local wiki organizations in a position to make good use of it
 to upload free content for the projects should be a high priority for
 funding at whatever level.



There are some fairly solid practical problems. Firstly scanning is boring.
Trying to get volunteers to do it on a large scale is going to be
difficult.

Secondly GLAMS tend to prefer that material handling be limited to
professionals or their internal volunteers only

Thirdly the copyright of slides is often messy. If the original
photographer has died and they didn't mention copyright in their will any
copyrights could well be held by multiple people.


-- 
geni
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Mexico. January report

2014-02-19 Thread Lodewijk
Thanks for sharing! I'm amazed by the great work done!

Lodewijk


2014-02-17 21:37 GMT+01:00 Salvador A salvador.alcan...@wikimedia.mx:

 Dear community:

 By means of this mail and on behalf WMMX Board and volunteers i share with
 you the monthly report of our chapter corresponding to January 2014.


 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Reports/Wikimedia_Mexico/January_2014

 We suffered a delay in translating our past reports, for the same reason I
 share also our reports of October, November and December of 2013:

 https://mx.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reports/October_2013
 https://mx.wikimedia.org/wiki/Informes/Noviembre_2013/en
 https://mx.wikimedia.org/wiki/Informes/Diciembre_2013/en

 During 2013 we wrote down our reports in our own wiki (mx.wikimedia.org),
 from January 2014 on you will find them also on Meta. I have included the
 index of our reports in Wikimedia_Chapters/Reports

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Reports

 I want to draw your attention specially to our report of October, since it
 contains the information and links to the activities of Iberoconf 2013.

 Sorry if I don't copy the content of the reports here but it would be too
 much information.

 Regards!
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use

2014-02-19 Thread Stephen LaPorte
Hello all,

We are asking for community input on a proposed amendment to the Wikimedia
Terms of Use regarding undisclosed paid editing. The amendment is currently
available in English, German, Spanish, French, Italian, and Japanese, and
we welcome further translations and discussion in any language.

For your review, you may find the proposed amendment and background
information here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment

Please join the discussion on the talk page:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and comments.

-- 
Stephen LaPorte
Legal Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation

*For legal reasons, I may only serve as an attorney for the Wikimedia
Foundation. This means I may not give legal advice to or serve as a lawyer
for community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal
capacity.*
___
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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

[Wikimedia-l] Paid wiki-design contract position with WMF

2014-02-19 Thread Heather Walls
We need your help making it easier for Wikimedians to participate in the
movement and with each other!

Travel and Participation Support
Grantshttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:TPS/Supportis looking
for someone to help design and build a new portal on meta-wiki
to make this grants program easier to navigate and more fun to use. You'd
be working with me, to make something suitable for this program that fits
with other grants pages on
meta-wikihttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Start.
We'd prefer someone with wiki and template experience (this would outweigh
other experience). Please
seehttp://hire.jobvite.com/CompanyJobs/Careers.aspx?c=qSa9VfwQcs=9UL9Vfwtpage=Job%20Descriptionj=ottiYfwWthe
job 
descriptionhttp://hire.jobvite.com/CompanyJobs/Careers.aspx?c=qSa9VfwQcs=9UL9Vfwtpage=Job%20Descriptionj=ottiYfwWfor
details, pass it along to anyone you know, and feel free to ask me or
Siko (sboute...@wikimedia.org) if you have any questions. We look forward
to speaking with you!
(We're posting around the community because we'd love to hire a Wikimedian
and thought some people here might be interested - if you apply, please
include some info about your Wikimedia experience!)

http://hire.jobvite.com/CompanyJobs/Careers.aspx?c=qSa9VfwQcs=9UL9Vfwtpage=Job%20Descriptionj=ottiYfwW

-- 
Heather Walls
Communications Design Manager
WikimediaFoundation.org
heat...@wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

[Wikimedia-l] Position of Wikimedia Spain about URAA

2014-02-19 Thread Santi Navarro
Hello. Wikimedia Spain members wrote an open letter to BoT where we show
our position about the URAA and we support Wikimedia Israel. The letter
says:

==

We, the members of Wikimedia España, the chapter of the Wikimedia movement
in Spain, support the concerns expressed by our fellow Wikimedia Israel
and other places around the World about the legal norm known as URAA. That
norm, based on the legal status quo, has the effect of extending the
copyright of cultural works for periods even longer than those already in
force.

We do not object in any way to the right of people to live out of the
results of their work, be it in manufacturing, service industries,
agriculture or any other human activity, but those works form the core of
culture as the sum of human knowledge, and their use by all Mankind has to
be protected too. While it is entirely understandable that painters,
writers or photographers have the right to sustain themselves with their
works, it is not reasonable that people who did not author anything should
be allowed to make money out of the works of people who died fifty,
seventy-five or even hundred years before.

Furthermore it has to be taken into account that under the excuse of
protecting the authors' rights, an unduly burden has been charged on the
users of works of unknown authors, anonymous works or the ones of people
who simply did not intend to claim any right at any time at all. The
Uruguay Round Agreements were negotiated by 123 countries. Somebody who
came across some anonymous work that could be dated at anytime in the last
century, could be required to find a negotiator among the more than seven
billion people on Earth, since, otherwise, he/she could be violating some
state copyright law.

Another aspect that URAA does not pay attention to is the fact that many
works remain unattended. When talking about books, it means that they are
not reprinted and are not available anymore. But it does not mean that
somebody could just reprint them in order to make them known to the
public. In that way people can neither buy copies of works nor make them
themselves. Who is profiting by that? In other cases, photographs,
pictures, rolls of film, etc., just sit rotting -literally in some cases-
in storerooms, not only forgotten, also forbidden. Is there any benefit
from it?

So, in spite of all legal terms, we, the Wikimedians from Spain, support
not just our Israeli companions, but the right of all the Human Race to
have a chance to enjoy what has been done by authors. And so we expect the
Wikimedia Foundation, as a provider of free knowledge sources, will do
their best and fight for the shortest copyright terms possible, restricted
as closely as possible to the author's lifetime.

Yours sincerely,

Wikimedia Spain



*Wikimedia España Blog

http://blog.wikimedia.es/2014/02/postura-de-wikimedia-espana-sobre-la.html

*On Meta in different languages:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Espa%C3%B1a/Letter_to_the_BoT_regarding_URAA

We encourage you to create a debate about it and work for free knowledge.

Thank you and regards

-- 
Santiago Navarro
Wikimedia España
http://www.wikimedia.org.es/


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use

2014-02-19 Thread Dominic McDevitt-Parks
I've thought a lot about the issues around conflict of interest, paid
editing, and paid advocacy (by the way, those are all overlapping but
different concepts). My writing (and
disclosure)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic/FAQ was
brought up on this list last time the issue came up as a model of good
behavior. I always advocate transparency and disclosure of affiliation when
edits are done as part of work duties, and only making edits that serve
Wikimedia's own mission, not just self-interest.

Having said that, this proposal seems awful. It appears to outlaw mistakes.
All failures to disclose affiliation are deceptive according to the
language, regardless of whether it is done in good faith or bad. I would
never have interpreted the current TOU's language to mean that omission is
the same thing as misrepresentation in all cases. That includes edits from
newbies, or those editing under the assumption presumption that Wikimedia
grants users unconditional privacy. I think about every GLAM professional
or academic ever who makes their first tentative edit, and maybe just adds
a link or uploads a historical image. Or maybe they made a valid, but
self-interested comment on a talk page (like Actually, the library has 4
branches, not 3). Now, they don't just face the problem of getting
reverted/warned if they've done something wrong; they have violated the
site's terms of use as well. And will be subject to applicable law(!) As
if there aren't enough potential stumbling blocks for contributors with
subject matter expertise or from underserved communities. I see this being
invoked more often in toxic ways than constructive ones, since more nuanced
community policies are already in place on major projects.

You said on the talk page in response to someone's concern about those
types of desirable contributions that In fact, Wikipedians in Residence
usually explain their affiliation on their user page (consistent with this
provision), and exemplify some of the best practices for transparency and
disclosure. I'm you view us so favorably, but I think it's important to
point out that good Wikipedians are not born that way. And they probably
didn't learn their good practices from the terms of use.

And I'm not sure how to make it better. What value does this even serve the
movement? I can't understand from the background information why there is
the need to resolve the problem of conflict of interest through a
Wikimedia-wide terms of use change, especially such a rigid one, when local
policies are already in place. (Or, if they are not in place, perhaps it
has more to do with the fact that not all Wikimedia projects even face the
same problems of neutrality as Wikipedia.) I don't question that conflicts
of interest are a valid concern, and I am sure this proposal was probably
written with more clear-cut cases of profit motives in mind, but it seems
more like an overreach than any kind of solution.

Dominic

(Note, I wasn't paid to make this mailing list post.)


On 19 February 2014 17:06, Stephen LaPorte slapo...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Hello all,

 We are asking for community input on a proposed amendment to the Wikimedia
 Terms of Use regarding undisclosed paid editing. The amendment is currently
 available in English, German, Spanish, French, Italian, and Japanese, and
 we welcome further translations and discussion in any language.

 For your review, you may find the proposed amendment and background
 information here:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment

 Please join the discussion on the talk page:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment

 Thank you for sharing your thoughts and comments.

 --
 Stephen LaPorte
 Legal Counsel
 Wikimedia Foundation

 *For legal reasons, I may only serve as an attorney for the Wikimedia
 Foundation. This means I may not give legal advice to or serve as a lawyer
 for community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal
 capacity.*

 ___
 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,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use

2014-02-19 Thread Newyorkbrad
When we were discussing an update to the COI/paid editing page on English
Wikipedia a few months ago, I posted a set of hypothetical (but not all
that hypothetical) situations to help guide the discussion.  I've copied
and updated that question set and posted it to the talkpage of the meta
discussion, in the hopes that it might be useful there too in ensuring that
any proposal addresses real situations that arise in a sensible way.

Link:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment#Hypothetical_.28but_not_all_that_hypothetical.29_examples_for_discussion

Regards,
Newyorkbrad



On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks
mcdev...@gmail.comwrote:

 I've thought a lot about the issues around conflict of interest, paid
 editing, and paid advocacy (by the way, those are all overlapping but
 different concepts). My writing (and
 disclosure)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic/FAQ was
 brought up on this list last time the issue came up as a model of good
 behavior. I always advocate transparency and disclosure of affiliation when
 edits are done as part of work duties, and only making edits that serve
 Wikimedia's own mission, not just self-interest.

 Having said that, this proposal seems awful. It appears to outlaw mistakes.
 All failures to disclose affiliation are deceptive according to the
 language, regardless of whether it is done in good faith or bad. I would
 never have interpreted the current TOU's language to mean that omission is
 the same thing as misrepresentation in all cases. That includes edits from
 newbies, or those editing under the assumption presumption that Wikimedia
 grants users unconditional privacy. I think about every GLAM professional
 or academic ever who makes their first tentative edit, and maybe just adds
 a link or uploads a historical image. Or maybe they made a valid, but
 self-interested comment on a talk page (like Actually, the library has 4
 branches, not 3). Now, they don't just face the problem of getting
 reverted/warned if they've done something wrong; they have violated the
 site's terms of use as well. And will be subject to applicable law(!) As
 if there aren't enough potential stumbling blocks for contributors with
 subject matter expertise or from underserved communities. I see this being
 invoked more often in toxic ways than constructive ones, since more nuanced
 community policies are already in place on major projects.

 You said on the talk page in response to someone's concern about those
 types of desirable contributions that In fact, Wikipedians in Residence
 usually explain their affiliation on their user page (consistent with this
 provision), and exemplify some of the best practices for transparency and
 disclosure. I'm you view us so favorably, but I think it's important to
 point out that good Wikipedians are not born that way. And they probably
 didn't learn their good practices from the terms of use.

 And I'm not sure how to make it better. What value does this even serve the
 movement? I can't understand from the background information why there is
 the need to resolve the problem of conflict of interest through a
 Wikimedia-wide terms of use change, especially such a rigid one, when local
 policies are already in place. (Or, if they are not in place, perhaps it
 has more to do with the fact that not all Wikimedia projects even face the
 same problems of neutrality as Wikipedia.) I don't question that conflicts
 of interest are a valid concern, and I am sure this proposal was probably
 written with more clear-cut cases of profit motives in mind, but it seems
 more like an overreach than any kind of solution.

 Dominic

 (Note, I wasn't paid to make this mailing list post.)


 On 19 February 2014 17:06, Stephen LaPorte slapo...@wikimedia.org wrote:

  Hello all,
 
  We are asking for community input on a proposed amendment to the
 Wikimedia
  Terms of Use regarding undisclosed paid editing. The amendment is
 currently
  available in English, German, Spanish, French, Italian, and Japanese, and
  we welcome further translations and discussion in any language.
 
  For your review, you may find the proposed amendment and background
  information here:
 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment
 
  Please join the discussion on the talk page:
 
 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment
 
  Thank you for sharing your thoughts and comments.
 
  --
  Stephen LaPorte
  Legal Counsel
  Wikimedia Foundation
 
  *For legal reasons, I may only serve as an attorney for the Wikimedia
  Foundation. This means I may not give legal advice to or serve as a
 lawyer
  for community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal
  capacity.*
 
  ___
  Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
  directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia
  

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Position of Wikimedia Spain about URAA

2014-02-19 Thread Yael Meron
Hi Santiago,

Thank you for your support.
We hope this would bring stronger advocacy actions by the WMF as well as
practical solutions for the Wikimedia projects.

Regards,

Yael Meron
Wikimedia Israel



On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:49 AM, Santi Navarro 
santiagonava...@wikimedia.org.es wrote:

 Hello. Wikimedia Spain members wrote an open letter to BoT where we show
 our position about the URAA and we support Wikimedia Israel. The letter
 says:

 ==

 We, the members of Wikimedia España, the chapter of the Wikimedia movement
 in Spain, support the concerns expressed by our fellow Wikimedia Israel
 and other places around the World about the legal norm known as URAA. That
 norm, based on the legal status quo, has the effect of extending the
 copyright of cultural works for periods even longer than those already in
 force.

 We do not object in any way to the right of people to live out of the
 results of their work, be it in manufacturing, service industries,
 agriculture or any other human activity, but those works form the core of
 culture as the sum of human knowledge, and their use by all Mankind has to
 be protected too. While it is entirely understandable that painters,
 writers or photographers have the right to sustain themselves with their
 works, it is not reasonable that people who did not author anything should
 be allowed to make money out of the works of people who died fifty,
 seventy-five or even hundred years before.

 Furthermore it has to be taken into account that under the excuse of
 protecting the authors' rights, an unduly burden has been charged on the
 users of works of unknown authors, anonymous works or the ones of people
 who simply did not intend to claim any right at any time at all. The
 Uruguay Round Agreements were negotiated by 123 countries. Somebody who
 came across some anonymous work that could be dated at anytime in the last
 century, could be required to find a negotiator among the more than seven
 billion people on Earth, since, otherwise, he/she could be violating some
 state copyright law.

 Another aspect that URAA does not pay attention to is the fact that many
 works remain unattended. When talking about books, it means that they are
 not reprinted and are not available anymore. But it does not mean that
 somebody could just reprint them in order to make them known to the
 public. In that way people can neither buy copies of works nor make them
 themselves. Who is profiting by that? In other cases, photographs,
 pictures, rolls of film, etc., just sit rotting -literally in some cases-
 in storerooms, not only forgotten, also forbidden. Is there any benefit
 from it?

 So, in spite of all legal terms, we, the Wikimedians from Spain, support
 not just our Israeli companions, but the right of all the Human Race to
 have a chance to enjoy what has been done by authors. And so we expect the
 Wikimedia Foundation, as a provider of free knowledge sources, will do
 their best and fight for the shortest copyright terms possible, restricted
 as closely as possible to the author's lifetime.

 Yours sincerely,

 Wikimedia Spain

 

 *Wikimedia España Blog

 http://blog.wikimedia.es/2014/02/postura-de-wikimedia-espana-sobre-la.html

 *On Meta in different languages:


 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Espa%C3%B1a/Letter_to_the_BoT_regarding_URAA

 We encourage you to create a debate about it and work for free knowledge.

 Thank you and regards

 --
 Santiago Navarro
 Wikimedia España
 http://www.wikimedia.org.es/


 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use

2014-02-19 Thread MZMcBride
A copy of the proposed additional language:

---
Paid contributions without disclosure

These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including
misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. To ensure
compliance with these obligations, you must disclose your employer,
client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution to any Wikimedia
Projects for which you receive compensation. You must make that disclosure
in at least one of the following:

* a statement on your user page,
* a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
* a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.

Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies, such as those
addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or
require more detailed disclosure. For more information, please read our
background note on disclosure of paid contributions
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment#
paidtoufaq.
---

And a snippet from the Meta-Wiki page:

---
Our Terms of Use already prohibit engaging in deceptive activities,
including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. To
ensure compliance with these provisions, this amendment provides specific
minimum disclosure requirements for paid contributions on the Wikimedia
Projects.
---

Dominic McDevitt-Parks wrote:
And I'm not sure how to make it better. What value does this even serve
the movement? I can't understand from the background information why
there is the need to resolve the problem of conflict of interest through
a Wikimedia-wide terms of use change, especially such a rigid one, when
local policies are already in place. (Or, if they are not in place,
perhaps it has more to do with the fact that not all Wikimedia projects
even face the same problems of neutrality as Wikipedia.)

My reaction was roughly the same as yours regarding who's proposing this
change. It's curious that the Wikimedia Foundation legal team wants to
propose this as a Terms of Use change rather than, say, creating or
clarifying a Wikimedia Foundation employee policy. This is already being
referred to as the Stierch amendment, of course.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use

2014-02-19 Thread HaeB
Hi Dominic,

2014-02-19 18:46 GMT-08:00 Dominic McDevitt-Parks mcdev...@gmail.com:
 I've thought a lot about the issues around conflict of interest, paid
 editing, and paid advocacy (by the way, those are all overlapping but
 different concepts). My writing (and
 disclosure)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic/FAQ was
 brought up on this list last time the issue came up as a model of good
 behavior. I always advocate transparency and disclosure of affiliation when
 edits are done as part of work duties, and only making edits that serve
 Wikimedia's own mission, not just self-interest.

 Having said that, this proposal seems awful. It appears to outlaw mistakes.
 All failures to disclose affiliation are deceptive according to the
 language, regardless of whether it is done in good faith or bad. I would
 never have interpreted the current TOU's language to mean that omission is
 the same thing as misrepresentation in all cases. That includes edits from
 newbies, or those editing under the assumption presumption that Wikimedia
 grants users unconditional privacy. I think about every GLAM professional
 or academic ever who makes their first tentative edit, and maybe just adds
 a link or uploads a historical image. Or maybe they made a valid, but
 self-interested comment on a talk page (like Actually, the library has 4
 branches, not 3). Now, they don't just face the problem of getting
 reverted/warned if they've done something wrong; they have violated the
 site's terms of use as well. And will be subject to applicable law(!) As
 if there aren't enough potential stumbling blocks for contributors with
 subject matter expertise or from underserved communities. I see this being
 invoked more often in toxic ways than constructive ones, since more nuanced
 community policies are already in place on major projects.

Sorry, but I think these concerns are overblown.

First, IANAL, but an academic ... who makes their first tentative
edit or other normal newbies will most likely not fall under that
provision, unless they are instructed by their employer to make that
edit (but then, why would an organization such as an university spend
money to pay someone for work in which that person has no experience
whatsoever?).

Second, you make it appear like every violation of the TOU is a felony
(outlaw mistakes) and likely to be the target of legal action. In my
observation as a longtime editor, the reality is different. As a
comparison, the terms of use also forbid copyright infringement and
require proper attribution of content. Yet as we all know, newbie
mistakes in that area are very common, and even many experienced
editors violate [[WP:CWW]] without facing major consequences or
lawsuits ;) However, that doesn't mean at all that we should drop
these requirements - they help us achieving our goal of building a
body of knowledge that can be freely shared and reused.

Last, you vehemently object to the text mentioning that people will
be subject to 'applicable law'(!). Well, the Foundation doesn't make
these laws, and not mentioning them in the TOU doesn't make them go
away. They are not mere stumbling blocks that WMF can remove in
order to make the life of GLAM professionals a bit easier. You should
instead complain to the FTC or the other (non-US) legal institutions
mentioned in the FAQ about this point.


 You said on the talk page in response to someone's concern about those
 types of desirable contributions that In fact, Wikipedians in Residence
 usually explain their affiliation on their user page (consistent with this
 provision), and exemplify some of the best practices for transparency and
 disclosure. I'm you view us so favorably, but I think it's important to
 point out that good Wikipedians are not born that way. And they probably
 didn't learn their good practices from the terms of use.

 And I'm not sure how to make it better. What value does this even serve the
 movement? I can't understand from the background information why there is
 the need to resolve the problem of conflict of interest through a
 Wikimedia-wide terms of use change, especially such a rigid one, when local
 policies are already in place. (Or, if they are not in place, perhaps it
 has more to do with the fact that not all Wikimedia projects even face the
 same problems of neutrality as Wikipedia.) I don't question that conflicts
 of interest are a valid concern, and I am sure this proposal was probably
 written with more clear-cut cases of profit motives in mind, but it seems
 more like an overreach than any kind of solution.

 Dominic

 (Note, I wasn't paid to make this mailing list post.)
Me neither ;) Although I work for the Foundation in my day job, I have
also been a volunteer editor for a decade now, and I'm speaking as
such here. Over the years I have lost a lot of time trying to maintain
NPOV in articles that were subject to (as it would turn out later)
undisclosed paid editing, and turned away in frustration from many
others 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use

2014-02-19 Thread rupert THURNER
stephen,

i think it would be wiser to tackle this technically. let mark a
contribution as COI when pressing save. the community will make something
out of it, you can be sure. if a person makes too often errors not marking
that an edit is COI, then its easy to make a community backed rule to ban
the person from the projects for not complying. one can also make a rule
that only 5% of a persons edits are allowed to be COI and the editor
numbers would go up.

but i understand,  your job is in the legal department, so you are only
allowed to produce text, not code, which is a pity :( but please do not
forget, if you write one line of text, there are thousands who read it, and
it might be used in legal hassles - which is not at the core of the free
in the wikimedia vision and mission.

rupert.



On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Stephen LaPorte slapo...@wikimedia.orgwrote:

 Hello all,

 We are asking for community input on a proposed amendment to the Wikimedia
 Terms of Use regarding undisclosed paid editing. The amendment is currently
 available in English, German, Spanish, French, Italian, and Japanese, and
 we welcome further translations and discussion in any language.

 For your review, you may find the proposed amendment and background
 information here:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment

 Please join the discussion on the talk page:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment

 Thank you for sharing your thoughts and comments.

 --
 Stephen LaPorte
 Legal Counsel
 Wikimedia Foundation

 *For legal reasons, I may only serve as an attorney for the Wikimedia
 Foundation. This means I may not give legal advice to or serve as a lawyer
 for community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal
 capacity.*

 ___
 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,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use

2014-02-19 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)

HaeB, 20/02/2014 06:56:

Second, you make it appear like every violation of the TOU is a felony
(outlaw mistakes) and likely to be the target of legal action. In my
observation as a longtime editor, the reality is different.


Indeed. The reality is that it's a criminal offense, at least in USA, 
and any attorney with enough hate for the world can prosecute you until 
you commmit suicide.


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe