Agree that a further collaboration with internet archives on this could be
an excellent solution as I imagine they already do much of it.
On Tue, May 14, 2019, 21:13 Samuel Klein wrote:
> The archival question is a good one. The wikiverse could use a more
> archival gloss, and
The archival question is a good one. The wikiverse could use a more
archival gloss, and currently regularly breaks links where a slight
commitment to longer term reliably would preserve them intact. Nathan: long
term preservation is not yet part of the projects' raison d'etre. Perhaps
Lethargy, indecision, internal strife, and an abiding commitment to
self-enrichment and constant bureaucratic growth? Isn't that what every
maturing community with more than a handful of participants grows up to be?
The strategy process is certainly not except from these flaws. Why would it
I think questioning the strategy for sustaining the movement's projects is
worthwhile, particularly as part of the strategy discussion. I'm not sure
if sniping on this list is as fruitful.
I considered Fae's question as well; not just the mechanical "do we need an
archive site" that seemed
Speaking as a (very) longtime member of this mailing list, and one who is
carefully observing it for a few years now as a volunteer list
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 3:56 AM Joseph Seddon wrote:
> I, like many others, wish to see this list become a crucible of good
Philippe you are absolutely correct. Whilst I never commented on the
importance of any individual on this list nor the questioned the record of
anyone I admit that my tone was not what this list deserves. I also concur
there are merits to Fae's point.
However the intention behind my point is one
Félicitations et bien venue a la grande maison de connaissance libre
Le lun. 13 mai 2019 à 10:59, Bobby Shabangu a
> Congratulations to the new UG.
> Bobby Shabangu
> On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 19:18, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 May 2019 11:41:53 -0400
> > Kirill
This. What Risker said. Fae raises a fair point. And while the Foundation
certainly does not make policy based off of small discussions on mailing
list, it should (and used to) listen to those lists, and use them to aid in
decisions about what policy to make.
I like you a lot Joseph, but I’m
Well, I think perhaps Fae's question may be considered more generally. Fae
is knowledgeable about the structure of the Wikimedia movement as well as
the WMF, and I think it might be best to work from the assumption that
their core question is probably more along the lines of whether (and how)
The Internet Archive, incidentally, already seems to maintain copies of
Wikimedia projects. I don't know to what degree of fidelity. Additionally,
the WMF's core deliverable is already to provide and sustain access to its
projects. It has an endowment for that purpose already. Other websites and
Sorry, second message in 2 weeks or so that wrongly makes it to this list,
due to a similar address name.
Fixed now, hopefully... :\
Paulo Santos Perneta escreveu no dia terça,
14/05/2019 à(s) 20:51:
> É essencial que façamos uma reunião de direcção o mais brevemente
É essencial que façamos uma reunião de direcção o mais brevemente possível,
para tratar destes assuntos:
- Votação para o conselho de administração da WMF (escolha dos
candidatos q apoiamos)
- Aplicação aos Strategy Salons para discussão da Estratégia 2030 ao
nível de afiliado
I think that the mobile Suggested Edits feature and the related analysis
are interesting. I am forwarding text from that discussion.
Also, I was happy to see the recognition of two new user groups. They are
the WikiClassics User Group and the Wikimédiens du Bénin User Group.
What's making you
Thanks for the reply! Especially from an official WMF Community and
Audience Engagement Associate.
Can we take it from your defensive email it is a fact that the WMF has
no known long term archive strategy?
By the way, in your apparent opinion we may be unimportant people on
an email list, but
Il giorno mar 14 mag 2019 alle ore 15:46 Yann Forget ha
> Le mar. 14 mai 2019 à 15:32, Andy Mabbett a
> écrit :
> > On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 04:50, Yann Forget wrote:
> > > Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was
> > > published elsewhere before
Because the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't make long term strategic decisions
based off of a 4 person discussion on a mailing list.
I really don't know why people keep being surprised by this.
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 6:11 PM Fæ wrote:
> I saw a recent size estimate of Wikimedia Commons
I saw a recent size estimate of Wikimedia Commons of just over 200 TB.
That's large but not astronomical.
With a bit of guesstimation, the hardware only cost of creating a
Wikimedia projects digital tape archive might be around $2,000 per
archive set, a cost that probably would only be once a
To quote what you said
> > I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by
> > OTRS.
This is not about previous publishing, this is about the person
publishing a photo.
Problems with previous publishing is not special in any way for
professional photographers vs
Thanks Lane for the clarification. I disagree on some points, but it is useful
to read the points.
From: Wikimedia-l on behalf of Lane
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 4:34 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between
wiki norms which seem to have been transgressed -
- recognition that the program and submitted content was unusual and
- lack of on-wiki documentation of program
- lack of links between submitted content and on-wiki documentation
- lack of small pilot before
Sorry Lane... which " wiki publishing norm" did we fail?
From: Wikimedia-l on behalf of Lane
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 4:01 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
I see the problem as lack
I see the problem as lack of access to basic training information.
It appears that the team doing the uploads failed to comply to wiki
publishing norms. I do not see this as a problem between editors and
moderators, but rather as being between who editors versus our rules.
Le mar. 14 mai 2019 à 15:32, Andy Mabbett a
> On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 04:50, Yann Forget wrote:
> > Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was previously
> > published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons.
> Really? can you provide a link to a policy age
I think that raising the question here is fine. I also think that it is
more WMF's responsibility to be responsive than community members'
responsibility to guess where and how to ask questions.
In general (this is not intended as a criticism of you, Dan) my view is
that WMF has a very mixed
Nah, of course they do. We are using filters at the Portuguese Wikipedia
since 2009, and I can say, without blinking, that if it was not for
filters, IPs would have ceased to be allowed to edit at all there for good
now, so much it is the amount of IP vandalism that they automatically catch
You are right, Asaf. It seems that getting the sysop bit is much harder now
than it used to be in the past, possibly due to many situations of
inexperienced sysops causing havoc in Commons. OTOH, any
destructive/untrustworthy account, such as "Daphne Lantier"/INC, can easily
get the flag by being
I really think that the main problem here is not automation but the problem
Asaf pointed out: A small circle of people dictating the rules and who's
allowed to participate and who isn't. Automation just perpetuates the cycle
of those same people being in control of those processes.
On Mon, 13 May
> On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 05:10, Yann Forget wrote:
> > This was reverted. It is a dishonest edit with a misleading summary
On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 17:46, David Gerard wrote:
> Yann, you SERIOUSLY need to back up this claim of "dishonesty" on the
> part of a Wikmedian of long experience.
On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 04:50, Yann Forget wrote:
> Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was previously
> published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons.
Really? can you provide a link to a policy age proving that assertion?
Your claim rather makes a mockery of the
Any image recognition system has the potential to be misused. What we
imagined was flagging images for the later attention of volunteers to
A simple image hash might just be the basis for identifying potential
close matches to previously deleted files or derivatives of existing
In this case none of the images and videos were published outside Commons. But
there were claims that this were Derivative Works. We are again in the same
point: we are asking for uploaders to fulfill something beyond the usual
Mail list logo