[Wikimedia-l] paid editing TOU amendment: disclose paid editing or coi?
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment#What_to_ask_to_disclose:_paid_contributions_or_COI.3F Please participate in this discussion and help produce a well-readable revision, if such change is necessary. Thanks! ___ 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] Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA
On 2 March 2014 08:55, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 2 March 2014 02:01, Mark delir...@hackish.org wrote: I personally would welcome more attention to our actual mission, producing free content, rather than the mission some of our members seem to be engaged in, making the *.wikipedia.org sites look nice in the short term, even if nobody external can reuse the content. You're seriously characterising the present dispute as this? Its a pretty accurate description. What do you think the law says? -- 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] Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA
On Sun, 2 Mar 2014, geni wrote: On 2 March 2014 08:55, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 2 March 2014 02:01, Mark delir...@hackish.org wrote: I personally would welcome more attention to our actual mission, producing free content, rather than the mission some of our members seem to be engaged in, making the *.wikipedia.org sites look nice in the short term, even if nobody external can reuse the content. There seems to be a disconnect between what Commons sees as it's mission: To be a repository of Free media; and what other projects see as Commons' mission: To be a repository of media for use on Wikimedia projects. There is a further disconnect in that Commons is taking an increasingly ultra-conservative approach to the definition of Free, whereas most other projects are working to a definition of Free for all practical purposes. It is the latter interpretation that the board, in consultation with the legal team, are recommending as the way forward but is being resisted strongly by many on Commons. These days I wouldn't dare upload an image that was not either my own work or public doman due to life+100 because I couldn't guarantee that it wont be delted. Even with my own work I'm wary because of recent cases of amateur lawyering over the definition of permanent for the purposes of UK freedom of panorama. Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart Antoine de Saint Exupery ___ 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] Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA
On 2 March 2014 16:31, Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org wrote: These days I wouldn't dare upload an image that was not either my own work or public doman due to life+100 because I couldn't guarantee that it wont be delted. Even with my own work I'm wary because of recent cases of amateur lawyering over the definition of permanent for the purposes of UK freedom of panorama. Indeed. The extreme paranoia over images people created themselves versus the ridiculously sloppy standards for anything on Flickr (a bot can't meaningfully verify an image) makes Commons merely seem capricious. tl;dr Commons is behaving like damage that needs to be worked around. If people who consider themselves part of the Commons community don't like that being noted, they're the ones who need to consider changing; their intransigence up to now is *why* Commons appears to behave like damage. - d. ___ 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] Funding programs for individuals.
Omg, I totally missed this thread when it started originally. As Wikimedia Deutschland has an extensive history in individual grantmaking and is currently running more than a dozen programs, please allow me to add a link to our overview-page in the German Wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:F%C3%B6rderung (German only, sorry, but Google Translate should do it) Sorry for being so utterly late, but I hope this link is still of use? In case you need some more explanations in detail, please feel free to consult me here or offlist. Best regards, Denis Barthel -- Team Communitys (Bereichsleitung) Head of Volunteer Support Dept. Mobil +49 172 23 13 811 E-Mail: denis.bart...@wikimedia.de -- Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 260 *Epic thread unearthing!* Thanks to everybody who added more information - Jan, Itzik, Nicolas, Christoph, Siko Jessie. Since apparently there was no Meta page for that(tm) (yet!) I went ahead and drafted https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jean-Frédéric/ Funding_programs The relevant Meta page is https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants It was written mainly with information from the Wikimania 2011 session pad, so it may be slightly outdated. Can you please merge yours in Nemo - I have no idea why we are moving to ElasticSearch: *you* should be implemented as the search backend for Meta - and MediaWiki.org and Bugzilla while we are at it ;-þ The table is now merged in https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants. Please fix any oversight I may have made in the process, and add any missing information. (It is my understanding that grantmaking programs will be a focus of the next Wikimedia Conference - I look forward more conversation happening on this topic!) Cheers, -- Jean-Fred ___ 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] Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA
On 3/2/14, 5:31 PM, Chris McKenna wrote: There seems to be a disconnect between what Commons sees as it's mission: To be a repository of Free media; and what other projects see as Commons' mission: To be a repository of media for use on Wikimedia projects. But since the other Wikimedia projects should be producing free-content encyclopedias, this is no disconnect: Commons should host Free media, and the other projects should include Free media. Otherwise the other projects' content cannot be reused externally, and they are not free-content encyclopedias. There is a further disconnect in that Commons is taking an increasingly ultra-conservative approach to the definition of Free, whereas most other projects are working to a definition of Free for all practical purposes. It is the latter interpretation that the board, in consultation with the legal team, are recommending as the way forward but is being resisted strongly by many on Commons. This is more the crux of the issue, I think. I'm mostly familiar with en.wiki, but on there the definition swings pretty far to the opposite extreme, with a lot of content that is *not* Free for most practical purposes. For example, a large number of our articles on 20th-century artists cannot be legally republished in their home countries, or even other English-speaking countries, without stripping the images, due to the author having died less than 70 years ago. As a result, the illustrated version of en.wiki is effectively Free only for *American* reusers specifically; someone in the UK or Spain cannot legally republish [[en:Pablo Picasso]]. One possible approach is certainly to choose a representative country per language, and define freeness as only free in that country specifically. So en.wiki's ambition is to be free only for Americans. Perhaps es.wiki's goal will be to be free for Spaniards, and/or Argentinians. de.wiki will be focused on freeness for Germans. etc. I think that would be... suboptimal, though. -Mark ___ 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] Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA
One possible approach is certainly to choose a representative country per language, and define freeness as only free in that country specifically. So en.wiki's ambition is to be free only for Americans. Perhaps es.wiki's goal will be to be free for Spaniards, and/or Argentinians. de.wiki will be focused on freeness for Germans. etc. I think that would be... suboptimal, though. I agree that it would be suboptimal - most of the English speaking world would be at a disadvantage then! You would also have to ask difficult questions about Anglo Saxon, or Portuguese, where the language to country link is not as clear. ___ 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] Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA
On 2 March 2014 16:56, Mark delir...@hackish.org wrote: On 3/2/14, 5:31 PM, Chris McKenna wrote: There is a further disconnect in that Commons is taking an increasingly ultra-conservative approach to the definition of Free, whereas most other projects are working to a definition of Free for all practical purposes. It is the latter interpretation that the board, in consultation with the legal team, are recommending as the way forward but is being resisted strongly by many on Commons. This is more the crux of the issue, I think. I'm mostly familiar with en.wiki, but on there the definition swings pretty far to the opposite extreme, with a lot of content that is *not* Free for most practical purposes. This discussion is not even about en:wp or its content; you are derailing the discussion. - d. ___ 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] Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA
On Sun, 2 Mar 2014, Mark wrote: On 3/2/14, 5:31 PM, Chris McKenna wrote: There seems to be a disconnect between what Commons sees as it's mission: To be a repository of Free media; and what other projects see as Commons' mission: To be a repository of media for use on Wikimedia projects. But since the other Wikimedia projects should be producing free-content encyclopedias, this is no disconnect: Commons should host Free media, and the other projects should include Free media. Otherwise the other projects' content cannot be reused externally, and they are not free-content encyclopedias. You've missed the point. Commons is not at present a reliable source of media, Free or otherwise, because media gets deleted because once someone alleges that it is not free it gets deleted if the original uploader cannot prove it is free, regardless of the merits of the allegation. The Foundation has said do not delete images that *might* be unfree under URAA unless there is a takedown notice yet the images continue to be deleted. There is a further disconnect in that Commons is taking an increasingly ultra-conservative approach to the definition of Free, whereas most other projects are working to a definition of Free for all practical purposes. It is the latter interpretation that the board, in consultation with the legal team, are recommending as the way forward but is being resisted strongly by many on Commons. This is more the crux of the issue, I think. I'm mostly familiar with en.wiki, but on there the definition swings pretty far to the opposite extreme, with a lot of content that is *not* Free for most practical purposes. For example, a large number of our articles on 20th-century artists cannot be legally republished in their home countries, or even other English-speaking countries, without stripping the images, due to the author having died less than 70 years ago. As a result, the illustrated version of en.wiki is effectively Free only for *American* reusers specifically; someone in the UK or Spain cannot legally republish [[en:Pablo Picasso]]. This is entirely irrelevant to the attitude at Commons. English Wikipedia is Free according to the definition it uses, which is essentally Free for practical purposes as an Encyclopaedia and that is applied reliably. In contrast, Commons is arbitrarily and inconsistently Free and appears to be prioritising point making over being a practical media repository. You are free to disagree about en.wp's choices, but this does not excuse the attitude of Commons to the Wikimedia community. Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart Antoine de Saint Exupery ___ 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] Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA
On 2 March 2014 20:50, Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org wrote: On Sun, 2 Mar 2014, Mark wrote: On 3/2/14, 5:31 PM, Chris McKenna wrote: There seems to be a disconnect between what Commons sees as it's mission: To be a repository of Free media; and what other projects see as Commons' mission: To be a repository of media for use on Wikimedia projects. But since the other Wikimedia projects should be producing free-content encyclopedias, this is no disconnect: Commons should host Free media, and the other projects should include Free media. Otherwise the other projects' content cannot be reused externally, and they are not free-content encyclopedias. You've missed the point. Commons is not at present a reliable source of media, Free or otherwise, because media gets deleted because once someone alleges that it is not free it gets deleted if the original uploader cannot prove it is free, regardless of the merits of the allegation. As someone with OTRS access I beg to differ The Foundation has said do not delete images that *might* be unfree under URAA unless there is a takedown notice yet the images continue to be deleted. or without such actual knowledge of infringement The reality is that the Resolution:Licensing_policy: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy Is still the standard we work to. The relevant section is All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works' as referenced above. Individual projects can file an Exemption Doctrine Policy to get around that however commons is explicitly banned from doing so. This is entirely irrelevant to the attitude at Commons. English Wikipedia is Free according to the definition it uses, which is essentally Free for practical purposes as an Encyclopaedia and that is applied reliably. Nope. Probably the closest to an actual description of the English wikipedia position would be free in the US unless certain record and film companies decide to become as lawsuit happy as they are commonly portrayed and even that isn't done consistently. In contrast, Commons is arbitrarily and inconsistently Free and appears to be prioritising point making over being a practical media repository. You are free to disagree about en.wp's choices, but this does not excuse the attitude of Commons to the Wikimedia community. You are aware that most commons bods are active on other projects? -- 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] Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA
On 2 March 2014 13:51, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: Its a pretty accurate description. What do you think the law says? It's possible, if you want people and organisations to stop their moves against you, that snideness and word play may not serve to convince them that you have any evidenced interest in working with others, and don't have to be treated as simply intransigent. - d. ___ 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] Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org wrote: You've missed the point. Commons is not at present a reliable source of media, Free or otherwise, because media gets deleted because once someone alleges that it is not free it gets deleted if the original uploader cannot prove it is free, regardless of the merits of the allegation. That's an odd view of the merits. The content should not really have been uploaded to begin with if the uploader couldn't show it was free. Commons has help desks to assist people who are unsure. The Foundation has said do not delete images that *might* be unfree under URAA unless there is a takedown notice yet the images continue to be deleted. I would take that complaint more seriously if people had identified deletions where the URAA status was not entirely clear, and complained about them. Instead the current proposal is that *all* URAA-related deletions would be overturned. The Foundation has not changed its position (expressed two years ago) that images which are clearly unfree under URAA should be deleted. This is entirely irrelevant to the attitude at Commons. English Wikipedia is Free according to the definition it uses, which is essentally Free for practical purposes as an Encyclopaedia and that is applied reliably. In contrast, Commons is arbitrarily and inconsistently Free and appears to be prioritising point making over being a practical media repository. You are free to disagree about en.wp's choices, but this does not excuse the attitude of Commons to the Wikimedia community. Modify that to Free for practical purposes *in the USA* as an Encyclopaedia, and you're getting closer. Commons should have a broader goal than that, though. Getting back to URAA-affected images, [[en:Template:Not-PD-US-URAA]] places images in [[en:Category:Works copyrighted in the United States]], which says we are currently trying to figure out what to do with files like this one. It's more than two years since Golan vs Holder, which seems a long time to be figuring this out. That's fair enough in a way, since image hosting probably shouldn't be high on enwiki's list of priorities. But contrast that with Commons, where the essential decisions regarding URAA were made (based partly on WMF Legal input) within 6 months or so, and substantial progress has been made towards implementing them, despite the much larger scale of the problem there (several thousand images, compared to 127 in [[en:Category:Works copyrighted in the United States]]). ___ 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] Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA
On 2 March 2014 16:35, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Indeed. The extreme paranoia over images people created themselves versus the ridiculously sloppy standards for anything on Flickr (a bot can't meaningfully verify an image) makes Commons merely seem capricious. No the same standards are applied to flickr images. The bot is verifying against later changes of license not that the license claim is correct. The reality is though that flickr images tend to be either fine of straightforward copyvios so arguments over less known areas of copyright law tend not to be an issue. Its mostly a matter of spotting the stream has an unlikely range of images or cameras. tl;dr Commons is behaving like damage that needs to be worked around. If people who consider themselves part of the Commons community don't like that being noted, they're the ones who need to consider changing; their intransigence up to now is *why* Commons appears to behave like damage. Because you and various other members of the project seem to view insisting on free content as damaging. Fundamentally there isn't much that can be done about. -- 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] Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA
On 02/03/2014 01:26, geni wrote: On 1 March 2014 23:59, ??? wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: On 01/03/2014 23:06, geni wrote: On 1 March 2014 19:58, ??? wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: You have no guarantee that the account that the images were scraped from held the copyright in the first place, and as such you are unable to pass that guarantee on to any one else. Want means its an objective not something we have actually archived yet. Then it is an objective that cannot be fulfilled unless you get written clarification from all the accounts that are being scraped on flickr and elsewhere, that the images contained within the accounts were taken by the account holder. There are various approaches. Personally I'd like to see the software modified so images can be tagged by level of certainty with regards to their copyright status. Many flickr accounts collect images found on the web. Many of them upload those images under a CC license, because images on the web are all public domain. Those are usually fairly obvious and can be avoided for the most part. Really? You may be able to detect those that have an AP or Getty watermark and similar, but with other flickr streams it is not so clear. A few years ago one poster to flickr was uploading images taken a pre-Arab Spring protests in Egypt. All of them were uploaded as CC-BY-SA, but they weren't all from the same photographer. As I recall people were sending him the photos and he was uploading them to flickr, and then these were being reused on various anti-Mubarek blogs. Whether or not everyone that was emailing photos was aware of the CC licenses that were being added is unknown. A casual observer would not of been able to detect that the stream was from dozens of photographers. Names were kept out of the uploads and the EXIF data was removed for obvious reasons. Again on flickr people may set there default upload settings to CC-BY-SA and by and large only upload images that they have taken. However, that doesn't mean that everything they upload is something they have taken. Other sites offer CC-BY-SA images, and there is no guarantee that the uploader to those sites is the copyright holder either. On Commons there are a number of people trawling through websites offering CC-BY-SA images, and uploading them to Commons. There is absolutely no guarantee that they are properly licensed. Even if they are, there is no traceability to show that in five years time the anon uploader to the original site (if the original site still exists) is the same person that is claiming copyright on the images. The bottom line here is that IF your business relies on CC-BY-SA images, then you are unwise to take at face value any CC-BY-SA license, particularly commercial use, unless YOU have traceability. That today Commons can provide any guarantee that the images it holds are properly licensed is a fantasy. ___ 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] Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA
On 2 March 2014 22:20, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 2 March 2014 13:51, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: Its a pretty accurate description. What do you think the law says? It's possible, if you want people and organisations to stop their moves against you, that snideness and word play may not serve to convince them that you have any evidenced interest in working with others, and don't have to be treated as simply intransigent. Given that attempt to explain how the law actually works have been ignored there isn't much we can do to avoid being perceived as intransigent. If people won't listen there isn't much we can do other than add them to the list of people who unaccountably have better things do on weekends than read through copyright statutes and caselaw. It may be worth noting at this point that the Israelis and the Argentinians face two different problems. The Argentinian one probably can't be solve short of the US government adopting the rule of the shorter term (assuming stability in Argentinian copyright law in the meantime). The Israeli problem on the other hand could probably be solved by getting their government to issue a statement on the status of their copyrights overseas (the Brits did back in 2005). I'm not up enough on the Israeli Freedom of Information Law to know if that would be the appropriate mechanism ( and in any case I'm not an Israeli citizen or resident so I can't file one) but even if it isn't I expect the chapter would get a response to a query. But that is up to them. I can make an Israeli do this. -- 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] Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA
On 3/2/14, 6:17 PM, David Gerard wrote: On 2 March 2014 16:56, Mark delir...@hackish.org wrote: On 3/2/14, 5:31 PM, Chris McKenna wrote: There is a further disconnect in that Commons is taking an increasingly ultra-conservative approach to the definition of Free, whereas most other projects are working to a definition of Free for all practical purposes. It is the latter interpretation that the board, in consultation with the legal team, are recommending as the way forward but is being resisted strongly by many on Commons. This is more the crux of the issue, I think. I'm mostly familiar with en.wiki, but on there the definition swings pretty far to the opposite extreme, with a lot of content that is *not* Free for most practical purposes. This discussion is not even about en:wp or its content; you are derailing the discussion. You argued that there is a big divergence between the goals of Commons and those of the other projects, and that Commons is the outlier diverging from the Movement's goals. I am arguing that isn't the case, and Commons is in fact closer to the movement's goals than the projects that have been complaining. As someone interested in reusing Wikipedia content outside of the main countries of origin (en.wiki content in Denmark, in my case), I actually find Commons's copyright policy one of the few useful things helping out reusers, which is one reason I'm defending it. Here is one heuristic for freeing-up a Wikipedia article: for each image, look to see if it's locally hosted or hosted on Commons. Keep it if it's hosted on Commons, remove it if it's locally hosted. This will remove *most*, though not all, of the unfree or free-only-in-one-country images, meaning I can them (probably) legally publish the resulting article in Denmark. Of course, a detailed case-by-case copyright investigation is still the gold standard, but we're not very useful to reusers if everyone has to engage in one, and we can't present people a body of proably free for you to reuse content. That's what I think Commons is doing fairly well, or at least better than the other projects. To the extent that other projects are, as you advocating, routing around Commons, they are routing around free content and reusers' ability to actually reuse our content— in multiple countries, in multiple settings, by nonprofits and for-profits, in part or in whole. -Mark ___ 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] Funding programs for individuals.
Denis: I found it useful, thank you. I believe there is a long history of this in other chapters as well, such as Wikimedia Polska. Are other grantmaking overviews published online? On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-03-02 1:36 GMT+01:00 Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com: +1 to moving from ElasticSearch to NemoFind. I am sorry, but NemoFind is a trademark of WM-IT. Prior claim: Disney https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7365379072/h0C8A494A/ ___ 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] Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Which led to the thought that hey, what we really need is a meta-project for hosting images that is *explicitly* intended to serve the other projects. We tried this before, right? But maybe this time we make the meta-project a technical implementation without its own community, where local uploads can be toggled to make files globally available without giving some global intermediary the right to turn that toggle off. I can see every file that is uploaded to any project being available via some global namespace. Commons as we currently imagine it could become the core set of maximally free images: those freely reusable in every jurisdiction. And there would be a separate threshhold for the rest of the images. Covered by at least one project's Exemption Doctrine and tagged as such; freely reusable in almost all of the world and tagged as illegal in one or two countries; c... ___ 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] Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA
That would be wonderful. I imagine we would want to tag the images to indicate their copyright status in certain jurisdictions, and set up a mechanism so that projects can define which sorts of images they want to be able to embed in their local pages, and which they do not want (unless a locally EDP-compliant tag is attached). However, that wouldn't improve the URAA situation much. We would still need to delete clear infringements under the URAA, unless they are covered by some project's EDP. I guess it would at least reduce the number of transwiki transfers needed. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Sam Klein sjkl...@hcs.harvard.edu wrote: On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Which led to the thought that hey, what we really need is a meta-project for hosting images that is *explicitly* intended to serve the other projects. We tried this before, right? But maybe this time we make the meta-project a technical implementation without its own community, where local uploads can be toggled to make files globally available without giving some global intermediary the right to turn that toggle off. I can see every file that is uploaded to any project being available via some global namespace. Commons as we currently imagine it could become the core set of maximally free images: those freely reusable in every jurisdiction. And there would be a separate threshhold for the rest of the images. Covered by at least one project's Exemption Doctrine and tagged as such; freely reusable in almost all of the world and tagged as illegal in one or two countries; c... ___ 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
