[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] The Signpost -- Volume 10, Issue 48 -- 10 December 2014

[Wikipedia Signpost]

Op-ed: It's GLAM up North!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-12-10/Op-ed

In the media: Wikipedia is "a rancorous, sexist, elitist, stupidly bureaucratic 
mess"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-12-10/In_the_media

Traffic report: Dead Black Men and Science Fiction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-12-10/Traffic_report

Featured content: Honour him, love and obey? Good idea with military leaders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-12-10/Featured_content


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

PDF version
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-12-10


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

___
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed 
to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more 
information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How to fix Commons

[svetlana]

MZMcBride wrote:
> geni wrote:
> >2)Large number of semi automated deletion notices. This is going to happen
> >whatever you do unless you ban all uploads from people who aren't
> >qualified intellectual property lawyers. Eh just look at your average
> >en.wikipedia talk page for a semi active editor.
> 
> An alternate solution would be to ban automated notices. :-)  Or at least
> make them far less obnoxious. Saying "if you look over here, you'll see
> the same or worse" is a pretty poor argument, in my opinion.

Aye. I am a not malicious user, but I had over a handful of automated notices 
at Commons. To keep my user talk page readable, I had to redact them (replace 
each such notice with one line of plain text with links to relevant 
documentation).

Would we consider (truly) semi-automating the process? :-)

Let's use talk page canned responses.  That's what this set of unofficial 
JS-free tools is doing for reviewing draft submissions at English Wikipedia, 
including communication at the draft talk page and the author talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gryllida/draft/under-review

For instance, the text field with canned responses may look like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%20talk:Foo&action=edit§ion=new&preload=User:Gryllida/t/TalkDo/draft::review::notready::drafttalk/preload&preloadtitle=&editintro=User:Gryllida/t/TalkDo/draft::review::notready::drafttalk/editintro

Notice that it's characteristic of this message: 
a) it doesn't look like a banner. It looks like a normal message.
b) it has free space for the reviewer to leave a personal comment to the user, 
which means a more human approach.

There are some overheads.
1) It would be much easier to use as a banner shown only to reviewers during 
page edit. I don't know how to do that.
2) It would be much easier to use if preloadparams=[] thing from URL reflected 
on not only page content, but also on page edit banner. It does not, which 
introduces an overhead with the username parameter.

Hope that helps. (I don't have the past context of this conversation to have 
confidence in that I'm bringing up a relevant point.)

MZMcBride wrote:
> For Commons, my personal view is that I'd like to see its search
functionality suck a lot less.

+1

MZMcBride wrote:
> As much as the term is an awful buzzword, Commons could also do with
> additional gamification, from what I've seen. If we can set up an easy
> keyword/tagging system, having users help us sort and tag media would be
> amazing.

We already have such system. It's called categories. If we would like to build 
a prettier interface for it, I'm all ears (although I wouldn't call it a game).

--
svetlana

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] How to fix Commons

[MZMcBride]

I felt kind of meh about the previous thread, so I'm forking it.

geni wrote:
>2)Large number of semi automated deletion notices. This is going to happen
>whatever you do unless you ban all uploads from people who aren't
>qualified intellectual property lawyers. Eh just look at your average
>en.wikipedia talk page for a semi active editor.

An alternate solution would be to ban automated notices. :-)  Or at least
make them far less obnoxious. Saying "if you look over here, you'll see
the same or worse" is a pretty poor argument, in my opinion.

>3)Lack of positive feedback. I'm not sure there is any way around this.
>Automated notices that image you uploaded is being used on project Y would
>get annoying for some users. I guess having it as a well advertised
>feature that people could turn on would be an option.

It's a great option if we want most users to not use the feature. User
defaults are _hugely_ important. Most users (probably over 90%) have few
uploads, so consequently looking at the default from this perspective
alone, it makes sense to enable media usage notifications by default (at
least in-site notices, maybe not e-mail notices). We could even (smartly)
disable media usage notifications at a particular upload threshold (e.g.,
if you have greater than 1,000 uploads, you probably don't want the
notices). There are a few edge cases here, such as an image being added to
a template, but these are likely solvable.

>Use by third parties is even harder to track. Short of googling your nic+
>"CC-BY-SA" and the like. Even that only turns up a limited subset of
>users mind.

Eh, if they're hotlinking from Commons, we presumably have HTTP referers
in the server access logs. Otherwise, there are services (Google Images,
TinEye, etc.) that can perform reverse image searches. These aren't
trivial technical problems, but they're also not insurmountable. Now,
whether investing in such a "thanks for your upload, look where it's being
used!" service is worth the cost, given the benefit, is a separate
question, as always.

For Commons, my personal view is that I'd like to see its search
functionality suck a lot less. Commons search needs:

* search by tag (which we have already with categories, but we're
  apparently supposed to wait until the magical future of Wikidata);

* search by color; and

* search by file size and type.

As much as the term is an awful buzzword, Commons could also do with
additional gamification, from what I've seen. If we can set up an easy
keyword/tagging system, having users help us sort and tag media would be
amazing. Building up and tearing down a queue is still not trivial. :-(

Commons also needs at least four in-browser editors (for rasterized
images, vector graphics, audio files, and videos) and additional supported
file upload types (e.g., .ico would be great to have). And much more.
Currently we have a database of free media, but I think it'd be really
cool if we made it dramatically easier to find, re-use, and re-mix this
media. And, for better or worse, we know we cannot hope that the
Wikimedia Foundation alone will fix these problems.

>4)third parties choosing other projects. Thing is for large dumps of
>poorly curated content with messy copyright issues things like the
>internet archive are probably a better match.

This is a nasty cop-out. We already do this in a limited fashion, but we
need to get better about soliciting and accepting donations to Commons.
There's definitely a shared interest in preserving and promoting all kinds
of media that we're not doing very well to capture and utilize. There are
at least two broad categories I see that could make donations: GLAMs and
individuals who have an article that currently has no image or a bad image.

>5)Some commons admins are behaving problematically. Yes but I'm not sure
>what to do about that.

Eh, I think Commons certainly has its share of bad admins, but I'm not
sure it's the admins who are the problem. As you say, broader
clarification about what is and isn't acceptable at Commons would probably
be helpful to have.

It's likely better to spend time and energy focused on the tasks discussed
in this e-mail or elsewhere across Wikimedia. I think doing so will
actually move Commons forward. Not that it's bad to occasionally vent
frustrations, but we can do better (in more ways than one!).

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

[Strainu]

2014-12-12 16:40 GMT+02:00 Liam Wyatt :
> From: Craig Franklin 
>
>> Am I the only one that sees the irony in asking folks not to pick on the
>> Commons community, then immediately asserting that enwp is the source of
>> all drama?
>
>
> Not just that, but also... Am I the only one that sees the irony in how
> this thread started by arguing that the Commons community "...cares more
> about strict free licensing than it does about utility to people who need
> knowledge", and then the conversation quickly veered off into an omnibus of
> WikiLawering about strict free-licensing minutiae: Tunisian
> Freedom-of-Panorama,
> Tractor logos and Israeli Government Works!?!

So we're incapable to focus on the main issues. That happens when
everyone has it's on "main" problem. That doesn't mean we have to
dismiss the whole thread. Branching on smaller problems might help.

2014-12-12 16:40 GMT+02:00 Liam Wyatt :
> There are at least three independent *software *projects that are underway
> which will hopefully help to address this issue:

They sound great, but they will take years [1], time that we don't
know if we have. You might convince GLAMs to collaborate with you
later on, but not individual contributors. A person "lost" for the
Wikimedia community is most likely lost for good. We need an solution
sooner, and it needs to involve some social networking - tech is never
the only solution when it comes to interactions between people.

[1] 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Overview#What_is_this.2C_and_how_long_will_it_take.3F


2014-12-12 13:56 GMT+02:00 Fæ :
> Some of the structure of Commons is frustrating, often because of the
> clumsy workflow for file uploading, moving, deleting. I hope to see
> many improvements over the next two years. As there are only around
> 150 active admins on Commons (a tenth of the English Wikipedia's), it
> is worth asking one for help, the response you get will tend to be
> personal and common sense rather than bureaucracy or wikilawyering.

You keep speaking about moving, deleting and other administrative
tasks, while this thread was about making Commons a place where it is
at least predictable if a file will be kept or not, or better yet,
about making Commons a real alternative to Flickr Commons and similar
repositories. I am sorry, but your messages do not offer any solution
in that direction.

>
> I'm sorry if you had a bad experience in the past. If you are familiar
> with IRC, it sometimes helps to discuss an issue in real time on the
> Commons channel before responding to issues on-wiki.[2]

I had more than one bad experience, with some downright incredible.
Luckily for me, I happened to be a Wikipedian long before I started
uploading to Commons, so I was prepared for most of it. But the
average newcomer that comes through, say, WLM but wants to continue
contributing will not have the kind of patience it takes to upload and
keep a debatable image from being deleted.

Does that happen on Wikipedia as well? Yes, with the notable
difference that Commons should have a somewhat lower entry barrier
than English Wikipedia at this point (uploading an image is easier
that adding to articles that are either quite big or on difficult
subjects). So it should be much easier to get external people to
contribute to Commons and then to Wikipedia than the other way around.
Unfortunately, we are currently light-years away from this, and this
is easily visible in the percentage of conversions from WLM.

Strainu

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

[Marco Chiesa]

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Tim Davenport  wrote:

>
>
> Compare and contrast to the goal of illustrating an encyclopedia with the
> best images available, making use of American fair use law to which such
> illustrations are legally entitled.
>
> Tim Davenport
> "Carrite" on WP
> Corvallis, OR
>

Oh well, there's a lot of the world outside the US, not necessarily
speaking English, in case you forgot.
Cruccone
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

[geni]

On 12 December 2014 at 17:34, Tim Davenport  wrote:
>
> Compare and contrast to the goal of illustrating an encyclopedia with the
> best images available,


Why would we settle for that? The reality is that many of the available
images are only so-so. WP:FPC shows we can better them (although if people
are going to start hauling phase one cameras around I can only assume that
future wikimanias will need to feature weight training gyms and physical
therapists).

-- 
geni
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

[Tim Davenport]

>>I'd take the pragmatic justification for being copyright-sticklers on
Commons to be: so we can provide a free-media repository that our
reusers can use, even commercially and world-wide, in the reasonably
secure belief that their reuse is legal, because this is truly freely
licensed media.

Compare and contrast to the goal of illustrating an encyclopedia with the
best images available, making use of American fair use law to which such
illustrations are legally entitled.

Tim Davenport
"Carrite" on WP
Corvallis, OR
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

[rupert THURNER]

Hi luis, I could understand liams mail, and the links russavia sent. Could
you match the this somehow from a legal standpoint?

Rupert
On Dec 11, 2014 5:55 PM, "Luis Villa"  wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Russavia 
> wrote:
>
> > Steven,
> >
> > Quite seriously, if you can't understand the concept of copyright and
> > derivative works, then perhaps this is not the project for you.
> >
>
> I understand the concept of copyright and derivative works, and I think
> Stephen has a lot of valid points (even if I don't agree with all of them).
> If you want to argue with the substance of what Stephen has to say, please
> do.
>
> In the meantime, your email is just an example of the kind of toxic
> behavior Jimmy spoke out against at Wikimania this year — and correctly
> received loud, sustained applause for.
>
> Luis
>
> --
> Luis Villa
> Deputy General Counsel
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 415.839.6885 ext. 6810
>
> *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have
> received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
> mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
> reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
> members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more
> on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
> .*
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

[Jane Darnell]

Ha! Thanks Liam, let me be the first to admit that I'm guilty as charged! I
would have used the clip of Paul Newman from Cool Hand Luke on
communication, but maybe that just shows my age. I have one comment on your
comment about Wikidata metadata handling. Yes this is currently done
locally on Commons, and moving as much as possible of it to Wikidata will
greatly increase the usability of Commons to non-English speaking users and
also decrease the learning-curve of Commons for new-users. That said, the
most valuable thing it will do is give non-english-speaking Commons
volunteers a structured way to inform uploaders about their images in a
language they can understand. So it won't all be one-way communication.

And who knows, maybe one day I will be able to read about all the
copyrights regarding media created outdoors that don't fall under fop



On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Liam Wyatt  wrote:
>
> On 12 December 2014 at 10:59, Pipo Le Clown  wrote:
>
> > Vous savez quoi? Allez tous vous faire foutre.
>
>
> Just because you're writing in your native language of French doesn't mean
> that civility is optional - just as it should not be for native speakers of
> English. As *The Matrix *films identified
> , French is a very excellent
> language to swear in. However, we are not playing a game of "who can make
> the most offensive comment in order to prove that they were offended by
> someone else's comment" - even though several people here seem to think we
> are...
>
> ...vous proposiez des choses constructives, des améliorations possibles du
> > logiciel par exemple, ou une façon de reconnaître le travail des
> > wikifourmis qui catégorisent, corrigent
> > les descriptions...
> >
>
> The request for constructive ways to improve the software (and give
> positive recognition for people's work) is something that was implied by
> Steven's first email too:
>
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Steven Walling
>  wrote:
>
> > The only interaction I ever get on Commons about my photos is a
> > notification [of deletion]... No thanks for thousands of uploads. No
> > notification of how many views they produce for our projects. No message
> > about downloads for free reuse.
>
>
> I see both your messages (Pipo & Steven) as asking for the same thing [and
> I've removed the insulting words from both quotes]. Commons could use some
> specifically-tailored features to help improve its 'humanity' and make all
> the positive work that people do more visible. Just like the way the
> "thank"
> extenstion  was created
> when it was realised that the only semi-automated feedback tools we had on
> Wikipedia are for "negative" feedback (block, ban, delete, warn...).
>
> There are at least three independent *software *projects that are underway
> which will hopefully help to address this issue:
>
>- Erik Zachte has been promoting this RFC on mediawiki.org
><
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Media_file_request_counts
> >
> to
>improve the media file statistics infrastructure. The GLAMwiki community
>(among others) have been clamouring for usable metrics for years, and
> this
>looks like the best opportunity yet to see something happen. This will
> make
>it easier to identify the re-use and visibility of our work.
>- The Single User Login finalisation project
>, if I understand
>correctly, should mean that we will have the architecture in place to
> make
>"global" echo
> -notifications
>(e.g. "your image was used in...", global-talkpages (c.f. Flow
>), watchlists... This should mean
>that even if you don't visit a wiki regularly, there would be more
> methods
>of being kept in contact.
>- The Structured Data project
> will move
>much of the metadata handling, currently done locally on Commons, to
>Wikidata. If I understand correctly, this will greatly increase the
>usability of Commons to non-English speaking users and also decrease the
>learning-curve of Commons for new-users.
>
> However, none of these software improvements, by themselves, will help
> overcome the perception that Commons (and Wikimedia in general) is an
> *intransigent
> *and* pugilistic *culture. In the GLAMwiki outreach community we spend a
> lot of time talking to GLAMs about the value of sharing their content with
> Wikimedia - but they are often fearful of us because of this stereotype.
> The
> way this conversation has degenerated into arguments which I will
> paraphrase as "I'm not intransigent, you are!" only consolidates that
> stereotype.
>
> It's like we all feel like we're the one being attacked - like some kind of
> mutual siege-mentality - and where victim-bla

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

[Liam Wyatt]

On 12 December 2014 at 10:59, Pipo Le Clown  wrote:

> Vous savez quoi? Allez tous vous faire foutre.


Just because you're writing in your native language of French doesn't mean
that civility is optional - just as it should not be for native speakers of
English. As *The Matrix *films identified
, French is a very excellent
language to swear in. However, we are not playing a game of "who can make
the most offensive comment in order to prove that they were offended by
someone else's comment" - even though several people here seem to think we
are...

...vous proposiez des choses constructives, des améliorations possibles du
> logiciel par exemple, ou une façon de reconnaître le travail des
> wikifourmis qui catégorisent, corrigent
> les descriptions...
>

The request for constructive ways to improve the software (and give
positive recognition for people's work) is something that was implied by
Steven's first email too:

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Steven Walling
 wrote:

> The only interaction I ever get on Commons about my photos is a
> notification [of deletion]... No thanks for thousands of uploads. No
> notification of how many views they produce for our projects. No message
> about downloads for free reuse.


I see both your messages (Pipo & Steven) as asking for the same thing [and
I've removed the insulting words from both quotes]. Commons could use some
specifically-tailored features to help improve its 'humanity' and make all
the positive work that people do more visible. Just like the way the "thank"
extenstion  was created
when it was realised that the only semi-automated feedback tools we had on
Wikipedia are for "negative" feedback (block, ban, delete, warn...).

There are at least three independent *software *projects that are underway
which will hopefully help to address this issue:

   - Erik Zachte has been promoting this RFC on mediawiki.org
   

to
   improve the media file statistics infrastructure. The GLAMwiki community
   (among others) have been clamouring for usable metrics for years, and this
   looks like the best opportunity yet to see something happen. This will make
   it easier to identify the re-use and visibility of our work.
   - The Single User Login finalisation project
   , if I understand
   correctly, should mean that we will have the architecture in place to make
   "global" echo
-notifications
   (e.g. "your image was used in...", global-talkpages (c.f. Flow
   ), watchlists... This should mean
   that even if you don't visit a wiki regularly, there would be more methods
   of being kept in contact.
   - The Structured Data project
    will move
   much of the metadata handling, currently done locally on Commons, to
   Wikidata. If I understand correctly, this will greatly increase the
   usability of Commons to non-English speaking users and also decrease the
   learning-curve of Commons for new-users.

However, none of these software improvements, by themselves, will help
overcome the perception that Commons (and Wikimedia in general) is an
*intransigent
*and* pugilistic *culture. In the GLAMwiki outreach community we spend a
lot of time talking to GLAMs about the value of sharing their content with
Wikimedia - but they are often fearful of us because of this stereotype. The
way this conversation has degenerated into arguments which I will
paraphrase as "I'm not intransigent, you are!" only consolidates that
stereotype.

It's like we all feel like we're the one being attacked - like some kind of
mutual siege-mentality - and where victim-blaming is the first response to
any perceived threat. Acknowledging that there is a problem is the first
step to solving it. However conversations like this make it seem that some
people feel the only problem is other people saying that there's a
problem...

Finally, following Craig's comment:
From: Craig Franklin 

> Am I the only one that sees the irony in asking folks not to pick on the
> Commons community, then immediately asserting that enwp is the source of
> all drama?


Not just that, but also... Am I the only one that sees the irony in how
this thread started by arguing that the Commons community "...cares more
about strict free licensing than it does about utility to people who need
knowledge", and then the conversation quickly veered off into an omnibus of
WikiLawering about strict free-licensing minutiae: Tunisian
Freedom-of-Panorama,
Tractor logos and Israeli Government Works!?!

-Liam

wittylama.com
Peace, love & metadata
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailin

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

[geni]

On 12 December 2014 at 13:04, David Gerard  wrote:
>
>
> Commons was raising quasi-legal objections that literally nobody else
> considered a plausible threat model. It's your fault as long as you
> continue to defend it.
>
>
In fairness a simple statement from the Israeli government is all that is
needed. For the record the UK government has already stated it views crown
copyright expired as a world wide thing (this was before the open
government license became a thing).

However as interesting as these discussions about individual copyright they
don't really get to the core problems.

1)How strict should we be about copyright. While I tend towards fairly I
accept the wider community may differ. If so we need a well drafted board
level statement outlining how strict commons should be. Its a complex
problem and will need some real actual lawyers working with some of our
more experienced community members

2)Large number of semi automated deletion notices. This is going to happen
whatever you do unless you ban all uploads from people who aren't qualified
intellectual property lawyers. Eh just look at your average en.wikipedia
talk page for a semi active editor.

3)Lack of positive feedback. I'm not sure there is any way around this.
Automated notices that image you uploaded is being used on project Y would
get annoying for some users. I guess having it as a well advertised feature
that people could turn on would be an option. Use by third parties is even
harder to track. Short of googling your nic+ "CC-BY-SA" and the like. Even
that only turns up a limited subset of users mind.

4)third parties choosing other projects. Thing is for large dumps of poorly
curated content with messy copyright issues things like the internet
archive are probably a better match.

5)Some commons admins are behaving problematically. Yes but I'm not sure
what to do about that.


-- 
geni
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Call for Papers: Switzerland - International Conference on Semantic Web Business and Innovation (SWBI2015)

[ANNOUNCEMENT]

The International Conference on Semantic Web Business and Innovation 
(SWBI2015)


The University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland (HES-SO 
Valais-Wallis)

October 7-9, 2015
http://sdiwc.net/conferences/swbi2015/

All registered papers will be included in SDIWC Digital Library

The proposed conference on the above theme will be held at he University 
of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland (HES-SO Valais-Wallis) 
on October 7-9, 2015 which aims to enable researchers build connections 
between different digital applications.


The conference welcomes papers on the following (but not limited to) 
research topics:


*Semantic Web and Linked Data
- Database, IR, NLP and AI technologies for the Semantic Web
- Geospatial Semantic Web
- Information Extraction from unstructured data
- Information visualization of Semantic Web data and Linked Data
- Internet of things
- Languages, tools, and methodologies for representing and managing 
Semantic Web data

- Linked open data
- Management of Semantic Web data and Linked Data
- Ontology engineering and ontology patterns for the Semantic Web
- Ontology modularity, mapping, merging, and alignment
- Ontology-based data access
- Privacy and Security
- Query and inference over data streams
- Search, query, integration, and analysis on the Semantic Web
- Semantic business process management
- Semantic Sensor networks
- Semantic technologies for mobile platforms
- Semantic Web and Linked Data for Cloud Environments
- Semantic Web, Ontologies
- Social networks and processes on the Semantic Web
- Supporting multi-linguality in the Semantic Web
- User Interfaces and interacting with Semantic Web data and Linked Data

*Business and Innovation in Semantic Web
- Business Model Innovation
- Business Models and E-Commerce
- Business Technology Intelligence
- Challenges for change in semantic services
- Collaborative improvement and innovation
- E-Business Applications and Software
- E-commerce Technology Adoption
- E-commerce, E-Business Strategies
- E-tailing and Multi-Channel selling
- Evolution of Business model for Semantic Web Applications
- High-tech marketing
- Implementation strategies for responsible innovation
- Innovation for E-Business
- Innovative methods and tools for products and services
- Practices and Cases in E-Commerce
- Production of Knowledge Economy
- Technology and Business Transformation
- Technology strategies
- The Latest Trends in Linked Data
- Web Advertising and Web Publishing
- Web and Mobile Applications


Researchers are encouraged to submit their work electronically. All 
papers will be fully refereed by a minimum of two specialized referees. 
Before final acceptance, all referees comments must be considered.


Important Dates
==
Submission Date:Open from now until Sept. 1, 2015
Notification of Acceptance: 6 weeks from the submission date
Camera Ready Submission:September 14, 2015
Registration Deadline:  September 14, 2015
Conference Dates:   October 7-9, 2015


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

[David Gerard]

On 12 December 2014 at 12:47, Fæ  wrote:

> So, I'm genuinely afraid to say it was more of an emotive response.
> The extensive criticism of Commons administrators made was not well
> founded. That images had to be removed and that there were
> consequences was an issue that should have been better managed. The
> law and evidence presented (or its inadequacy in terms of
> verifiability) is not the fault of Commons administrators as a class,
> in practice this was a complex case and a highly politically charged
> one, Commons should not be hung out to dry because of it.


Commons was raising quasi-legal objections that literally nobody else
considered a plausible threat model. It's your fault as long as you
continue to defend it.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

[Fæ]

2014-12-12 12:37 GMT+00:00 David Gerard :
...
> sensible repository to work with. The inanity with Israeli
> parliamentary works was the key point in a talk on the subject at
> Wikimania.

I was in the front front row at that Wikimania presentation, and
happen to be good friends with the presenter who is a lot of fun to
hang out with. Due to my background, I'm sympathetic to issues that
the Israeli chapter have experienced.

So, I'm genuinely afraid to say it was more of an emotive response.
The extensive criticism of Commons administrators made was not well
founded. That images had to be removed and that there were
consequences was an issue that should have been better managed. The
law and evidence presented (or its inadequacy in terms of
verifiability) is not the fault of Commons administrators as a class,
in practice this was a complex case and a highly politically charged
one, Commons should not be hung out to dry because of it.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

[David Gerard]

On 12 December 2014 at 09:59, Pipo Le Clown  wrote:

> Si pour une fois, au lieu de pleurer parce que machin a été méchant en
> proposant votre image à la suppression, vous proposiez des choses
> constructives, des améliorations possibles du logiciel par exemple, ou une
> façon de reconnaître le travail des wikifourmis qui catégorisent, corrigent
> les descriptions, ... Mais il est plus facile de crier au loup. Et c'est
> d'autant plus facile que ça vous permettra d'être bien vu.


It's not "crying wolf" when Commons admins' behaviour is causing
serious and documented damage to Wikimedia's relations with cultural
archives, who are correctly perceiving Commons as not a safe or
sensible repository to work with. The inanity with Israeli
parliamentary works was the key point in a talk on the subject at
Wikimania.

Commons is observably behaving pathologically, and causing actual
damage. This is not "crying wolf".


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

[Fæ]

On 12 December 2014 at 11:29, Strainu  wrote:
...
>> I commented in two chocolate 'packaging' related deletion requests
>> today, before this thread started, my opinion being to keep. Why don't
>> you join me in keeping these images in time for Christmas by making
>> positive comments and interpreting Commons policies in a non-hostile
>> environment?
>
> Commons IS a hostile environment for non-permanent residents. I've
> given up on commenting in deletion request, finding it's much less
> time-consuming to just copy the picture back to Wikipedia and figure
> it out over there.
>
> Strainu

On the language point, please do have a go at making comments in DRs
or on noticeboards in your first language. Commons *is* an
international and multilingual project, so we encourage non-English
contributions.[1] Just expect others to be using Google translate to
understand the point, so write in a plain way. ;-)

Some of the structure of Commons is frustrating, often because of the
clumsy workflow for file uploading, moving, deleting. I hope to see
many improvements over the next two years. As there are only around
150 active admins on Commons (a tenth of the English Wikipedia's), it
is worth asking one for help, the response you get will tend to be
personal and common sense rather than bureaucracy or wikilawyering.

I'm sorry if you had a bad experience in the past. If you are familiar
with IRC, it sometimes helps to discuss an issue in real time on the
Commons channel before responding to issues on-wiki.[2]

Links:
1. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Language_policy
2. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Internet_Relay_Chat

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

[Strainu]

2014-12-11 20:14 GMT+02:00 Fæ :
> Making defamatory comments about Commons volunteers on this list is
> not terribly productive, nor a very nice thing to do when anyone is
> free to express their point of view in the deletion request so that a
> closing admin can consider all rationales put forward, or raise it on
> the user's talk page.

Solving individual problems will not solve the real, underlying
problem: Commons has become an independent project with a obvious
copyright paranoia that cares less about the people actually using
their product (Wiki* projects and 3rd party reusers) and more about
their own interpretations of the rules.

This goes beyond copyright: how can one, in good faith, encourage
non-English speaking contributors to go to a project that is not truly
multi-lingual? How can I explain to occasional users why some of their
pictures were deleted, while others were kept, even though they
pictured the same subject, the main difference being the person that
closed the discussion?

> I commented in two chocolate 'packaging' related deletion requests
> today, before this thread started, my opinion being to keep. Why don't
> you join me in keeping these images in time for Christmas by making
> positive comments and interpreting Commons policies in a non-hostile
> environment?

Commons IS a hostile environment for non-permanent residents. I've
given up on commenting in deletion request, finding it's much less
time-consuming to just copy the picture back to Wikipedia and figure
it out over there.

Strainu

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

[Jane Darnell]

Gerard,
Thanks for adding all of those statements to Wikidata! Thanks to you, I
have been able to match up thousands of artists in Mix-n-Match!
Like you, I am not afraid of a 1%-3% error margin, especially when tools
like Mix-n-Match mean we can uncover such mistakes quickly and efficiently.
Mix-n-Match is fast becoming a tool where large database owners like GLAMs
can come pick up their data inconsistencies and learn from Wiki projects,
instead of the other way around.
...and stop reading this email list before you've had a second cup of
coffee
Kudos,
Jane

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> When specific categories of data do not make it in Wikidata like the
> "impact factor", it is not a problem. As much can be understood from my
> blogpost.
>
> I may miss certain items as not being human. That is the exceptionto the
> rule. In the past weeks I have added tens of thousands of statements. I
> have in the past published many times about strategies of improving the
> quality of Wikidata. I have worked with people on implementing such
> strategies as well.
>
> So what is your point ? Am I evil ?? If so, fine. When you have better
> strategies for adding statements to Wikidata speak up.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 12 December 2014 at 09:08, John Mark Vandenberg 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> >  wrote:
> > > Hoi,
> > > This problem is not new. It is not as if the Commons community is not
> > aware
> > > of this perception. The perception that there might be a situation
> where
> > > someone is sued is not necessary shared by lawyers. They have to make a
> > > living as well so they will sue when they are paid to do so.
> > >
> > > When people complain that Commonists go to far in what they do and
> their
> > > only defence is "you are demotivating me" than that is exactly what
> needs
> > > to be done. They need to be demotivated to go berserk with their
> > misguided
> > > interpretation of copyright.  When some hotheads leave the building, it
> > > will lower the temperature and we can start to talk.
> > >
> > > Commons is not the only project that serves the whole of our
> communities.
> > > Wikidata is another. I regularly find images for people that are not
> > moved
> > > to Commons because Commons is not trusted. Now that pisses me off
> > terribly
> > > and it sours my appreciation of Commons. As it is, Commons is not
> trusted
> > > and not discussing this only puts this discussion further back with
> even
> > > more ill feelings and even less appreciation for the people who do good
> > > work at Commons. They are ultimately the people who suffer the most.
> >
> > And the same is said and done regarding Wikidata , which client
> > projects are very skeptical about trusting to hold data.  Wikidata
> > also has its own copyright issues.  If Wikipedia data is migrated to
> > Wikidata, and it is determined that Wikidata violations database
> > copyrights (whereas Wikipedia may not have), we have to migrate all
> > the data back.  Exactly the same as Commons.  Yet you've been a
> > proponent of Wikidata ignoring these database copyright issues.
> >
> >
> >
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/03/wikipedia-and-impact-factor-of-nature.html
> >
> > Wikidata also has quality control issues that will mean it is going to
> > take a lot of work to clean up the data it contains in order to become
> > reliable. e.g. in the last few days you've created items and labelled
> > them as 'instance of human' , when they are not humans. :/
> >
> > https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q18615764&action=history
> > https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q18601263&action=history
> >
> > Your response when this exact same problem has been discussed several
> > times is, if I can paraphrase, .. you do so many edits that you
> > believe it is someone elses job to fix the small percentage of errors
> > caused by your hyper-productivity.  That works in theory in large
> > wikis, but doesnt work so well when the vast majority of new Wikidata
> > content is added by simplistic bots and humans doing similarly large
> > batches of semi-automated edits.
> >
> > --
> > John Vandenberg
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
ht

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

[Carlos M. Colina]

Absolutely not the only one!  


Sent from Samsung Mobile

 Original message 
From: Craig Franklin  
Date: 12/12/2014  11:44  (GMT+02:00) 
To: Wikimedia Mailing List  
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism 
 
Am I the only one that sees the irony in asking folks not to pick on the
Commons community, then immediately asserting that enwp is the source of
all drama?

Cheers,
Craig Franklin
On 12/12/2014 4:56 PM, "Pipo Le Clown"  wrote:

> As you said, the first issue of Commons is "demotivating contributors". And
> this thread is actually doing a good job at it...
>
> STOP the Commons bashing. Stop calling Commons contributors "anal
> retentive" or "fussy neckbeards".
>
> I'm an european. In Europe, one does not call another "nazi", as Americans
> do. It's insulting. Do you see people coming to Wikimedia-l when an
> american contributor calls someone a nazi (because they do) ?
>
> No. There are places on projects to deal with those kind of situations
> (even if they do not work properly imo).
>
> As there are places on Commons to discuss about the scope, the way we
> should handle copyright, etc. Nobody is preventing you to go to this places
> and start a discussion, share your thoughts and your wishes.
>
> To be clear: Wikimedia is not only ENWP. Other wikipedias and projects are
> using Commons every day. But the drama always come from ENWP...
>
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Steven Walling  >
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu Dec 11 2014 at 12:40:09 PM Pipo Le Clown 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'm on the road every two weekends, and processing pictures the rest of
> > the
> > > time on my free time. I've provided around 8000 pictures to Commons,
> and
> > > helped to have pictures for articles like Cristiano Ronaldo, Roy
> Hogdson
> > or
> > > Greig Laidlaw...
> > >
> > > Just to read that I'm a fascist and an "anal retentive" because someone
> > > proposed a fucking picture of KitKat for deletion ? It was not even
> > > deleted, the discussion is still going on. And even if it was, the
> right
> > > place to go would have been COM:UDR, with a strong rationale, where
> > people
> > > would have discuss it in a civilised manner. Not in this echo
> chamber...
> > >
> > > So yes, one could say that the thread "was accusatory from the start,
> and
> > > quickly went to vicious". One could also say that this is a fucking
> > > disgrace.
> > >
> > > Pleclown
> > >
> >
> > To be crystal clear: I didn't link to the DR or mention the nominator
> > because I don't actually care much about the individual instance.
> > Commons is going to do what it's going to do, and whomever nominated it
> or
> > comments in support of deletion is just doing what the policies of
> Commons
> > is telling them to do.
> >
> > The problem is a general one with the goals of Commons, what the
> community
> > focuses (and doesn't focus on), as I said. I think it should be clear
> that
> > the purpose of discussing it on Wikimedia-l as opposed to Commons is talk
> > about whether Commons is doing a good job of serving as the media
> > repository for other projects. Not about whether the nominator was
> correct
> > in this individual case or something like that.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Austin Hair  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Okay, guys, let's all take a step back and remember [[WP:Civility]].
> > > > (Yeah, I know that's a Wikipedia pillar, but can't we all at least
> get
> > > > on board with that one?)
> > > >
> > > > The tone of this thread was accusatory from the start, and quickly
> > > > went to vicious. Maybe everyone can try it again with a bit of AGF.
> > > >
> > > > Austin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:30 PM, James Alexander <
> jameso...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Fæ  wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> P.S. Stephen, you are young and handsome, in fact rather dishy to
> my
> > > > >> ageing eyes. Good for you. Keep in mind that your fellow
> volunteers
> > > > >> might not have been born so lucky, and that being young and pretty
> > all
> > > > >> too soon passes into memory, sigh.
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > Fæ, this is not acceptable for the list (or for that matter on
> wiki).
> > > > > Stephen's neckbeard comment certainly wasn't helpful either but
> it's
> > no
> > > > > excuse.
> > > > >
> > > > > James
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

[Pipo Le Clown]

Vous savez quoi? Allez tous vous faire foutre.

C'est facile de se moquer dans sa langue maternelle, de jouer sur les mots
et d'entourer ses insultes d'un joli emballage. Ça n'est pas vraiment ma
manière d'être, alors dans une langue étrangère...

C'est facile de venir taper sur Commons sur cette liste, mais quand on vous
met le nez dans votre merde, c'est une attaque...

Oui, la communauté de Commons n'est pas parfaite. En attendant, c'est 22
millions de fichiers libres qui sont à disposition, avec des personnes qui
travaillent pour produire ces images, les importer d'autres sources, les
catégoriser, etc. Pour le bien commun.

Si pour une fois, au lieu de pleurer parce que machin a été méchant en
proposant votre image à la suppression, vous proposiez des choses
constructives, des améliorations possibles du logiciel par exemple, ou une
façon de reconnaître le travail des wikifourmis qui catégorisent, corrigent
les descriptions, ... Mais il est plus facile de crier au loup. Et c'est
d'autant plus facile que ça vous permettra d'être bien vu.

Alors oui, vous pouvez tous aller vous faire foutre, avec vos
généralisations et vos insultes voilées.

Vous traduirez si vous le souhaitez, ou vous resterez confits dans vos
certitudes, je m'en fous.

Le ven. 12 déc. 2014 à 10:44, Craig Franklin  a
écrit :

> Am I the only one that sees the irony in asking folks not to pick on the
> Commons community, then immediately asserting that enwp is the source of
> all drama?
>
> Cheers,
> Craig Franklin
> On 12/12/2014 4:56 PM, "Pipo Le Clown"  wrote:
>
> > As you said, the first issue of Commons is "demotivating contributors".
> And
> > this thread is actually doing a good job at it...
> >
> > STOP the Commons bashing. Stop calling Commons contributors "anal
> > retentive" or "fussy neckbeards".
> >
> > I'm an european. In Europe, one does not call another "nazi", as
> Americans
> > do. It's insulting. Do you see people coming to Wikimedia-l when an
> > american contributor calls someone a nazi (because they do) ?
> >
> > No. There are places on projects to deal with those kind of situations
> > (even if they do not work properly imo).
> >
> > As there are places on Commons to discuss about the scope, the way we
> > should handle copyright, etc. Nobody is preventing you to go to this
> places
> > and start a discussion, share your thoughts and your wishes.
> >
> > To be clear: Wikimedia is not only ENWP. Other wikipedias and projects
> are
> > using Commons every day. But the drama always come from ENWP...
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Steven Walling <
> steven.wall...@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu Dec 11 2014 at 12:40:09 PM Pipo Le Clown 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm on the road every two weekends, and processing pictures the rest
> of
> > > the
> > > > time on my free time. I've provided around 8000 pictures to Commons,
> > and
> > > > helped to have pictures for articles like Cristiano Ronaldo, Roy
> > Hogdson
> > > or
> > > > Greig Laidlaw...
> > > >
> > > > Just to read that I'm a fascist and an "anal retentive" because
> someone
> > > > proposed a fucking picture of KitKat for deletion ? It was not even
> > > > deleted, the discussion is still going on. And even if it was, the
> > right
> > > > place to go would have been COM:UDR, with a strong rationale, where
> > > people
> > > > would have discuss it in a civilised manner. Not in this echo
> > chamber...
> > > >
> > > > So yes, one could say that the thread "was accusatory from the start,
> > and
> > > > quickly went to vicious". One could also say that this is a fucking
> > > > disgrace.
> > > >
> > > > Pleclown
> > > >
> > >
> > > To be crystal clear: I didn't link to the DR or mention the nominator
> > > because I don't actually care much about the individual instance.
> > > Commons is going to do what it's going to do, and whomever nominated it
> > or
> > > comments in support of deletion is just doing what the policies of
> > Commons
> > > is telling them to do.
> > >
> > > The problem is a general one with the goals of Commons, what the
> > community
> > > focuses (and doesn't focus on), as I said. I think it should be clear
> > that
> > > the purpose of discussing it on Wikimedia-l as opposed to Commons is
> talk
> > > about whether Commons is doing a good job of serving as the media
> > > repository for other projects. Not about whether the nominator was
> > correct
> > > in this individual case or something like that.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Austin Hair 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Okay, guys, let's all take a step back and remember
> [[WP:Civility]].
> > > > > (Yeah, I know that's a Wikipedia pillar, but can't we all at least
> > get
> > > > > on board with that one?)
> > > > >
> > > > > The tone of this thread was accusatory from the start, and quickly
> > > > > went to vicious. Maybe everyone can try it again with a bit of AGF.
> > > > >
> > > > > Austin
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

[Craig Franklin]

Am I the only one that sees the irony in asking folks not to pick on the
Commons community, then immediately asserting that enwp is the source of
all drama?

Cheers,
Craig Franklin
On 12/12/2014 4:56 PM, "Pipo Le Clown"  wrote:

> As you said, the first issue of Commons is "demotivating contributors". And
> this thread is actually doing a good job at it...
>
> STOP the Commons bashing. Stop calling Commons contributors "anal
> retentive" or "fussy neckbeards".
>
> I'm an european. In Europe, one does not call another "nazi", as Americans
> do. It's insulting. Do you see people coming to Wikimedia-l when an
> american contributor calls someone a nazi (because they do) ?
>
> No. There are places on projects to deal with those kind of situations
> (even if they do not work properly imo).
>
> As there are places on Commons to discuss about the scope, the way we
> should handle copyright, etc. Nobody is preventing you to go to this places
> and start a discussion, share your thoughts and your wishes.
>
> To be clear: Wikimedia is not only ENWP. Other wikipedias and projects are
> using Commons every day. But the drama always come from ENWP...
>
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Steven Walling  >
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu Dec 11 2014 at 12:40:09 PM Pipo Le Clown 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'm on the road every two weekends, and processing pictures the rest of
> > the
> > > time on my free time. I've provided around 8000 pictures to Commons,
> and
> > > helped to have pictures for articles like Cristiano Ronaldo, Roy
> Hogdson
> > or
> > > Greig Laidlaw...
> > >
> > > Just to read that I'm a fascist and an "anal retentive" because someone
> > > proposed a fucking picture of KitKat for deletion ? It was not even
> > > deleted, the discussion is still going on. And even if it was, the
> right
> > > place to go would have been COM:UDR, with a strong rationale, where
> > people
> > > would have discuss it in a civilised manner. Not in this echo
> chamber...
> > >
> > > So yes, one could say that the thread "was accusatory from the start,
> and
> > > quickly went to vicious". One could also say that this is a fucking
> > > disgrace.
> > >
> > > Pleclown
> > >
> >
> > To be crystal clear: I didn't link to the DR or mention the nominator
> > because I don't actually care much about the individual instance.
> > Commons is going to do what it's going to do, and whomever nominated it
> or
> > comments in support of deletion is just doing what the policies of
> Commons
> > is telling them to do.
> >
> > The problem is a general one with the goals of Commons, what the
> community
> > focuses (and doesn't focus on), as I said. I think it should be clear
> that
> > the purpose of discussing it on Wikimedia-l as opposed to Commons is talk
> > about whether Commons is doing a good job of serving as the media
> > repository for other projects. Not about whether the nominator was
> correct
> > in this individual case or something like that.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Austin Hair  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Okay, guys, let's all take a step back and remember [[WP:Civility]].
> > > > (Yeah, I know that's a Wikipedia pillar, but can't we all at least
> get
> > > > on board with that one?)
> > > >
> > > > The tone of this thread was accusatory from the start, and quickly
> > > > went to vicious. Maybe everyone can try it again with a bit of AGF.
> > > >
> > > > Austin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:30 PM, James Alexander <
> jameso...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Fæ  wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> P.S. Stephen, you are young and handsome, in fact rather dishy to
> my
> > > > >> ageing eyes. Good for you. Keep in mind that your fellow
> volunteers
> > > > >> might not have been born so lucky, and that being young and pretty
> > all
> > > > >> too soon passes into memory, sigh.
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > Fæ, this is not acceptable for the list (or for that matter on
> wiki).
> > > > > Stephen's neckbeard comment certainly wasn't helpful either but
> it's
> > no
> > > > > excuse.
> > > > >
> > > > > James
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

[Andre Engels]

And where do you see what you are writing here? If you really consider
it bullying to say outside Commons that you think something is wrong
with Commons, then the situation is much worse than I thought it would
be. Your analogy is severely flawed in many places, and only functions
to enrage those who happen to not agree with you. In fact, it
describes the behaviour of you and your ilk more than that of your
opponents.

Disgustedly yours,

André Engels


On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Pipo Le Clown  wrote:
> - You must change.
> - Ok, let's discuss this together. Explain what you think is wrong, and how
> we can fix it.
> - No, you must change first.
>
> Commons can change. Policies can evolve. But staying outside the circle and
> throwing mud at those inside will not help them to open and accept you at a
> friend...
>
> This thread is like a bully kicking a child while asking "why don't you
> want to be my friend ?"
>
> Le ven. 12 déc. 2014 à 9:09, John Mark Vandenberg  a
> écrit :
>
>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Gerard Meijssen
>>  wrote:
>> > Hoi,
>> > This problem is not new. It is not as if the Commons community is not
>> aware
>> > of this perception. The perception that there might be a situation where
>> > someone is sued is not necessary shared by lawyers. They have to make a
>> > living as well so they will sue when they are paid to do so.
>> >
>> > When people complain that Commonists go to far in what they do and their
>> > only defence is "you are demotivating me" than that is exactly what needs
>> > to be done. They need to be demotivated to go berserk with their
>> misguided
>> > interpretation of copyright.  When some hotheads leave the building, it
>> > will lower the temperature and we can start to talk.
>> >
>> > Commons is not the only project that serves the whole of our communities.
>> > Wikidata is another. I regularly find images for people that are not
>> moved
>> > to Commons because Commons is not trusted. Now that pisses me off
>> terribly
>> > and it sours my appreciation of Commons. As it is, Commons is not trusted
>> > and not discussing this only puts this discussion further back with even
>> > more ill feelings and even less appreciation for the people who do good
>> > work at Commons. They are ultimately the people who suffer the most.
>>
>> And the same is said and done regarding Wikidata , which client
>> projects are very skeptical about trusting to hold data.  Wikidata
>> also has its own copyright issues.  If Wikipedia data is migrated to
>> Wikidata, and it is determined that Wikidata violations database
>> copyrights (whereas Wikipedia may not have), we have to migrate all
>> the data back.  Exactly the same as Commons.  Yet you've been a
>> proponent of Wikidata ignoring these database copyright issues.
>>
>> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/03/wikipedia-
>> and-impact-factor-of-nature.html
>>
>> Wikidata also has quality control issues that will mean it is going to
>> take a lot of work to clean up the data it contains in order to become
>> reliable. e.g. in the last few days you've created items and labelled
>> them as 'instance of human' , when they are not humans. :/
>>
>> https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q18615764&action=history
>> https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q18601263&action=history
>>
>> Your response when this exact same problem has been discussed several
>> times is, if I can paraphrase, .. you do so many edits that you
>> believe it is someone elses job to fix the small percentage of errors
>> caused by your hyper-productivity.  That works in theory in large
>> wikis, but doesnt work so well when the vast majority of new Wikidata
>> content is added by simplistic bots and humans doing similarly large
>> batches of semi-automated edits.
>>
>> --
>> John Vandenberg
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> 
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 



-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When specific categories of data do not make it in Wikidata like the
"impact factor", it is not a problem. As much can be understood from my
blogpost.

I may miss certain items as not being human. That is the exceptionto the
rule. In the past weeks I have added tens of thousands of statements. I
have in the past published many times about strategies of improving the
quality of Wikidata. I have worked with people on implementing such
strategies as well.

So what is your point ? Am I evil ?? If so, fine. When you have better
strategies for adding statements to Wikidata speak up.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 12 December 2014 at 09:08, John Mark Vandenberg  wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Gerard Meijssen
>  wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > This problem is not new. It is not as if the Commons community is not
> aware
> > of this perception. The perception that there might be a situation where
> > someone is sued is not necessary shared by lawyers. They have to make a
> > living as well so they will sue when they are paid to do so.
> >
> > When people complain that Commonists go to far in what they do and their
> > only defence is "you are demotivating me" than that is exactly what needs
> > to be done. They need to be demotivated to go berserk with their
> misguided
> > interpretation of copyright.  When some hotheads leave the building, it
> > will lower the temperature and we can start to talk.
> >
> > Commons is not the only project that serves the whole of our communities.
> > Wikidata is another. I regularly find images for people that are not
> moved
> > to Commons because Commons is not trusted. Now that pisses me off
> terribly
> > and it sours my appreciation of Commons. As it is, Commons is not trusted
> > and not discussing this only puts this discussion further back with even
> > more ill feelings and even less appreciation for the people who do good
> > work at Commons. They are ultimately the people who suffer the most.
>
> And the same is said and done regarding Wikidata , which client
> projects are very skeptical about trusting to hold data.  Wikidata
> also has its own copyright issues.  If Wikipedia data is migrated to
> Wikidata, and it is determined that Wikidata violations database
> copyrights (whereas Wikipedia may not have), we have to migrate all
> the data back.  Exactly the same as Commons.  Yet you've been a
> proponent of Wikidata ignoring these database copyright issues.
>
>
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/03/wikipedia-and-impact-factor-of-nature.html
>
> Wikidata also has quality control issues that will mean it is going to
> take a lot of work to clean up the data it contains in order to become
> reliable. e.g. in the last few days you've created items and labelled
> them as 'instance of human' , when they are not humans. :/
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q18615764&action=history
> https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q18601263&action=history
>
> Your response when this exact same problem has been discussed several
> times is, if I can paraphrase, .. you do so many edits that you
> believe it is someone elses job to fix the small percentage of errors
> caused by your hyper-productivity.  That works in theory in large
> wikis, but doesnt work so well when the vast majority of new Wikidata
> content is added by simplistic bots and humans doing similarly large
> batches of semi-automated edits.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Appointment of Delphine Ménard, Lodewijk Gelauff and Bence Damokos as AffCom Advisers

[Ricordisamoa]

Il 29/11/2014 20:09, Carlos M. Colina ha scritto:

Dear all,

Recently the Affiliations Commitee, in order to improve its governance 
and in its need for improvement and organizational advise, voted in 
favor of appointing Delphine Ménard [1], Lodewijk Gelauff [2] and 
Bence Damokos [3] as non-voting advisers . They have provided this 
committee during their respective tenures as full members of this 
committee with invaluable expertise, governance advise and language 
and communication skills. Hence, this committee has decided to appoint 
them as advisers for a term ending on Deceber 31, 2016.


Many thanks in advance to Delphine, Lodewijk and Bence for their 
contributions and support to the Affiliations Committee. And of 
course, congratulations!


Best regards,
Carlos

1: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Resolutions/Appointment_of_Delphine_M%C3%A9nard_as_adviser_%E2%80%93_November_2014
2: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Resolutions/Appointment_of_Delphine_M%C3%A9nard_as_adviser_%E2%80%93_November_2014

I think it should be:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Resolutions/Appointment_of_Lodewijk_Gelauff_as_adviser_%E2%80%93_November_2014
3: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Resolutions/Appointment_of_Bence_Damokos_as_adviser_%E2%80%93_November_2014 





___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

[Pipo Le Clown]

- You must change.
- Ok, let's discuss this together. Explain what you think is wrong, and how
we can fix it.
- No, you must change first.

Commons can change. Policies can evolve. But staying outside the circle and
throwing mud at those inside will not help them to open and accept you at a
friend...

This thread is like a bully kicking a child while asking "why don't you
want to be my friend ?"

Le ven. 12 déc. 2014 à 9:09, John Mark Vandenberg  a
écrit :

> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Gerard Meijssen
>  wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > This problem is not new. It is not as if the Commons community is not
> aware
> > of this perception. The perception that there might be a situation where
> > someone is sued is not necessary shared by lawyers. They have to make a
> > living as well so they will sue when they are paid to do so.
> >
> > When people complain that Commonists go to far in what they do and their
> > only defence is "you are demotivating me" than that is exactly what needs
> > to be done. They need to be demotivated to go berserk with their
> misguided
> > interpretation of copyright.  When some hotheads leave the building, it
> > will lower the temperature and we can start to talk.
> >
> > Commons is not the only project that serves the whole of our communities.
> > Wikidata is another. I regularly find images for people that are not
> moved
> > to Commons because Commons is not trusted. Now that pisses me off
> terribly
> > and it sours my appreciation of Commons. As it is, Commons is not trusted
> > and not discussing this only puts this discussion further back with even
> > more ill feelings and even less appreciation for the people who do good
> > work at Commons. They are ultimately the people who suffer the most.
>
> And the same is said and done regarding Wikidata , which client
> projects are very skeptical about trusting to hold data.  Wikidata
> also has its own copyright issues.  If Wikipedia data is migrated to
> Wikidata, and it is determined that Wikidata violations database
> copyrights (whereas Wikipedia may not have), we have to migrate all
> the data back.  Exactly the same as Commons.  Yet you've been a
> proponent of Wikidata ignoring these database copyright issues.
>
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/03/wikipedia-
> and-impact-factor-of-nature.html
>
> Wikidata also has quality control issues that will mean it is going to
> take a lot of work to clean up the data it contains in order to become
> reliable. e.g. in the last few days you've created items and labelled
> them as 'instance of human' , when they are not humans. :/
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q18615764&action=history
> https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q18601263&action=history
>
> Your response when this exact same problem has been discussed several
> times is, if I can paraphrase, .. you do so many edits that you
> believe it is someone elses job to fix the small percentage of errors
> caused by your hyper-productivity.  That works in theory in large
> wikis, but doesnt work so well when the vast majority of new Wikidata
> content is added by simplistic bots and humans doing similarly large
> batches of semi-automated edits.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> 
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

[John Mark Vandenberg]

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Gerard Meijssen
 wrote:
> Hoi,
> This problem is not new. It is not as if the Commons community is not aware
> of this perception. The perception that there might be a situation where
> someone is sued is not necessary shared by lawyers. They have to make a
> living as well so they will sue when they are paid to do so.
>
> When people complain that Commonists go to far in what they do and their
> only defence is "you are demotivating me" than that is exactly what needs
> to be done. They need to be demotivated to go berserk with their misguided
> interpretation of copyright.  When some hotheads leave the building, it
> will lower the temperature and we can start to talk.
>
> Commons is not the only project that serves the whole of our communities.
> Wikidata is another. I regularly find images for people that are not moved
> to Commons because Commons is not trusted. Now that pisses me off terribly
> and it sours my appreciation of Commons. As it is, Commons is not trusted
> and not discussing this only puts this discussion further back with even
> more ill feelings and even less appreciation for the people who do good
> work at Commons. They are ultimately the people who suffer the most.

And the same is said and done regarding Wikidata , which client
projects are very skeptical about trusting to hold data.  Wikidata
also has its own copyright issues.  If Wikipedia data is migrated to
Wikidata, and it is determined that Wikidata violations database
copyrights (whereas Wikipedia may not have), we have to migrate all
the data back.  Exactly the same as Commons.  Yet you've been a
proponent of Wikidata ignoring these database copyright issues.

http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/03/wikipedia-and-impact-factor-of-nature.html

Wikidata also has quality control issues that will mean it is going to
take a lot of work to clean up the data it contains in order to become
reliable. e.g. in the last few days you've created items and labelled
them as 'instance of human' , when they are not humans. :/

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q18615764&action=history
https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q18601263&action=history

Your response when this exact same problem has been discussed several
times is, if I can paraphrase, .. you do so many edits that you
believe it is someone elses job to fix the small percentage of errors
caused by your hyper-productivity.  That works in theory in large
wikis, but doesnt work so well when the vast majority of new Wikidata
content is added by simplistic bots and humans doing similarly large
batches of semi-automated edits.

--
John Vandenberg

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,