Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please be considerate of everyone's time.

2014-06-17 Thread edward
On 17/06/2014 00:28, Kevin Gorman wrote: Hi Ed - I'm not sure what your area of specialty is offhand, This http://cuapress.cua.edu/res/docs/Fall-2014-Catalog.pdf#page=17 will be published in September this year, about the early philosophy of the medieval theologian Duns Scotus. My focus is on

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Court decision in Jones v. Dirty World Recording Entertainment LLC

2014-06-17 Thread Martijn Hoekstra
On Jun 17, 2014 3:55 AM, Kevin Godfrey kevin.darkli...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 Jun 2014, at 4:17 am, edward edw...@logicmuseum.com wrote: On 16/06/2014 21:07, Newyorkbrad wrote: In its decision, the Sixth Circuit takes a broad view of Section 230 and holds that Section 230 protection is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Court decision in Jones v. Dirty World Recording Entertainment LLC

2014-06-17 Thread rupert THURNER
What does this decision mean in simple English? Rupert Am 17.06.2014 09:08 schrieb Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com: On Jun 17, 2014 3:55 AM, Kevin Godfrey kevin.darkli...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 Jun 2014, at 4:17 am, edward edw...@logicmuseum.com wrote: On 16/06/2014

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please be considerate of everyone's time.

2014-06-17 Thread Jon Davies
At WMUK we are often approached by people wanting to improve content in an area. We can offer edit training and support for events where people can come together and improve or create pages. Last week our editathon run by volunteer Doug Taylor with Barclays was one such success: *'There were

Re: [Wikimedia-l] First _draft_ goals for WMF engineering/product

2014-06-17 Thread James Salsman
Erik Moeller wrote: ... My own focus will be on fleshing out the overall narrative, aligning around organization-wide objectives, and helping to manage scope Steven Walling wrote: The Wikimedia Foundation does not write nor edit content on Wikipedia Newyorkbrad wrote: ... The

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread Lodewijk
Hi Yann, While we can have a different discussion about methods used and tone applied, if I understand correctly the core argument/discussion point here is the question whether US law applies to Commons or not; more specifically: whether a picture that is (likely?) not in the Public Domain in the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please be considerate of everyone's time.

2014-06-17 Thread Austin Hair
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:14 AM, edward edw...@logicmuseum.com wrote: On 17/06/2014 00:23, Steven Walling wrote: The Wikimedia Foundation does not write nor edit content on Wikipedia, nor does it dictate editorial policy. I am aware of that, but (a) does that have to be the case anyway? If the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia mobile apps

2014-06-17 Thread Delirium
On 6/16/14, 4:27 PM, Brion Vibber wrote: As Sage notes, the functionality of the new apps is about the same on both Android and iOS, with some differences in the UI. Is there something written on the intended relationship between the apps and the mobile website? I've long been mildly confused

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread Yann Forget
Hi, 2014-06-17 15:07 GMT+05:30 Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org: Hi Yann, While we can have a different discussion about methods used and tone applied, if I understand correctly the core argument/discussion point here is the question whether US law applies to Commons or not; more

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread Tomasz Ganicz
The discussion about it was already performed: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAA with final consensus that URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion. However this consensus (a rough one) was questioned by a small, but very

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread
On 17/06/2014, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote: with final consensus that URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion... This is a selective quote, missing the explicit caveat that: Deleted files can be restored after a discussion in COM:UDR. If the process is being followed

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread George William Herbert
We need an Uncommons, where the strict open license / PD rules are abandoned and we accept images as long as their fair use can be established. And don't delete unless that fair use is credibly questioned. Conflating and comingling our educational role with open content advocacy was always

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread David Gerard
On 17 June 2014 16:26, George William Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: We need an Uncommons, where the strict open license / PD rules are abandoned and we accept images as long as their fair use can be established. And don't delete unless that fair use is credibly questioned. Grant

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread Austin Hair
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:26 PM, George William Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: Conflating and comingling our educational role with open content advocacy was always risky and is proving impossible. Without devaluing open content, we need to separately support fair use for educational

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread George William Herbert
On Jun 17, 2014, at 8:37 AM, Emmanuel Engelhart kel...@kiwix.org wrote: On 17.06.2014 17:26, George William Herbert wrote: We need an Uncommons, where the strict open license / PD rules are abandoned and we accept images as long as their fair use can be established. And don't delete

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread Emmanuel Engelhart
On 17.06.2014 17:26, George William Herbert wrote: We need an Uncommons, where the strict open license / PD rules are abandoned and we accept images as long as their fair use can be established. And don't delete unless that fair use is credibly questioned. Conflating and comingling our

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter
On 17.06.2014 16:47, Osmar Valdebenito wrote: If you take a look at the undeletion requests after the URAA discussion, most of the images restored were deleted afterwards anyway.[1][2] The only exception that I've seen are some German stamps that haven't been deleted (yet). The problem is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread Jeevan Jose
Accidentally, I have one of these FFD nomination pages on my watchlist. Yesterday it was renominated for the THIRD time by the same user (the second one was keep as well). And I can not act on it anymore. Apparently, at some point the user will get an admin with a stricter interpretation of the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread
On 17/06/2014, George William Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: We need an Uncommons, where the strict open license / PD rules are abandoned and we accept images as long as their fair use can be established. And don't delete unless that fair use is credibly questioned. There is no such

[Wikimedia-l] VisualEditor office hours

2014-06-17 Thread Maggie Dennis
Hi, everyone. I just wanted to let you know, so you could mark your calendars if interested, that the June and July IRC office hour to discuss VisualEditor will be held on Thursday June 19th at 1500 UTC and on Saturday July 19th at 2100 UTC. (See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread Delirium
On 6/17/14, 5:52 PM, George William Herbert wrote: On Jun 17, 2014, at 8:37 AM, Emmanuel Engelhart kel...@kiwix.org wrote: On 17.06.2014 17:26, George William Herbert wrote: We need an Uncommons, where the strict open license / PD rules are abandoned and we accept images as long as their

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

2014-06-17 Thread phoebe ayers
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 16 June 2014 20:48, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Not quite sure what you're shouting about, Gerard. The amendment clearly gives

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter
On 17.06.2014 18:13, Jeevan Jose wrote: Accidentally, I have one of these FFD nomination pages on my watchlist. Yesterday it was renominated for the THIRD time by the same user (the second one was keep as well). And I can not act on it anymore. Apparently, at some point the user will get an

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:26 AM, George William Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: Conflating and comingling our educational role with open content advocacy was always risky and is proving impossible. Insightful point. (We have a similar situation with our competing values of privacy

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

2014-06-17 Thread Risker
On 17 June 2014 12:56, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: I'm so very disappointed in the Board and the WMF for this TOU amendment, which was obviously written to quell concerns about English Wikipedia, with

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

2014-06-17 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)
phoebe ayers, 17/06/2014 18:56: Anyway, I'm not sure why you are assuming that the amendment will automatically be abhorrent to every community that's not English Wikipedia. And why do you think it will be useful? If it was needed, how comes only some 50 non-en.wiki editors came to support it

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread George Herbert
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: Can you clarify -- who do you intend by we? If your answer is English Wikipedia, I think we already have a somewhat workable solution to this complex problem: fair use is permitted in certain cases.[2] Of course, you

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread George Herbert
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: If we don't maintain the focus on free media, we may as well direct people to a web image search, all of which is use at your own risk anyway, just like our proposed new repository. Being free content is the Commons value

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread Sarah
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:26 PM, George William Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: Conflating and comingling our educational role with open content advocacy was always risky and is proving impossible. Without

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:12 AM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: Can you clarify -- who do you intend by we? If your answer is English Wikipedia, I think we already have a somewhat workable

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread George Herbert
Pete - An apologia for Commons, and the obvious implication that use on projects will have to (if people actually care to enforce local standards) require checking license status for every Project use, do not in any way lessen the need for Uncommons. On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Pete

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

2014-06-17 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, I have read Stephen's mail. It refers to many other things that I did not read. When the policy was discussed I raised the notion that for Wikidata the need for such disclosure is different. Given that I did not get any response, I took it as if that was not interesting relevant and

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

2014-06-17 Thread Jan-Bart de Vreede
Hi Nemo ( others) I know of at least one non english project that has implemented a much stronger stance against paid contributions Their are two possibilities when specific projects discuss if they need to have their own policy on this topic a) If all participants of the project agree on

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread Samuel Klein
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 2:19 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: the project and world benefit from [Commons] existing as is. But we need an alternative to support the educational mission, reasonable inter-project reuse, and end the endless deletion wars. Yes, this. With

[Wikimedia-l] 2014 General assembly of WMAT

2014-06-17 Thread Claudia Garád
Dear movement fellows, in the context of our annual general assembly on June 14, 2014 WMAT conducted elections for the board, the internal and external auditors and the community representative of our good governance committee. After a successful and constructive term of office we are happy to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread Nathan
I don't think the concept of the project is the problem. I'm skeptical that an Uncommons project built around fair use could be workable, considering that the validity of a fair use claim is context-specific and no cross-wiki project (like Commons) is going to have an easy time managing that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: The problem is the behavior of a certain core set of Commons admins; George, SJ, and Nathan: In addition to Erik Moeller's initial proposal that Commons be used as a repository for *free* media files (linked previously), there

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread George Herbert
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think the concept of the project is the problem. I'm skeptical that an Uncommons project built around fair use could be workable, considering that the validity of a fair use claim is context-specific and no cross-wiki

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread Nathan
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: The problem is the behavior of a certain core set of Commons admins; George, SJ, and Nathan: In addition to Erik Moeller's initial proposal that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread George Herbert
And yet we have a global, and in many cases (and specifically, en.wp) local Fair Use policy, which is quite actively and productively used, and has been since around day one of the first Wikipedia. Uncommons is not a change in policy. It is ultimately a technical matter; a software and project

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread Nathan
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:29 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think the concept of the project is the problem. I'm skeptical that an Uncommons project built around fair use could be workable,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:37 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: Unless you intend to try to roll that back on en.wikipedia and the Foundation policy, Absolutely not. I don't have any real problem with the way fair use is handled on English Wikipedia, and have uploaded some

[Wikimedia-l] Let Commons do what it knows best and use Wikidata for it and the rest

2014-06-17 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, - Many people no longer trust Commons to store their media files. People are more certain that their files will remain available when they upload media files to their own project. - Many media files exist on many projects waiting for transfer to Commons. It does not happen and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread Yann Forget
Hi, 2014-06-18 0:37 GMT+05:30 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com: I don't think the concept of the project is the problem. I'm skeptical that an Uncommons project built around fair use could be workable, considering that the validity of a fair use claim is context-specific and no cross-wiki project

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread Andrew Gray
On 17 June 2014 17:53, Delirium delir...@hackish.org wrote: educational and other uses, by Wikimedians and third parties. If it's not an open-content encyclopedia, for example if Wikipedia articles make use of provincial American copyright loopholes that render them illegal to redistribute

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let Commons do what it knows best and use Wikidata for it and the rest

2014-06-17 Thread David Gerard
On 17 June 2014 20:53, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: The opportunity exist to have all this data in one multimedia Wikidata. It would mean that when a Commons admin decides for his reasons that a file is no longer available, that a local admin can address his reasons and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread Yann Forget
2014-06-18 0:55 GMT+05:30 Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com: On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: The problem is the behavior of a certain core set of Commons admins; Yes. George, SJ, and Nathan: In addition to Erik Moeller's initial proposal that Commons be

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread Tim Davenport
Per GerardM: Many people no longer trust Commons to store their media files. People are more certain that their files will remain available when they upload media files to their own project. I for one won't use Commons for image uploads. I feel that my uploads have been treated

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-06-18 0:55 GMT+05:30 Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com: The people you, Nathan, are accusing of behaving badly, are the ones who are doing the hard, day-do-day work of enforcing the expressed consensus of the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let Commons do what it knows best and use Wikidata for it and the rest

2014-06-17 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, The first project that will be Wikidatified is Commons. The reasons to do this are functional. Commons is not usable when you want to find something that it there. When you do not know English, it is a black hole. What arguments are there to deny this? Obviously, there are many reasons to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread George Herbert
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:29 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think the concept of the project is the problem. I'm skeptical

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread Russavia
Yann, On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote: The rules of the project, free license, or in the public domain in USA and in the source country, are fine as long as they are not used to game the system. Yann I totally agree with this. The problem is, that the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let Commons do what it knows best and use Wikidata for it and the rest

2014-06-17 Thread geni
On 17 June 2014 21:06, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: I predict this will be unacceptable to Commons admins. The reasons advanced will be legal fears. (The actual reasons will be loss of power for Commons admins banned on a pile of other projects.) Not all of us are banned on other

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let Commons do what it knows best and use Wikidata for it and the rest

2014-06-17 Thread James Alexander
I believe they are generally supposed to be listed at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-free_content which looks relatively up to date, though it does not look like the resolution actually requires it. James Alexander Legal and Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread MZMcBride
The subject line is cute, but perhaps a bit trite. I think with a bit of effort we can do better. :-) George Herbert wrote: On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: If we don't maintain the focus on free media, we may as well direct people to a web image search,