Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Code of Conduct in force?

[Adrian Raddatz]

Agreed as well. Anders, that is one of the most sensible posts I've seen on
this list in a long time.

Adrian Raddatz

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Agreed,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Anders Wennersten
> Sent: Monday, 06 March 2017 9:21 PM
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Code of Conduct in force?
>
> We have 61000 editors  that made more the 5 edits last month and 8800
> making more then 100 edits. Last election to the Board attracted 5500
> voters. These figures gives a magnitude of the numbers in the community.
>
> The number of active on this list are around 50-100, and normal
> participations in meta discussion (except when it was for Visual editor)
> are at best 100-200.
>
> I truly believe we should not be content to say these 100-200 are the
> community or spokespersons for the community. And I admire the approach
> being made by WMF in the strategy project, to actively try to reach out to
> a broader audience then these 100-200
>
> So I believe her has always been an issue of the dialogue between the
> community and WMF, both referring to who is the community and the dialogue
> in itself. But I do see that the approach being taken by WMF now and lately
> does a lot to resolve this issue and and is worth both praise and support
>
> And I do would like to see less of "We the community" by people on this
> list
>
> Anders
>
>
>
> Den 2017-03-06 kl. 20:07, skrev Rogol Domedonfors:
> > Gerard
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 7:28 AM, you wrote:
> >
> >> For Rogol and Pine I have an additional challenge; when the WMF is to
> >> support the community, is their time better spend serving quality or
> >> is their time better spend discussing endless procedures that make us
> >> stick in the mud as it stifles initiative?
> >>
> > A fallacious dichotomy, as no doubt you were well aware.  We need to
> > establish working and workable procedures that allow Community and
> > Foundation to engage together in planning at the level of long-term
> > strategy and medium-term technical roadmap so that the WMF are able to
> > deliver quality products that support the mission effectively.  Do you
> > think we have those already?  Or do you think we can do without them?
> >
> > "Rogol"
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> -
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14066 - Release Date: 03/06/17
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Code of Conduct in force?

[Peter Southwood]

Agreed,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Anders Wennersten
Sent: Monday, 06 March 2017 9:21 PM
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Code of Conduct in force?

We have 61000 editors  that made more the 5 edits last month and 8800 making 
more then 100 edits. Last election to the Board attracted 5500 voters. These 
figures gives a magnitude of the numbers in the community.

The number of active on this list are around 50-100, and normal participations 
in meta discussion (except when it was for Visual editor) are at best 100-200.

I truly believe we should not be content to say these 100-200 are the community 
or spokespersons for the community. And I admire the approach being made by WMF 
in the strategy project, to actively try to reach out to a broader audience 
then these 100-200

So I believe her has always been an issue of the dialogue between the community 
and WMF, both referring to who is the community and the dialogue in itself. But 
I do see that the approach being taken by WMF now and lately does a lot to 
resolve this issue and and is worth both praise and support

And I do would like to see less of "We the community" by people on this list

Anders



Den 2017-03-06 kl. 20:07, skrev Rogol Domedonfors:
> Gerard
>
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 7:28 AM, you wrote:
>
>> For Rogol and Pine I have an additional challenge; when the WMF is to 
>> support the community, is their time better spend serving quality or 
>> is their time better spend discussing endless procedures that make us 
>> stick in the mud as it stifles initiative?
>>
> A fallacious dichotomy, as no doubt you were well aware.  We need to 
> establish working and workable procedures that allow Community and 
> Foundation to engage together in planning at the level of long-term 
> strategy and medium-term technical roadmap so that the WMF are able to 
> deliver quality products that support the mission effectively.  Do you 
> think we have those already?  Or do you think we can do without them?
>
> "Rogol"
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14066 - Release Date: 03/06/17


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Andreas Kolbe]

People usually encounter images in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia does not comply
with the CC licence requirements either, the way downstream re-users are
expected to comply with them. That's a problem.

For example, the CC BY 3.0 licence requires re-users to name the image's
author, and much else besides. But when a CC BY 3.0 image is used in
Wikipedia, or indeed on a content page in Commons, none of that information
is present. All Wikipedia does provide is a link to the image's Commons
page.[1]

Wikipedia is advertised as the free encyclopedia. This includes people
being free to re-use any part of it, even for commercial purposes. So why
shouldn't people think that they are allowed to use an image in exactly the
same way Wikipedia is using it?

If a user sees an image in Wikipedia, it is quite natural for them, given
what they have been told, to right-click on it and select copy, without
even going to the Commons page with the detailed licence info. But if they
do what Wikipedia does, i.e. only providing a link to the source, they can
get slapped with a bill for several thousand dollars or euros.

One recent press article[2] gave the example of a single mum on benefits
who received a demand for 7,500 euro (nearly 8,000 dollars) from a
Wikipedian because of two images she had used without giving the required
attribution.

It doesn't seem fair.


[1] Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cercospora_capsici
[2]
https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Wikipedia-beraet-ueber-Distanzierung-von-Fotolizenz-Abzockern-3630842.html?seite=2


On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Gergő Tisza  wrote:

> I can read some German and looked into a similar case the last time this
> came up (the thread was called "harald bischoff advertising to make images
> "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users"). It involved (amongst
> others) an amateur news blog which took an image from the Wikipedia article
> of some politician and credited it to "Wikipedia" (with link to the image
> description page; but no author or license), and was slapped with a ~$1000
> fee. These kind of predatory tactics hurt the reputation and moral standing
> of the movement IMO.
>


> I think asking for damages might be acceptable if
> - the reuser is a big organization which has its own copyright lawyers
> (e.g. a commercial news publisher) and really should have known better
> - the reuser refuses to fix the attribution when asked
> - the reuser does not even attempt to indicate that the image is from
> elsewhere
> but when none of those is the case, threatening to sue violates the spirit
> of free content, even if it is in accordance with the fine print of the
> license.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Tim Landscheidt]

James Forrester  wrote:

>> For the last 12 years Flickr have a system where people can click on a
>> link and get the HTML or BBCODE that properly attributes the image along
>> with the link to the license and all the rest of the requirements for
>> the CC license. Why can't commons do the same?

>> Otherwise its not hard to properly attribute a CC- licensed image.

> This was provided in MediaViewer some years ago. (See e.g. today's Commons
> POTD
> ,
> unless you're logged into an account that has the feature disabled.)

> On viewing the image/media file, users can click the "share" icon, then
> pick "embed", and they get an HTML response contains the uploader account name
> (with link), the licence name (with link), and a link to the media file's
> page on wiki.

> […]

That procedure leads to the result (word-wrapped):

| 
|   https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ehrenstetten_-_%C3%96lbergkapelle6.jpg#/media/File:Ehrenstetten_-_%C3%96lbergkapelle6.jpg";>
| https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Ehrenstetten_-_%C3%96lbergkapelle6.jpg";
 alt="Ehrenstetten - Ölbergkapelle6.jpg" width="16247" height="6083">
|   
|   
|   By Taxiarchos228 -
|   Own work,
|   http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en"; title="Free Art 
License">FAL,
|   https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=41725272";>Link
| 

I. e., the author is credited as "Taxiarchos228".  The note
under the image says (in bold): "Als Gegenleistung für die
kostenlose (nichtgewerbliche) Nutzung muss der Weiternutzer
nur die Lizenzbedingungen einhalten und den Fotografen (mei-
nen vollständigen Klarnamen Wladyslaw Sojka sowie die ver-
linkte Website www.sojka.photo) als Urheber nennen."

The used Free Art License says in "2.2 Freedom to Distrib-
ute, to Perform in Public":

| You have the right to distribute copies of this work; wheth-
| er modified or not, whatever the medium and the place, with
| or without any charge, provided that you:

| - […]

| - specify to the recipient the names of the author(s) of the
|   originals, including yours if you have modified the work,

| - specify to the recipient where to access the originals
|   (either initial or subsequent).

| […]

I'm not convinced that "Taxiarchos228" is the "name" of the
author as required by the license.

Tim


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice

[Trillium Corsage]

FYI, and to finish this matter off for the list:

"Not on my watch. I have no access to past conversations so cannot comment on 
the conversation you say you have had with list admins in the past..." says 
Asaf.

I furnished Asaf with verbatim copies of the relevant emails that he may be 
confident it was not merely a "conversations I "say" I have had."

It is accurate though that I erred by recalling that the list moderator 
suggested I was "trolling" when he actually used the word "baiting."

Trillium Corsage

> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:20 AM Trillium Corsage 
> wrote:
> 
 As always, he is (and other
 moderated users are) welcome to submit posts to the list before then,
>> and
 if the posts are respectful and on-topic, they would be let through.
>>
>> That has not been my experience. In fact the last time I sent a
>> coherently-explained, completely civil, on-topic,and time-sensitive email
>> to the list, it was held by a moderator who:
>>
>> A) Suggested I was "trolling the WMF" (is trolling an entire
>> 100-person-plus organization even possible?)
>>
>> B) Faulted it on bases including that I used the phrase "couple days"
>> (i.e. "this might take a couple days") rather than his preferred
>> formulation "couple *of* days"
>>
>> C) Put it up for a consensus vote among the other list moderators.
>>
>> I see the list has some new moderators, but I figure odds are this email
>> will be stopped as well.
> 
> Not on my watch. I have no access to past conversations so cannot comment
> on the conversation you say you have had with list admins in the past, but
> I will state for the record that I think grammatical imperfections (real or
> perceived) are absolutely not an acceptable reason to withhold a message
> from the list. The vast majority of subscribers are not native speakers of
> English, and even if they were, language snobbery is an anti-pattern for
> constructive communication.
> 
> Re trolling, I am personally very wary of applying that label, and lean
> toward avoiding it in all but the most extreme cases. Neither a favorable
> opinion of the WIkimedia Foundation, nor a real-world identity, are a
> prerequisite for posting on this list. It is perfectly acceptable and
> on-topic to question or criticize the Wikimedia Foundation on this list, so
> long as one adheres to basic rules of discourse: remaining civil, concise,
> on-topic, and respectful in the face of disagreement; avoiding repetition,
> aggression, and irrelevant hobby-horses; etc.
> 
> A.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[James Forrester]

On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 at 18:14 Lilburne  wrote:

> For the last 12 years Flickr have a system where people can click on a
> link and get the HTML or BBCODE that properly attributes the image along
> with the link to the license and all the rest of the requirements for
> the CC license. Why can't commons do the same?
>
> Otherwise its not hard to properly attribute a CC- licensed image.
>

This was provided in MediaViewer some years ago. (See e.g. today's Commons
POTD
,
unless you're logged into an account that has the feature disabled.)

On viewing the image/media file, users can click the "share" icon, then
pick "embed", and they get an HTML response contains the uploader account name
(with link), the licence name (with link), and a link to the media file's
page on wiki.

This feature could be more visible (at some cost to reader experience), but
it's there.

Hope this helps.

J.
-- 

James D. Forrester
Lead Product Manager, Editing
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
jforrester at wikimedia.org
 |
@jdforrester
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Lilburne]

For the last 12 years Flickr have a system where people can click on a 
link and get the HTML or BBCODE that properly attributes the image along 
with the link to the license and all the rest of the requirements for 
the CC license. Why can't commons do the same?


Otherwise its not hard to properly attribute a CC- licensed image.

On 02/03/2017 05:44, rupert THURNER wrote:

on the german wikipedia there was a poll to ban images of users who
send cease and desist letters, triggered by a recent case of thomas
wolf trying to charge 1200 euro out of a tiny non-profit which
improperly reused one of his images [1]. thomas article work includs
"improving text deserts, and changing bad images to (often his own)
better quality images"[2]. there is a broad majority against people
who use cease and desist letters as a business model. anyway a small
number of persons do have such a business model, some of them even
administrators on commons, like alexander savin [3][4].

but the topic of course is much more subtle than described above, the
discussion was heated, and the result close - as always in the last 10
years. a digital divide between persons supporting the original
mindset of wikipedia which sees every additional reuse, unrestricted,
as success, and the ones who think it is not desired to incorrectly
reference, or feel that others should not make money out of their
work.

as both are viable opinions would it be possible to split commons in
two, for every opinion? the new commons would include safe licenses
like cc-4.0 and users who are friendly to update their licenses to
better ones in future. the old commons would just stay as it is. a
user of wikipedia can easy distinguish if she wants to include both
sources, or only one of them? there is only one goal: make cease and
desist letters as business model not interesting any more,
technically, while keeping the morale of contributors high, both
sides.

[1] 
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
[2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Der_Wolf_im_Wald
[3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:A.Savin
[4] 
https://tarnkappe.info/ausgesprochen-peinlich-abmahnfalle-wikipedia-interview-mit-simplicius/

best
rupert

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

[Wikimedia-l] One week left to submit a Project Grant Proposal

[Alex Wang]

Hello!

*There is just over a week left to submit a Project Grant proposal* <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project> by the March 14 deadline.
If you have ideas about how you could enhance the work of Wikimedia
volunteers, start your proposal today!  Please encourage others to apply as
well.  Support is available if you want help turning your idea into a grant
request.

   -

   Submit a grant request <
   https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Apply>
   -

   Learn from examples of approved projects in Project Grants <
   https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Browse_applications>,
   Individual Engagement Grants <
   https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG#ieg-engaging> or Project and
   Event Grants <
   https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/Requests#Grants_funded_by_the_WMF
   >


Please feel free to get in touch with me (aw...@wikimedia.org) with
questions about getting started with your idea.

Warm regards,

Alex


-- 
Alexandra Wang
Program Officer
Community Resources
Wikimedia Foundation 
+1 415-839-6885
Skype: alexvwang
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Code of Conduct in force?

[Pine W]

Anders,

I agree that there have been some positive developments in the
WMF-community relationship over the last year or so. I think that we hit a
rough patch in the past few months, and I'm hoping that it is behind us.

Figuring out how to gauge community sentiment is a really hard problem.
RfCs and email lists both have issues with the limitations of
self-selection, and even as a regular contributor to this list I think that
consensus on this list among 10 people in a thread is not the same as
consensus among 100 people in an RfC or the tens of thousands in the entire
Wikiverse. I like the idea of surveys with random samples, and ENWP has
tried to get broader representation of people in RfCs using bot invitations
to participate. Broad surveys and dialogues are time-consuming and the
methodology can be challenging. I'm not sure what to suggest to improve our
methods of gauging community sentiment. I think that all of our tools have
limitations. I'd be glad to discuss that in a separate thread if you're
interested; I think of this as being both a research challenge and a
governance challenge .

Pine


On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Anders Wennersten  wrote:

> We have 61000 editors  that made more the 5 edits last month and 8800
> making more then 100 edits. Last election to the Board attracted 5500
> voters. These figures gives a magnitude of the numbers in the community.
>
> The number of active on this list are around 50-100, and normal
> participations in meta discussion (except when it was for Visual editor)
> are at best 100-200.
>
> I truly believe we should not be content to say these 100-200 are the
> community or spokespersons for the community. And I admire the approach
> being made by WMF in the strategy project, to actively try to reach out to
> a broader audience then these 100-200
>
> So I believe her has always been an issue of the dialogue between the
> community and WMF, both referring to who is the community and the dialogue
> in itself. But I do see that the approach being taken by WMF now and lately
> does a lot to resolve this issue and and is worth both praise and support
>
> And I do would like to see less of "We the community" by people on this
> list
>
> Anders
>
>
>
>
> Den 2017-03-06 kl. 20:07, skrev Rogol Domedonfors:
>
>> Gerard
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 7:28 AM, you wrote:
>>
>> For Rogol and Pine I have an additional challenge; when the WMF is to
>>> support the community, is their time better spend serving quality or is
>>> their time better spend discussing endless procedures that make us stick
>>> in
>>> the mud as it stifles initiative?
>>>
>>> A fallacious dichotomy, as no doubt you were well aware.  We need to
>> establish working and workable procedures that allow Community and
>> Foundation to engage together in planning at the level of long-term
>> strategy and medium-term technical roadmap so that the WMF are able to
>> deliver quality products that support the mission effectively.  Do you
>> think we have those already?  Or do you think we can do without them?
>>
>> "Rogol"
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice

[Asaf Bartov]

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:20 AM Trillium Corsage 
wrote:

> >> As always, he is (and other
> >> moderated users are) welcome to submit posts to the list before then,
> and
> >> if the posts are respectful and on-topic, they would be let through.
>
> That has not been my experience. In fact the last time I sent a
> coherently-explained, completely civil, on-topic,and time-sensitive email
> to the list, it was held by a moderator who:
>
> A) Suggested I was "trolling the WMF" (is trolling an entire
> 100-person-plus organization even possible?)
>
> B) Faulted it on bases including that I used the phrase "couple days"
> (i.e. "this might take a couple days") rather than his preferred
> formulation "couple *of* days"
>
> C) Put it up for a consensus vote among the other list moderators.
>
> I see the list has some new moderators, but I figure odds are this email
> will be stopped as well.
>

Not on my watch.  I have no access to past conversations so cannot comment
on the conversation you say you have had with list admins in the past, but
I will state for the record that I think grammatical imperfections (real or
perceived) are absolutely not an acceptable reason to withhold a message
from the list.  The vast majority of subscribers are not native speakers of
English, and even if they were, language snobbery is an anti-pattern for
constructive communication.

Re trolling, I am personally very wary of applying that label, and lean
toward avoiding it in all but the most extreme cases.  Neither a favorable
opinion of the WIkimedia Foundation, nor a real-world identity, are a
prerequisite for posting on this list.  It is perfectly acceptable and
on-topic to question or criticize the Wikimedia Foundation on this list, so
long as one adheres to basic rules of discourse: remaining civil, concise,
on-topic, and respectful in the face of disagreement; avoiding repetition,
aggression, and irrelevant hobby-horses; etc.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice

[Trillium Corsage]

> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:56 AM Asaf Bartov  wrote:
>\ 
>> It's okay that some people disagree with this moderation action (others
>> agree, even if they do not say so on-list). This list is not moderated by
>> whole-list-consensus.

...

>> Gerard will be unmoderated on March 1st. As always, he is (and other
>> moderated users are) welcome to submit posts to the list before then, and
>> if the posts are respectful and on-topic, they would be let through.

That has not been my experience. In fact the last time I sent a 
coherently-explained, completely civil, on-topic,and time-sensitive email to 
the list, it was held by a moderator who:

A) Suggested I was "trolling the WMF" (is trolling an entire 100-person-plus 
organization even possible?)

B) Faulted it on bases including that I used the phrase "couple days" (i.e. 
"this might take a couple days") rather than his preferred formulation "couple 
*of* days"

C) Put it up for a consensus vote among the other list moderators. 

I see the list has some new moderators, but I figure odds are this email will 
be stopped as well.

Trillium Corsage

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Florence Devouard]

Le 03/03/2017 à 00:26, Zachary McCune a écrit :

Craig, first, thank you. I am honored to be here and to be answerable.[1]

SJ, Florence, George,  you are right. We need better, deeper collaboration
for brand projects like the Annual Report. And I would like to help meet
that challenge. We are actually starting the 2017 Annual Report much
earlier this year (planning will begin in April) so we are well positioned
to gather more input and direction on the next iteration. Activity will be
linked on Meta.[2] Florence, this is also where we post the full site
content when it is final (which is not quite true at present) so it is
available for translation.

I also want to directly engage and act on some of the ideas presented here
for how to improve the Annual Report site.

First, on fact ordering, we are going to make “Wikipedia is update 350
times a minute” the first fact displayed. Great idea Florence, and one that
better articulates what we want to impart: our volunteers are active,
Wikipedia is a living thing, and facts are constantly checked.

Second, on photography, we are going to change the photo that accompanies
the travel fact. We hear and understand that this photo has overstepped the
mark. Moreover, we are fortunate to work with millions of freely-licensed
alternatives so… expect a change.

Third, on fact-checking ourselves. SJ, going forward we will take you up on
that offer and find fact-checkers outside the Foundation. Risker, you are
right, we already know where we can find some. I will detail that coming
into this Report, we have had 40+ reviewers from across departments,
cultures, and experiences in an effort to do proper due diligence. We can
do better, so we will.

Many have reached out to me asking how we can facilitate a more
participatory, and active review cycle for the next report. Keep those
ideas coming. We are up for it.

Also SJ, on the travel stat, we were using the CNN source that interprets
the UNWTO data you are citing.[3] Let’s discuss this off-thread, I want to
make sure we have our math clear here and can confirm CNN is in error.

Generally, the site can offer more explicit citations. Nearly all of the
facts are cited within the stories that contextualize them, but we will go
through and see what can be further emphasized.

On Report promotion, we have paused site banners entirely to allow this
conversation to continue. Yair, I pinged you about this in response to your
Village Pump discussion. Our Piwik analytics show that around 8,000 people
visited the site yesterday to give some idea on the current reach of the
Report.

Both the Foundation and the Communications team are listening, working, and
acting.

Thank you for working with us. Thanks for *thinking* with us.

   -

   Zack


You're welcome ;)
Thank you for your work Zack. Appreciated.

Florence



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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Code of Conduct in force?

[Anders Wennersten]

We have 61000 editors  that made more the 5 edits last month and 8800 
making more then 100 edits. Last election to the Board attracted 5500 
voters. These figures gives a magnitude of the numbers in the community.


The number of active on this list are around 50-100, and normal 
participations in meta discussion (except when it was for Visual editor) 
are at best 100-200.


I truly believe we should not be content to say these 100-200 are the 
community or spokespersons for the community. And I admire the approach 
being made by WMF in the strategy project, to actively try to reach out 
to a broader audience then these 100-200


So I believe her has always been an issue of the dialogue between the 
community and WMF, both referring to who is the community and the 
dialogue in itself. But I do see that the approach being taken by WMF 
now and lately does a lot to resolve this issue and and is worth both 
praise and support


And I do would like to see less of "We the community" by people on this list

Anders



Den 2017-03-06 kl. 20:07, skrev Rogol Domedonfors:

Gerard

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 7:28 AM, you wrote:


For Rogol and Pine I have an additional challenge; when the WMF is to
support the community, is their time better spend serving quality or is
their time better spend discussing endless procedures that make us stick in
the mud as it stifles initiative?


A fallacious dichotomy, as no doubt you were well aware.  We need to
establish working and workable procedures that allow Community and
Foundation to engage together in planning at the level of long-term
strategy and medium-term technical roadmap so that the WMF are able to
deliver quality products that support the mission effectively.  Do you
think we have those already?  Or do you think we can do without them?

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Code of Conduct in force?

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Gerard

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 7:28 AM, you wrote:

>
> For Rogol and Pine I have an additional challenge; when the WMF is to
> support the community, is their time better spend serving quality or is
> their time better spend discussing endless procedures that make us stick in
> the mud as it stifles initiative?
>

A fallacious dichotomy, as no doubt you were well aware.  We need to
establish working and workable procedures that allow Community and
Foundation to engage together in planning at the level of long-term
strategy and medium-term technical roadmap so that the WMF are able to
deliver quality products that support the mission effectively.  Do you
think we have those already?  Or do you think we can do without them?

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] March 2: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#9)

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Katherine

Thank you for your prompt response.  I am surprised that at no stage would
anyone have seen any reason to question whether a political strategist was
the best person to be consulting over running a strategy survey.

"Rogol"

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Katherine Maher 
wrote:

> Rogol,
>
> They are a vendor we have used in the past to conduct focus groups and run
> surveys for the annual fundraiser in the five largest English speaking
> countries. We were satisfied with the quality of their work in the past, so
> we contacted them again to discuss whether they had appropriate expertise
> for this instance.
>
> I do not have particular insight as to how we came to work with them in the
> first place a few years ago. As with many vendors we work with, I expect it
> was a combination of research, referral, and/or past successful working
> relationship.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 14:11 Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
>
> Katherine
>
> At some point it would be interesting to learn how the external consultants
> were selected.  I note, for example, that Lake Associates describes itself
> as working "side by side with our clients on developing communications and
> paid media, targeting supporters, and honing the messages that win
> persuadable voters" and Celinda Lake as "one of the Democratic Party's
> leading political strategists".  On what grounds was this company selected
> to work on "proposed market research and recommendations on firms or
> contractors (including Lake) who could conduct desk and/or generative
> research", which seems very far from their self-proclaimed field of
> expertise?
>
> "Rogol"
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> --
> Katherine Maher
>
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 149 New Montgomery Street
> San Francisco, CA 94105
>
> +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
> +1 (415) 712 4873
> kma...@wikimedia.org
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] March 2: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#9)

[Peter Southwood]

By what definition of conservative?
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Andreas Kolbe
Sent: Monday, 06 March 2017 4:25 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] March 2: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy 
process (#9)

Could anyone name major donors or consultants to the Wikimedia Foundation who 
are associated with, or open supporters of, –

1. the United States' Republican party?
2. a major conservative, or at least slightly right-of-centre, party in any 
other country?


 On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Amir E. Aharoni < 
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:

> This makes me want to ask the following: Do we have any professional 
> advisors who are experienced with working with places outside of the 
> five largest English-speaking countries?
>
> (It's quite possible that this was already answered in other emails, 
> and I apologize if I missed it.)
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14066 - Release Date: 03/06/17


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] March 2: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#9)

[Andreas Kolbe]

Could anyone name major donors or consultants to the Wikimedia Foundation
who are associated with, or open supporters of, –

1. the United States' Republican party?
2. a major conservative, or at least slightly right-of-centre, party in any
other country?


 On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Amir E. Aharoni <
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:

> This makes me want to ask the following: Do we have any professional
> advisors who are experienced with working with places outside of the five
> largest English-speaking countries?
>
> (It's quite possible that this was already answered in other emails, and I
> apologize if I missed it.)
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] March 2: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#9)

[Amir E. Aharoni]

2017-03-06 15:12 GMT+02:00 Katherine Maher :

> Rogol,
>
> They are a vendor we have used in the past to conduct focus groups and run
> surveys for the annual fundraiser in the five largest English speaking
> countries. We were satisfied with the quality of their work in the past, so
> we contacted them again to discuss whether they had appropriate expertise
> for this instance.
>

This makes me want to ask the following: Do we have any professional
advisors who are experienced with working with places outside of the five
largest English-speaking countries?

(It's quite possible that this was already answered in other emails, and I
apologize if I missed it.)

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] March 2: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#9)

[Katherine Maher]

Rogol,

They are a vendor we have used in the past to conduct focus groups and run
surveys for the annual fundraiser in the five largest English speaking
countries. We were satisfied with the quality of their work in the past, so
we contacted them again to discuss whether they had appropriate expertise
for this instance.

I do not have particular insight as to how we came to work with them in the
first place a few years ago. As with many vendors we work with, I expect it
was a combination of research, referral, and/or past successful working
relationship.



On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 14:11 Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

Katherine

At some point it would be interesting to learn how the external consultants
were selected.  I note, for example, that Lake Associates describes itself
as working "side by side with our clients on developing communications and
paid media, targeting supporters, and honing the messages that win
persuadable voters" and Celinda Lake as "one of the Democratic Party's
leading political strategists".  On what grounds was this company selected
to work on "proposed market research and recommendations on firms or
contractors (including Lake) who could conduct desk and/or generative
research", which seems very far from their self-proclaimed field of
expertise?

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


-- 
Katherine Maher

Wikimedia Foundation
149 New Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94105

+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
+1 (415) 712 4873
kma...@wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[WereSpielChequers]

Different people are going to have very different views as to how
diplomatic we should be when we find people who are using our work but not
complying with the license. As long as the movement doesn't invest in
enforcing the relatively minor conditions involved in CC-BY-SA and we leave
enforcement to the individual, we can expect that responses to people who
don't respect our copyrights will range from very diplomatic to the
reverse. With those of us like myself who never write to people who use my
work without attribution being at least partially protected by those who
take a much stricter view of copyright breaches.

If we want more consistency in the way we deal with people who breach our
copyrights, one possible solution is to get the WMF to employ some people
to defend our Intellectual Property rights. It would be difficult to insist
that people who want stricter enforcement leave the issue to WMF IP
enforcement, though I suspect some would. But unless we start insisting
that all contributions are dual licensed CC0 as well as any other license
we shouldn't complain about people who don't consider that their
contributions were dual licensed CC0.

I suspect the main effect of the WMF writing to organisations that use our
work without attribution would be for more attribution and more links back
to Commons. Sometimes there may be an offer to pay what a stock photo site
would charge, I suspect that many of us would be happy to donate such fees
to the WMF. I can understand reluctance on the part of the WMF and some of
its detractors to set up a new department and take on a new role. But
getting more attribution to our sites and our contributors isn't just an
opportunity to get some money and encourage more traffic to our sites. Many
of us are at least partly motivated by seeing our work in use and
attributed to us. Investing in encouraging more organisations to comply
with CC-BY-SA when reusing our contributions may be better thought of as an
editor retention program not an IP defence program.

In the spirit of being bold I have started a submission on this for a
roundtable discussion at Montreal. I hope that others on this list will be
equally bold and put themselves down as speakers.

https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/How_do_we_encourage_reusers_to_respect_CC-BY-SA%3F

WSC


>
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 07:06:35 -0700
> From: Todd Allen 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons,prevent cease and desist
> business
> Message-ID:
>  com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Thanks for the specific examples.
>
> I'm not a German speaker, and I know context and nuance can be lost in
> machine translation. That being said, the one about someone who was
> offering attribution and then got slapped with a bill for a simple
> technical error is very disturbing. Especially since as brought up before,
> a direct link would always lack the attribution contained on an
> accompanying page.
>
> The simple fact that it's legal doesn't change anything. It would be legal
> for me to create a website that doxxes editors. But I still would likely be
> banned if I did that. If the best defense you can offer for your actions is
> "It's not actually illegal!", that's a pretty lame defense.
>
> I don't know if either de.wp or Commons have the idea of "bringing the
> project into disrepute" being a reason to exclude someone from the project.
> But if they do, using legal demands rather than polite requests as a first
> resort and a trap to make a buck seem to qualify.
>
> I have no issue with editors asserting their legal rights if someone fails
> or refuses to accede to a request to bring material into license
> compliance, or if someone is acting in bad faith and their noncompliance is
> clearly deliberate. But the request should always be the first step, and if
> they do what was asked, that should be the end of it. That's especially
> true for those who made a good faith effort to comply and simply made a
> mistake in doing so.
>
> Todd
>
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Lodewijk]

Hi Gnagarra,

(in case others try to open the same link unsuccessfully as well: this one
should
work)
The discussion is from 2013, and good to look back at indeed.

I don't disagree that there may be occasions where legal action is the most
reasonable approach. Maybe it would be better to define a 'best practice'
in that field as a community, a path that we consider commonly accepted? It
is really the (perceived?) excesses that triggered this discussion, I
think, not the typical wikimedian that tries to get credit where credit is
due.

Respect may indeed be the term that should take center stage. It is fine
that people expect reusers to respect the terms - but I guess some may have
a disagreement what 'respect' really means, and whether or not it can be
accomplished by hefty 'penalties' and fearmongering.

Lodewijk

2017-03-06 2:01 GMT+01:00 Gnangarra :

> Lodewijk, I posted ​on the 4th,
>
> > Licensing and the choices have been discussed on Commons https://commons
> .
> > wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/AppropriatelyLicensed
> is
> > well worth a read to understand the issue
>
>
> the problem of no attribution is a real issue sometimes I just ask for the
> company to fix that and other times I just ignore.  On one occasion I went
> to a lawyer because the company had put their copyright mark on my photo
> and was offering it for sale. The cases highlighted are trivial and should
> normally be dismissed by courts but using predatory behavior of lawyers
> does get rewards.
>
> I agree that the predatory behavior needs to be addressed but in doing so
> we shouldnt be excluding the opportunity for recourse when malicious
> behaviors of the end user occur.   A part of the free sharing of knowledge
> is ensuring the under lying laws and conditions that enable it are also
> respected by all parties. ​
>
> On 6 March 2017 at 08:03, Lodewijk  wrote:
>
> > Hi Steinsplitter. Thanks for mentioning this was discussed multiple times
> > on Wikimedia Commons. The discussion on the German Wikipedia was actually
> > the trigger of this discussion, so we were aware of that existing. I
> didn't
> > see a reference to the discussions on Commons yet. Do you have links by
> any
> > chance?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > 2017-03-05 13:33 GMT+01:00 Steinsplitter Wiki <
> steinsplitter-w...@live.com
> > >:
> >
> > > This has been discussed multiple times on Wikimedia Commons and dewp,
> > thus
> > > i see no need to discuss it here again.
> > >
> > > The RFC on dewp [1] to ban such photos from being used failed, which
> > > speaks for itself.
> > >
> > > --Steinsplitter
> > >
> > > [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/
> > > keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > > Von: Wikimedia-l  im Auftrag
> > von
> > > rupert THURNER 
> > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 5. März 2017 10:22
> > > An: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist
> > > business
> > >
> > > case 1:
> > > 
> > > to name a couple of other persons if you want to google for
> > > "abmahnfalle wikipedia" (cease and desist trap wikipedia):
> > > 
> > >
> > > personally i favor a technical solution, as i find it pointless to put
> > > people on some pillory for doing what the law allows them to do. like
> > > separating into two commons - one save for reuse, one to be used if
> > > you know a lawyer. or to built into wikipedias infrastructure to
> > > include the license and author within the picture, fix wordpress,
> > > etcetc. besides of course fixing the CC license in case it still is
> > > not ready for proper online usage.
> > >
> > > rupert
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Lodewijk 
> > > wrote:
> > > > I've run into one or two people on OTRS that were reusing the
> materials
> > > in
> > > > good faith, but that got a letter from such a photographer that
> wanted
> > to
> > > > see money (and that is just spillover from Germany to the
> Netherlands).
> > > > Examples linked in the discussion include this warning and bill
> > > >  > > aus-der-wikipedia-2013-01-12>
> > > > of
> > > > hundreds of euros for a foundation that did not specify the author
> name
> > > or this
> > > > website that was asked  >
> > to
> > > > pay over a thousand euro. The discussion on the German WIkipedia may
> > > > contain more links, and the linked blogs are insightful on how this
> > > > behaviour is being perceived. Just google for "abmahnung bild
> > wikipedia"
> > > to
> > > > find more examples and stories.
> > > >
> > > > Hope that clarifies. German Wikipedians may have better examples.
> > > >
> > > > Lodewijk
> > > >
> > > > 2017-03-04 12:47 GMT+01:00 David Gerard :
> > > >
> > > >> This thread is notably long o

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Peter Southwood]

I agree with your principle. However whenever there is a way to game the 
system, someone will find it and use it. We have to stop this as it reflects 
poorly on those who work here with good faith. Using WMF sites for personal 
profit by using hidden or not easily visible traps is not what we are here to 
do, nor is providing the opportunity for enriching fraudsters who claim other 
people's work as their own.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Olatunde Isaac
Sent: Monday, 06 March 2017 9:37 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

I  think bad faith uploaders should be banned from uploading images to Commons. 
A blog which credited image taken from a Wikipedia article to Wikipedia is not 
as terrible as reputable newspaper which uses images from Wikipedia and claimed 
ownership of the image copyright. I think the copyright notice on some of the 
website is what triggered some of this charges. Imagine a website which uses an 
image I upload to Wikipedia without proper attribution and it's copyright 
notice reading "All contents on this website are intellectual property of 
xyz". 

Best,

Isaac
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.

-Original Message-
From: Gergő Tisza 
Sender: "Wikimedia-l" Date: Sun, 5 Mar 
2017 22:37:35
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons,
prevent cease and desist business

On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:

> I'm not a German speaker, and I know context and nuance can be lost in 
> machine translation. That being said, the one about someone who was 
> offering attribution and then got slapped with a bill for a simple 
> technical error is very disturbing. Especially since as brought up 
> before, a direct link would always lack the attribution contained on 
> an accompanying page.
>

I can read some German and looked into a similar case the last time this came 
up (the thread was called "harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the 
wikimedia foundation" and then suing users"). It involved (amongst
others) an amateur news blog which took an image from the Wikipedia article of 
some politician and credited it to "Wikipedia" (with link to the image 
description page; but no author or license), and was slapped with a ~$1000 fee. 
These kind of predatory tactics hurt the reputation and moral standing of the 
movement IMO.

I think asking for damages might be acceptable if
- the reuser is a big organization which has its own copyright lawyers (e.g. a 
commercial news publisher) and really should have known better
- the reuser refuses to fix the attribution when asked
- the reuser does not even attempt to indicate that the image is from elsewhere 
but when none of those is the case, threatening to sue violates the spirit of 
free content, even if it is in accordance with the fine print of the license.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14066 - Release Date: 03/06/17


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Olatunde Isaac]

I  think bad faith uploaders should be banned from uploading images to Commons. 
A blog which credited image taken from a Wikipedia article to Wikipedia is not 
as terrible as reputable newspaper which uses images from Wikipedia and claimed 
ownership of the image copyright. I think the copyright notice on some of the 
website is what triggered some of this charges. Imagine a website which uses an 
image I upload to Wikipedia without proper attribution and it's copyright 
notice reading "All contents on this website are intellectual property of 
xyz". 

Best,

Isaac
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.

-Original Message-
From: Gergő Tisza 
Sender: "Wikimedia-l" Date: Sun, 5 Mar 
2017 22:37:35 
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons,
prevent cease and desist business

On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:

> I'm not a German speaker, and I know context and nuance can be lost in
> machine translation. That being said, the one about someone who was
> offering attribution and then got slapped with a bill for a simple
> technical error is very disturbing. Especially since as brought up before,
> a direct link would always lack the attribution contained on an
> accompanying page.
>

I can read some German and looked into a similar case the last time this
came up (the thread was called "harald bischoff advertising to make images
"for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users"). It involved (amongst
others) an amateur news blog which took an image from the Wikipedia article
of some politician and credited it to "Wikipedia" (with link to the image
description page; but no author or license), and was slapped with a ~$1000
fee. These kind of predatory tactics hurt the reputation and moral standing
of the movement IMO.

I think asking for damages might be acceptable if
- the reuser is a big organization which has its own copyright lawyers
(e.g. a commercial news publisher) and really should have known better
- the reuser refuses to fix the attribution when asked
- the reuser does not even attempt to indicate that the image is from
elsewhere
but when none of those is the case, threatening to sue violates the spirit
of free content, even if it is in accordance with the fine print of the
license.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,