Re: [Wikimedia-l] Today's eclipse and Wikimedia Commons

[Ed Erhart]

Hey, folks:

To close the loop here: we've posted a Wikimedia Blog post about what we
did during this limited experiment, and how it went. https://blog.wikimedia.
org/2017/08/29/solar-eclipse-photos/

If you have thoughts, comments, and ideas for future similar initiatives,
please get in touch with us.

Best,
--Ed

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Melody Kramer 
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I wanted to let you know about some experimental outreach we have planned
> for today's solar eclipse, which will be partially visible from parts of
> the Americas, as well as spots in Asia, Africa, and Western Europe.
>
> We put together a blog post
>  [1] and infographic
>  eclipse_-_upload_to_Commons_infographic.png>
> [2]
> to encourage photographers of the upcoming solar eclipse
>  [3]  to
> upload them to Commons. This request was placed on the Village Pump [4]
> last week.
>
> We're planning to publicize the blog post on our social media channels
> today, and the only *specific* outreach we have planned is to encourage
> people who post high-quality photos on those platforms to upload them to
> Commons. We're deliberately limiting our push so we don't flood Commons
> with poor-quality photos, and/or make life difficult for anyone.
>
> Please feel free to use the infographic [2] to reach out to photographers,
> and let us know if you have any comments or concerns with anything. We'd
> love to work with you all on improvements as needed. This is definitely an
> experiment, and your feedback will help us figure out if we'll want to
> repeat it for other (perhaps more global) events. [5] We are also going to
> collect some basic metrics and will send them out once we assess today's
> experiment. Thank you!
>
> Mel
>
> [1] Featuring an interview with Wikimedia Commons user: Juliancolton, the
> post details how to take eclipse photos and how to upload them to Commons
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/08/18/solar-eclipse/
>
> [2] English:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:August_2017_solar_ec
> lipse_-_upload_to_Commons_infographic.png
> Spanish:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:August_2017_solar_ec
> lipse_-_upload_to_Commons_infographic_-_es.png
>
>
> [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse_of_August_21,_2017
>
> [4]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Ecli
> pse_photography
>
> [5] If this works, we would love to help make templates or encourage
> photographers to upload in the future. Please let us know what events might
> work with this approach.
>
>
>
> --
> Melody Kramer 
> Senior Audience Development Manager
> Read a random featured article from Wikipedia!
> 
>
> mkra...@wikimedia.org
> ___
> 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,
> 




-- 
Ed Erhart
Editorial Associate | Wikimedia Foundation
Wikimedia blog  | eerh...@wikimedia.org
Read a random featured article from the English Wikipedia

___
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] Attribution of external content

[Gnangarra]

Kaya

With all due respect if there are potential solutions already created then
it doent matter which project or what language they are on they can be
adapted and translated as necessary, even made global




On 29 August 2017 at 19:53, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> With all due respect. These templates are probably English Wikipedia only.
> Consequently they are not available on a Wikimedia level.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 29 August 2017 at 13:39, Richard Farmbrough 
> wrote:
>
> > We have a number of source specific templates, such  as {{EB1911}} for
> > acknowledging re-used source material.  There is as yet no automatic
> >  mechanism for changing these as and when the actual copying is replaced
> > entirely.
> >
> > On 28 Aug 2017 01:18, "Gnangarra"  wrote:
> >
> > > but the information is exactly the same, url, date, author, title - the
> > > refn template can include anything you need to add including license
> > detail
> > > ie cc-by all of which can be internal or external links
> > >
> > > On 28 August 2017 at 00:26, John Erling Blad  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Citation and reuse is two different things.
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Gnangarra 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > that notice states that text has been used, a specific citation
> where
> > > the
> > > > > text would add context by using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> > > > > Template:Refn
> > > > >
> > > > > On 27 August 2017 at 22:22, John Erling Blad 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Use of a template does not accurately identify the copied text,
> and
> > > in
> > > > > this
> > > > > > case nor the author.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The license is the contract with the author and the reason why
> the
> > > text
> > > > > can
> > > > > > be copied. If the license says the author shall be identified,
> the
> > by
> > > > > > attribution clause, then a link to the site is not good enough.
> If
> > > the
> > > > > > share alike clause is given, then it is even harder to give
> correct
> > > > > credit,
> > > > > > as the request for credit can be pretty weird.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anyhow, a page that is later edited is not necessarily something
> > the
> > > > > > external editor has created, he or she has created a part that at
> > > some
> > > > > > point in time was incorporated in the page, and the present page
> > may
> > > > not
> > > > > > even contain this content anymore.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Gnangarra 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:CC-notice on
> en
> > at
> > > > > least
> > > > > > > specifically for the purpose of incorporating text licensed
> cc-by
> > > > > content
> > > > > > > within articles
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 27 August 2017 at 21:28, John Erling Blad  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In some cases we need to attribute content created on
> external
> > > > sites,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > reused on Wikimedia-sites. In Norway Åndsverksloven says "The
> > > > creator
> > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > the right to be named according to good practice"
> > ("Opphavsmannen
> > > > har
> > > > > > > krav
> > > > > > > > på å bli navngitt slik som god skikk tilsier") and for our
> > > content
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > given by our license and our terms of use. That means by a
> link
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > page
> > > > > > > > if possible, or if possible an entry in the history.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Now we use a template on the page itself, or similar, but it
> is
> > > not
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > page on our site that the external entity has provided, they
> > have
> > > > > > > provided
> > > > > > > > the content at their site. So we must say that in some
> > consistent
> > > > > way.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I believe that the best option would be to have a log entry
> > > > injected
> > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > the history for our page that says "this revision comes in
> full
> > > or
> > > > > part
> > > > > > > > from that external source". Such an entry could be made by
> the
> > > > editor
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > an administrator, but must be made as an extension of the
> > > revision.
> > > > > It
> > > > > > > > should also be possible to delete such an entry.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > An alternative could be to make the summary editable, but the
> > > > summary
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > the description of the revision, not the source of the
> > revision.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Does this make sense? Will it solve the problem, or is it
> just
> > > > > another
> > > > > > > > level that makes things more confusing?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > John Erling Blad
> > > > > > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Attribution of external content

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
With all due respect. These templates are probably English Wikipedia only.
Consequently they are not available on a Wikimedia level.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 29 August 2017 at 13:39, Richard Farmbrough 
wrote:

> We have a number of source specific templates, such  as {{EB1911}} for
> acknowledging re-used source material.  There is as yet no automatic
>  mechanism for changing these as and when the actual copying is replaced
> entirely.
>
> On 28 Aug 2017 01:18, "Gnangarra"  wrote:
>
> > but the information is exactly the same, url, date, author, title - the
> > refn template can include anything you need to add including license
> detail
> > ie cc-by all of which can be internal or external links
> >
> > On 28 August 2017 at 00:26, John Erling Blad  wrote:
> >
> > > Citation and reuse is two different things.
> > >
> > > On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Gnangarra 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > that notice states that text has been used, a specific citation where
> > the
> > > > text would add context by using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> > > > Template:Refn
> > > >
> > > > On 27 August 2017 at 22:22, John Erling Blad 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Use of a template does not accurately identify the copied text, and
> > in
> > > > this
> > > > > case nor the author.
> > > > >
> > > > > The license is the contract with the author and the reason why the
> > text
> > > > can
> > > > > be copied. If the license says the author shall be identified, the
> by
> > > > > attribution clause, then a link to the site is not good enough. If
> > the
> > > > > share alike clause is given, then it is even harder to give correct
> > > > credit,
> > > > > as the request for credit can be pretty weird.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyhow, a page that is later edited is not necessarily something
> the
> > > > > external editor has created, he or she has created a part that at
> > some
> > > > > point in time was incorporated in the page, and the present page
> may
> > > not
> > > > > even contain this content anymore.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Gnangarra 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > There is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:CC-notice on en
> at
> > > > least
> > > > > > specifically for the purpose of incorporating text licensed cc-by
> > > > content
> > > > > > within articles
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 27 August 2017 at 21:28, John Erling Blad 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > In some cases we need to attribute content created on external
> > > sites,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > reused on Wikimedia-sites. In Norway Åndsverksloven says "The
> > > creator
> > > > > has
> > > > > > > the right to be named according to good practice"
> ("Opphavsmannen
> > > har
> > > > > > krav
> > > > > > > på å bli navngitt slik som god skikk tilsier") and for our
> > content
> > > > that
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > given by our license and our terms of use. That means by a link
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > page
> > > > > > > if possible, or if possible an entry in the history.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now we use a template on the page itself, or similar, but it is
> > not
> > > > the
> > > > > > > page on our site that the external entity has provided, they
> have
> > > > > > provided
> > > > > > > the content at their site. So we must say that in some
> consistent
> > > > way.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I believe that the best option would be to have a log entry
> > > injected
> > > > > into
> > > > > > > the history for our page that says "this revision comes in full
> > or
> > > > part
> > > > > > > from that external source". Such an entry could be made by the
> > > editor
> > > > > or
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > > an administrator, but must be made as an extension of the
> > revision.
> > > > It
> > > > > > > should also be possible to delete such an entry.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > An alternative could be to make the summary editable, but the
> > > summary
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > the description of the revision, not the source of the
> revision.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Does this make sense? Will it solve the problem, or is it just
> > > > another
> > > > > > > level that makes things more confusing?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John Erling Blad
> > > > > > > ___
> > > > > > > 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,
> > > > > > >  > > unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > GN.
> > > > > > President 

[Wikimedia-l] August 28: Strategy update - Draft movement direction and Wikimania materials (#24)

[Katherine Maher]

Hi all!

As I write this, I feel almost like a student returning to school. With
Wikimania behind us and autumnal weather starting outside it feels like the
start of a new year - and a return to serious things after the last days of
summer sunshine, storms, and socializing at Wikimedia in Montreal. But I
was always the sort of kid who loved the return of the school season as
much as I regretted the end of summer holidays: it meant it was time to
return to learning, exploring, and doing substantive things.

And we have many substantive things to do! Phase I of the strategy is
drawing to a close, and Phase II will start in November. A reminder that
Phase I was about collectively developing a shared strategic direction, and
Phase II will be about developing plans for how we make the direction a
reality. We’re nearly halfway there!

*Draft strategic direction*. Throughout the past few weeks community
members have been reviewing the draft strategic movement direction[1] which
was presented shortly before Wikimania. Thank you to everyone who has
already shared feedback. For those who haven’t yet, I encourage you to join
the discussion on the talk page. Because of the high volume of feedback
collected at Wikimania, we are extending the timeline to ensure the draft
incorporates the feedback appropriately. We expect to publish draft 2
sometime in early to mid September. Then we will have a 2-week period for
community review. If all goes according to plan, the final draft will post
by the end of September.

*Wikimania movement strategy space*. At Wikimania in Montreal, we welcomed
the community to learn more about the strategy process and discuss the
draft direction in the movement strategy space. We held three feedback
sessions, five facilitated sessions, and two presentation-oriented sessions
over four days. They focused on sharing insights from New Voices (experts,
attitudes and usage research in high awareness regions, research in low
awareness regions, and key global trends), insights from discussions for
organized groups and individual contributors, and exploring considerations
for Phase II (roles, responsibilities, and resources). The feedback from
those sessions has been collected in a report available on Meta.[2]

*Strategy keynote and session materials*. At Wikimania, our Wikimedia
Foundation Board Chair, Christophe Henner, and I discussed the strategic
direction during the opening keynote [3], and held a panel discussion with
fellow community members Ivan Martinez, Mervat Salman, Magnus Manske, and
Anasuya Sengupta, where they shared their perspectives on the strategic
direction. I also joined the heads of Creative Commons (Ryan Merkley) and
the Mozilla Foundation (Mark Surman) for a discussion about “The Big Open”
and how open culture organizations can join forces to strengthen our
movement. In other sessions and events, the strategy team presented insight
from this process. Many of those session presentations and notes are posted
on Meta, and more materials will be published in the coming days.[4]

I’ll be sure to send an update as soon as the new draft direction is ready,
but for those who are watching as we go, keep an eye on Meta - we’ll be
making changes there over the next few days as we continue to integrate
your feedback. In the meantime, thank you for your insights and
participation!

مع أطيب التحيات (Arabic translation: “Best regards”)

Katherine

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Direction#Where_the_world_is_going

[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/Wikimania_Movement_Strategy_Space_report

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdr2F8aB9y0
[4] https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/All_Session_Notes
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_metrics_and_activities_meetings


-- 
Katherine Maher

Wikimedia Foundation
1 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94104

+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
+1 (415) 712 4873
kma...@wikimedia.org
https://annual.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] [CoC] Call for feedback on the proposed amendments

[Amir Ladsgroup]

Hello,
Based on the text of Code of Conduct in technical spaces "Every three
months, the Committee collects the ideas proposed (if any) and organizes a
call for feedback announced in the main technical spaces." [0]

This is our first call for feedback on the proposed amendments and we
humbly ask you to chime in and help us make the code of conduct better.
Voice them in the talk page of the code of conduct.

The proposed amendments are:
* Explicitly mentioning Tool Forge (formally known as tool labs) in the CoC
[1]
* Including GitHub-hosted projects that are connected to the Wikimedia
community [2]
* Removing the part allowing discrimination when it's required by law. [3]
* Adding a part of mentioning impersonation as an unacceptable behavior. [4]


[0]: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct/Amendments
[1]:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct#Suggested_Amendment:_Add_tool_labs
[2]
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct#Suggested_Amendment:_Include_GitHub

[3]
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct#Suggested_Amendment:_Remove_.E2.80.9Cunless_required_by_law.E2.80.9D
[4]
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct#Suggested_Amendment:_No_impersonation

Thank you,
Amir on behalf of the Code of Conduct committee
___
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,