Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive

[James Heilman]

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:

> Dearests.
>
> 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
> it should be.
>
> For instance sep11.wikipedia.org doesn't redirect where it should. We may
> not even still have an archival dump online. Deleted articles and their
> revs are no longer targetable by links, not even with redaction (like an
> oversighted rev in a rev list), making for ephemeralinks.
>
> A better phrasing might be: how are archives made and maintained, where are
> full copies of each project, is there any overview of how this is working?
> & How can interested parties add to the mirror count of a project?
>
> IA and IPFS each mirror some things. I don't know of any full-wikimedia
> mirror that includes all projects and files, and while there may be an
> internal mirror including all private userdata, I don't believe there is
> one offsite -- a delicate kind of mirroring that calls for some thought.
>
> SJ
>
> On Tue., May 14, 2019, 6:03 p.m. Nathan,  wrote:
>
> > 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
> > media that might have ephemeral access due to their nature as short-term
> > tools need the IA to be preserved, but the WMF's projects seem to occupy
> a
> > different space. It's sort of like asking if the Library of Congress
> needs
> > to invest in some external project to preserve and organize its
> > collections. No, that is its actual raison d'etre.
> > ___
> > 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 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] WMF commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive

[Samuel Klein]

Dearests.

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
it should be.

For instance sep11.wikipedia.org doesn't redirect where it should. We may
not even still have an archival dump online. Deleted articles and their
revs are no longer targetable by links, not even with redaction (like an
oversighted rev in a rev list), making for ephemeralinks.

A better phrasing might be: how are archives made and maintained, where are
full copies of each project, is there any overview of how this is working?
& How can interested parties add to the mirror count of a project?

IA and IPFS each mirror some things. I don't know of any full-wikimedia
mirror that includes all projects and files, and while there may be an
internal mirror including all private userdata, I don't believe there is
one offsite -- a delicate kind of mirroring that calls for some thought.

SJ

On Tue., May 14, 2019, 6:03 p.m. Nathan,  wrote:

> 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
> media that might have ephemeral access due to their nature as short-term
> tools need the IA to be preserved, but the WMF's projects seem to occupy a
> different space. It's sort of like asking if the Library of Congress needs
> to invest in some external project to preserve and organize its
> collections. No, that is its actual raison d'etre.
> ___
> 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] WMF commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive

[Joseph Seddon]

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?
:P

The strategy process is certainly not except from these flaws. Why would it
be? They are endemic across the movement throughout it's history and seen
at all levels today. But the strategy process is, like many other
processes, attempting to operate in a good faith manner and it is
definitely trying to take the movement in a better direction that it has
travelled so far (from an organisational standpoint). It consists of smart
people, working together in a good faith manner to effect positive change
within the movement.

For people like yourself who are dubious about the processes merits I think
you should still engage. Ensuring that it has the right focuses doesn't
necessitate prolonged engagement with the process. You don't need to go
through the slog of coming up with solutions necessarily, just make sure
someone will.

Regards
Seddon


On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 2:35 AM Nathan  wrote:

> 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 implicit, but the fundamental question of whether
> new action needs to be taken to ensure the Wikimedia projects can be
> preserved. I hadn't considered that the strategy process would abrogate the
> core promise of these projects, that worthwhile content would be largely
> preserved to make that worth perpetually available to others.
>
> If that's truly in question I find it hard to imagine what else the
> strategy discussion could find as a substitute. I haven't engaged in the
> strategy discussion for lots of reasons, but one is that I long ago
> acquired a deep skepticism of movement bureaucracy, whether within the
> projects or without. The entire edifice seems to have adopted the worst
> attributes of bureaucracy - lethargy, indecision, internal strife, and an
> abiding commitment to self-enrichment and constant bureaucratic growth.
>
> All that rescues the movement is the persistent desire of its contributors
> to add, improve and conserve and the simple demand that the bureaucracy -
> if it does nothing else - keep the lights on and stay out of the way. If
> that changes, then perhaps we will need the Internet Archive to step in
> after all.
>
> PS: Thanks, Seddon, for your thoughtful reconsideration of your earlier
> post. To muddle the words of Michelle Obama, always go high. You can't go
> wrong.
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 7:49 PM Risker  wrote:
>
> > 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 current long-term strategy development process will, in fact, make
> > recommendations that are in line with ensuring that there will be (at
> > minimum) a publicly accessible archive of the Wikimedia projects.
> >
> > The movement strategy process is very broad, and  contains a lot of
> diverse
> > ideas about how the movement/WMF/chapters/other entities/projects can be
> > improved, maintained, developed and supported.  I'm pretty deep in the
> > strategy stuff, and as far as I know, at this point there's no clear path
> > to maintaining (or dissolving) any of the existing structures; more to
> the
> > point, there's no guarantee that the final summary recommendations of the
> > combined strategy groups will continue to support the current WMF mission
> > statement - that is, the part that says " [t]he [Wikimedia] Foundation
> will
> > make and keep useful information from its projects available on the
> > internet free of charge, in perpetuity."
> >
> > I don't think that's really a bad question to ask - in fact, it may be
> one
> > of the more important ones.  I hope I am not presuming too much, but I
> > think Fae is saying that this is something that is really important and
> > valuable, and that continuity/perpetuation of that particular aspect of
> the
> > mission statement should be a recommendation that gets included in the
> > final reports - regardless of which entity assumes responsibility for it
> or
> > who pays for it.
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> >
> > On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 18:03, Nathan  wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive

[Nathan]

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 implicit, but the fundamental question of whether
new action needs to be taken to ensure the Wikimedia projects can be
preserved. I hadn't considered that the strategy process would abrogate the
core promise of these projects, that worthwhile content would be largely
preserved to make that worth perpetually available to others.

If that's truly in question I find it hard to imagine what else the
strategy discussion could find as a substitute. I haven't engaged in the
strategy discussion for lots of reasons, but one is that I long ago
acquired a deep skepticism of movement bureaucracy, whether within the
projects or without. The entire edifice seems to have adopted the worst
attributes of bureaucracy - lethargy, indecision, internal strife, and an
abiding commitment to self-enrichment and constant bureaucratic growth.

All that rescues the movement is the persistent desire of its contributors
to add, improve and conserve and the simple demand that the bureaucracy -
if it does nothing else - keep the lights on and stay out of the way. If
that changes, then perhaps we will need the Internet Archive to step in
after all.

PS: Thanks, Seddon, for your thoughtful reconsideration of your earlier
post. To muddle the words of Michelle Obama, always go high. You can't go
wrong.

On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 7:49 PM Risker  wrote:

> 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 current long-term strategy development process will, in fact, make
> recommendations that are in line with ensuring that there will be (at
> minimum) a publicly accessible archive of the Wikimedia projects.
>
> The movement strategy process is very broad, and  contains a lot of diverse
> ideas about how the movement/WMF/chapters/other entities/projects can be
> improved, maintained, developed and supported.  I'm pretty deep in the
> strategy stuff, and as far as I know, at this point there's no clear path
> to maintaining (or dissolving) any of the existing structures; more to the
> point, there's no guarantee that the final summary recommendations of the
> combined strategy groups will continue to support the current WMF mission
> statement - that is, the part that says " [t]he [Wikimedia] Foundation will
> make and keep useful information from its projects available on the
> internet free of charge, in perpetuity."
>
> I don't think that's really a bad question to ask - in fact, it may be one
> of the more important ones.  I hope I am not presuming too much, but I
> think Fae is saying that this is something that is really important and
> valuable, and that continuity/perpetuation of that particular aspect of the
> mission statement should be a recommendation that gets included in the
> final reports - regardless of which entity assumes responsibility for it or
> who pays for it.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 18:03, Nathan  wrote:
>
> > 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
> > media that might have ephemeral access due to their nature as short-term
> > tools need the IA to be preserved, but the WMF's projects seem to occupy
> a
> > different space. It's sort of like asking if the Library of Congress
> needs
> > to invest in some external project to preserve and organize its
> > collections. No, that is its actual raison d'etre.
> > ___
> > 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 mailing list, guidelines at: 

[Wikimedia-l] Be the change you want to see (was: WMF commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive)

[Asaf Bartov]

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
co-administrator:

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
> suggestions, healthy and critical debate about ideas and as a sound
> mechanism for oversight and account . A huge amount of staff time and
> movement resources is taken up by the consumption of its content. And yet
> it remains the greatest shame that much of the best most worthwhile
> constructive discussions have moved to platforms like Facebook because this
> list is viewed as hosting such an unhealthy atmosphere when emails are
> written with such overt passive aggression.
>
> I call it out because if we want people to participate on this list, the
> unhealthy way in which this list gets treated by some of its most active
> participants needs to be dealt with. Otherwise valid points will not get
> acknowledged or answered.
>

I am not sure the causality here runs in the direction you describe.  It's
true that this list had some aggressive, even vulgar participants in the
past, and that some senior staff members, as well as board members, have
left the list in protest.  Personally, I think that was a mistake on their
part: to improve the list atmosphere, you model good behavior yourself, and
you call upon the rest of the list -- the "silent majority" -- to call out
bad behavior and enforce some participation standards (as, indeed, I and my
co-moderators have been doing since we took over).

By senior people's departing this list, and no longer requiring staff to be
on this list, a strong signal was sent that this is not a venue crucial to
listen to, and that, coupled with the decreasing frequency of WMF responses
to legitimate volunteer inquiries and suggestions, had a *powerful*
chilling effect on the willingness of most volunteers to engage here.
Especially when, as you say, they were able to get better engagement on
Facebook and other channels, despite the serious shortcomings of
accountability on those channels (immutable archiving, searchability,
access to anonymous volunteers, etc.)

Yes, this list has also seen some pseudonymous critics whose questions may
have been inconvenient or troublesome to address.  Yet I think the
accountable thing to do would have been to respond, however briefly, to
prevent the sealioning and sanctimonious posts that filled the list -- and,
I am sure, greatly annoyed and demotivated many subscribers.  Even a
response stating WMF chooses not to respond to a certain question, or not
to dig up certain data, would have been better than the stony silence that
has become the all-too-common stance for WMF on this list.

As you know, I also work for WMF (though I am writing this in my volunteer
capacity, and out of my care for the well-being of this list).  While I
have never shied away from responding on this list, I have on occasion been
scolded (internally) for attempting to answer volunteer queries to the best
of my knowledge, for "outstepping my remit" or interfering in someone
else's remit.  I have taken this to heart, and accordingly no longer try to
respond to queries such as Fae's (which in this case I find a perfectly
reasonable question, meriting an answer).  Several past attempts by me to
ping appropriate senior staff on questions on this list (or on talk pages)
have also met with rebuke, so I have ceased those as well.

For these reasons I do not accept this wholesale blaming of this list's
subscribers on the difficulty having meaningful conversations here:

But if we want to see staff members more actively
> participating here then those long standing individuals need to really
> thing about the tone in which they engage here, particularly those who do
> so most often. If that does not change, this list will continue to languish
> and those few staff members who continue to engage here will slowly
> disappear. This now increasingly perennial topic keeps coming up and my
> fear is that it will on go away through the increasing abandonment this
> list faces.
>

It is WMF that is not behaving collaboratively here.  And it is within
WMF's power to change it.  C-levels, the ED, and other managers at WMF
could all decide to participate more actively in this list; to respond to
questions or delegate the answering to their subordinates, who are awaiting
their cue; and indeed, they could themselves make more use of this list as
a sounding board, a consultation room, and a reserve of experience and
diverse context.  They can be the change they (and you, and me) would like
to see.

Perhaps this e-mail could convince some of them.  And if not my words, then
perhaps those of some of the other list subscribers.

A.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive

[Joseph Seddon]

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 I stand by. The switch from a
sound reasonable query into one laced with bad faith, poisoned the well. It
jumped immediately to an assumption that this was down to unwillingness of
senior staff to address the point. That's not healthy.

I, like many others, wish to see this list become a crucible of good
suggestions, healthy and critical debate about ideas and as a sound
mechanism for oversight and account . A huge amount of staff time and
movement resources is taken up by the consumption of its content. And yet
it remains the greatest shame that much of the best most worthwhile
constructive discussions have moved to platforms like Facebook because this
list is viewed as hosting such an unhealthy atmosphere when emails are
written with such overt passive aggression.

I call it out because if we want people to participate on this list, the
unhealthy way in which this list gets treated by some of its most active
participants needs to be dealt with. Otherwise valid points will not get
acknowledged or answered.

I have never shied from engaging here and I and others want to be able, in
good faith, be able to recommend and encourage fellow colleague and
volunteers to participate in this venue but I and many others can't do
that.

So I recognise that I should have approached my feedback on tone in a more
constructive manner and set a good example. It stemmed from a deep-rooted
frustration that I offer my apologies for allowing that to dictate the the
tone of my response. But if we want to see staff members more actively
participating here then those long standing individuals need to really
thing about the tone in which they engage here, particularly those who do
so most often. If that does not change, this list will continue to languish
and those few staff members who continue to engage here will slowly
disappear. This now increasingly perennial topic keeps coming up and my
fear is that it will on go away through the increasing abandonment this
list faces.

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:57 AM Philippe Beaudette 
wrote:

> 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 afraid your comment here was regrettable.
>   Nobody here was suggesting that the foundation make that policy based off
> of the small group discussion, whether in a public mailing list or
> otherwise. However, a long time valued member of the community was raising
> a reasonable question. It deserves a better answer than that.
>
> Respectfully, and with great fondness,
> Philippe
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 4:49 PM Risker  wrote:
>
> > 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 current long-term strategy development process will, in fact, make
> > recommendations that are in line with ensuring that there will be (at
> > minimum) a publicly accessible archive of the Wikimedia projects.
> >
> > The movement strategy process is very broad, and  contains a lot of
> diverse
> > ideas about how the movement/WMF/chapters/other entities/projects can be
> > improved, maintained, developed and supported.  I'm pretty deep in the
> > strategy stuff, and as far as I know, at this point there's no clear path
> > to maintaining (or dissolving) any of the existing structures; more to
> the
> > point, there's no guarantee that the final summary recommendations of the
> > combined strategy groups will continue to support the current WMF mission
> > statement - that is, the part that says " [t]he [Wikimedia] Foundation
> will
> > make and keep useful information from its projects available on the
> > internet free of charge, in perpetuity."
> >
> > I don't think that's really a bad question to ask - in fact, it may be
> one
> > of the more important ones.  I hope I am not presuming too much, but I
> > think Fae is saying that this is something that is really important and
> > valuable, and that continuity/perpetuation of that particular aspect of
> the
> > mission statement should be a recommendation that gets included in the
> > final reports - regardless of which entity assumes responsibility for it
> or
> > who pays for it.
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> >
> > On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 18:03, Nathan  wrote:
> >
> > > The Internet Archive, incidentally, already 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Recognition of the Wikimédiens du Bénin User Group

[Aboubacar Keïta]

Félicitations et bien venue a la grande maison de connaissance libre

Le lun. 13 mai 2019 à 10:59, Bobby Shabangu  a
écrit :

> Congratulations to the new UG.
>
> Regards,
> Bobby Shabangu
>
> On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 19:18, Shlomi Fish  wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 12 May 2019 11:41:53 -0400
> > Kirill Lokshin  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi everyone!
> > >
> > > I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has
> recognized
> > > [1] the Wikimédiens du Bénin User Group [2] as a Wikimedia User Group.
> > The
> > > group aims to support the community of active contributors that develop
> > > content about Bénin, its story, culture, and people; to promote
> Beninese
> > > indigenous languages on Wikipedia and its sister projects; and to
> develop
> > > partnerships with national and international institutions to promote
> use
> > of
> > > and contribution to Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!
> > >
> >
> > Congratulations!
> >
> > > Regards,
> > > Kirill Lokshin
> > > Chair, Affiliations Committee
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Resolutions/Recognition_of_Wikimédiens_du_Bénin_User_Group
> > > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédiens_du_Bénin_User_Group
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > > 
> >
> >
> > --
> > -
> > Shlomi Fish   http://www.shlomifish.org/
> > http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/facts/Emma-Watson/
> >
> > Sesquipedallianism: making excessive use of long words.
> >
> > Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply
> .
> >
> > ___
> > 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,
> 



-- 

Coordialement
*Aboubacar Keita
*

* Président *

*Adresse: Bantounka2
,
Ratoma,
ConakryTelephone : + 224 628 09 71 55 <+224628097155> - 654 30 70 40*
*De:  *Wikimedia.GIN


[image: https://m.facebook.com/wikimediaGN/]

___
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] WMF commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive

[Philippe Beaudette]

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 afraid your comment here was regrettable.
  Nobody here was suggesting that the foundation make that policy based off
of the small group discussion, whether in a public mailing list or
otherwise. However, a long time valued member of the community was raising
a reasonable question. It deserves a better answer than that.

Respectfully, and with great fondness,
Philippe

On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 4:49 PM Risker  wrote:

> 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 current long-term strategy development process will, in fact, make
> recommendations that are in line with ensuring that there will be (at
> minimum) a publicly accessible archive of the Wikimedia projects.
>
> The movement strategy process is very broad, and  contains a lot of diverse
> ideas about how the movement/WMF/chapters/other entities/projects can be
> improved, maintained, developed and supported.  I'm pretty deep in the
> strategy stuff, and as far as I know, at this point there's no clear path
> to maintaining (or dissolving) any of the existing structures; more to the
> point, there's no guarantee that the final summary recommendations of the
> combined strategy groups will continue to support the current WMF mission
> statement - that is, the part that says " [t]he [Wikimedia] Foundation will
> make and keep useful information from its projects available on the
> internet free of charge, in perpetuity."
>
> I don't think that's really a bad question to ask - in fact, it may be one
> of the more important ones.  I hope I am not presuming too much, but I
> think Fae is saying that this is something that is really important and
> valuable, and that continuity/perpetuation of that particular aspect of the
> mission statement should be a recommendation that gets included in the
> final reports - regardless of which entity assumes responsibility for it or
> who pays for it.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 18:03, Nathan  wrote:
>
> > 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
> > media that might have ephemeral access due to their nature as short-term
> > tools need the IA to be preserved, but the WMF's projects seem to occupy
> a
> > different space. It's sort of like asking if the Library of Congress
> needs
> > to invest in some external project to preserve and organize its
> > collections. No, that is its actual raison d'etre.
> > ___
> > 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,
> 

-- 
Philippe Beaudette
phili...@beaudette.me
___
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] WMF commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive

[Risker]

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 current long-term strategy development process will, in fact, make
recommendations that are in line with ensuring that there will be (at
minimum) a publicly accessible archive of the Wikimedia projects.

The movement strategy process is very broad, and  contains a lot of diverse
ideas about how the movement/WMF/chapters/other entities/projects can be
improved, maintained, developed and supported.  I'm pretty deep in the
strategy stuff, and as far as I know, at this point there's no clear path
to maintaining (or dissolving) any of the existing structures; more to the
point, there's no guarantee that the final summary recommendations of the
combined strategy groups will continue to support the current WMF mission
statement - that is, the part that says " [t]he [Wikimedia] Foundation will
make and keep useful information from its projects available on the
internet free of charge, in perpetuity."

I don't think that's really a bad question to ask - in fact, it may be one
of the more important ones.  I hope I am not presuming too much, but I
think Fae is saying that this is something that is really important and
valuable, and that continuity/perpetuation of that particular aspect of the
mission statement should be a recommendation that gets included in the
final reports - regardless of which entity assumes responsibility for it or
who pays for it.

Risker/Anne

On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 18:03, Nathan  wrote:

> 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
> media that might have ephemeral access due to their nature as short-term
> tools need the IA to be preserved, but the WMF's projects seem to occupy a
> different space. It's sort of like asking if the Library of Congress needs
> to invest in some external project to preserve and organize its
> collections. No, that is its actual raison d'etre.
> ___
> 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] WMF commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive

[Nathan]

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
media that might have ephemeral access due to their nature as short-term
tools need the IA to be preserved, but the WMF's projects seem to occupy a
different space. It's sort of like asking if the Library of Congress needs
to invest in some external project to preserve and organize its
collections. No, that is its actual raison d'etre.
___
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] Reunião de Direcção sábado

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

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


Paulo Santos Perneta  escreveu no dia terça,
14/05/2019 à(s) 20:51:

> Olá,
>
> 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
>- RG / conferência nacional em Setembro
>
> O Gonçalo sugeriu o sabado, a qualquer hora. Alguém tem preferência na
> hora?
>
> Abraço,
> Paulo
>
___
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] Reunião de Direcção sábado

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

Olá,

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
   - RG / conferência nacional em Setembro

O Gonçalo sugeriu o sabado, a qualquer hora. Alguém tem preferência na hora?

Abraço,
Paulo
___
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] Qu'est-ce qui te rend heureuse cette semaine? / What's making you happy this week? (Week of 12 May 2019)

[Pine W]

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 happy this week? You are welcome to comment in any
language.


Pine

( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


-- Forwarded message -
From: Charlotte Gauthier
Date: Tue, May 14, 2019, 08:07
Subject: Re: [WikimediaMobile] Stats & data from launch of Suggested Edits
on Wikipedia Android app


Thanks for this great info, Mikhail, and for the work that went into
producing this useful - and beautiful! - report.

We do indeed have plans to experiment with the thresholds to find the
optimum balance point between wide adoption and maintaining contribution
quality, to extend the feature with new microcontribution types, and to
begin intensive testing to find ways to encourage users to explore more of
the feature, and to inspire long-term use. Advertising new contribution
types and re-activation of editors who have previously tried the feature
will be one of the mainstays of our push messaging strategy.

If anyone is interested in our particular plans over the next year, don't
hesitate to get in touch. We've already been having wider discussions with
several teams on how we could possibly work together towards mutual goals.

Cheers,
Charlotte

On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 9:37 PM Mikhail Popov  wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> I wanted to highlight a few really interesting pieces of data/stats
> regarding the release of the Suggested Edits feature on Wikipedia app for
> Android. These come from the daily report
> ,
> which is also where you'll find a brief description of the feature.
>
> First, at this time 25.3% of editors (whose contributions are being
> tracked since launch of the backend) have unlocked the feature by making
> the 5+ title description edits
> 
> currently required to unlock it. (See: unlock stats
> )
> That's 632 editors out of the 2495 editors who have made at least one title
> description edit since April 5th. We have plans to experiment with this
> threshold and see what happens if we lower the barrier to entry.
>
>
> By the way, we don’t expect all logged-in users to edit or unlock the
> feature (by making the required number of title description edits), as
> there are incentives on the mobile apps to use an account just for reading
> (e.g. reading list syncing
> ).
> However, perhaps we should advertise this ability better (especially to
> logged-in users) and that those title descriptions don’t require any
> knowledge of wikitext.
>
>
> And since the production release, the feature has had a steady stream of
> 20+ users unlocking it per day. What are our users doing with it once they
> unlock it? They’ve been using it! (Sorry if the text in the included graph
> is too small to be legible, it's larger in the report.)
>
> Nearly half of all title description edits made with the Android app each
> day are coming in from editors using the Suggested Edits feature to add &
> translate descriptions. More than half, even, on some days! Furthermore,
> some of those edits are made by users who have previously used the feature.
> Every day we have some editors who are using Suggested Edits for the first
> time, but there are also quite a few who are returning to the Editor Tasks
> screen & contributing more. (See: edit stats
> 
> )
>
> “Okay, so what’s the quality of those 200-400 descriptions being added
> every day?” you might ask. Well, one way we can check that is to check how
> many of those edits are reverted within 48 hours. Turns out, almost none
> of them:
>
> This is especially impressive when compared to the proportion of other
> title description edits that are reverted. (See: revert rate
> 
> )
>
> When the user goes to the Suggested Edits screen and opens a task, they
> begin receiving suggestions of articles to add descriptions to (or
> translate descriptions, if they have unlocked that next tier of Suggested
> Edits). On average, users express interest in editing 30-40% of those
> suggestions. Among the suggestions they tapped to edit, they end up
> actually making an edit around 60% of the time (although the average varies
> from 40% to 70%). (See: interactions
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive

[Fæ]

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 we have a long history of taking the initiative to
fundamentally shape the WMF, and not that long ago took action that
ensured a board member resigned and the WMF establish radically
different good governance practices. Not a bad record for loner unpaid
volunteers.

Thanks in advance,
Fae

On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 18:38, Joseph Seddon  wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> Seddon
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 6:11 PM Fæ  wrote:
>
> > 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 year. Using
> > off-the-shelf kit, a similar archive on a set of 10 TB hard disks
> > might end up being double that cost. Archives like this are good for a
> > few years, but in practice a plan would have them periodically tested
> > and refreshed, unless they are being replaced every year with the
> > latest archive.
> >
> > It is unclear to me why the WMF would not want to make a hearty
> > transparent and public commitment to off-site archives. At least with
> > an independently managed archive in another country, that at least
> > makes it possible that in some bizarre scenario where an extremist US
> > government makes it a federal crime to fail to either 'amend' the
> > Wikimedia database against the values of the WMF, or legally orders
> > the WMF to take down its websites in order to control certain
> > publications, videos or photographs, that WMF employees can
> > appropriately comply with US federal law, but are not be required to
> > do anything about the public archive hosted by a different
> > organization in another country. If such an unlikely scenario came to
> > pass (and the unexpected seems to becoming something to realistically
> > plan for these days), at least the archive could be resurrected for
> > public access within a few weeks by open knowledge organizations who
> > have staff that would never be subject to federal law in the US.
> >
> > If the WMF honestly does not already do something like this already,
> > and wanted to earmark the relatively trivial sum of $10,000/year for
> > remote archives, us volunteers would be happy to approach a couple of
> > suitable national-level partners in Europe that could easily
> > physically host the archives each year and would probably like the
> > idea of blogging about it, as protecting open knowledge fits their
> > values and commitments.
> >
> > Any WMF board members interested in asking some questions internally,
> > if the WMF senior management are unwilling to answer this rather
> > simple question publicly?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Fae
> > --
> > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 14:36, Pine W  wrote:
> > >
> > > 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 record on responsiveness. Some employees and
> > > board members repeatedly go above and beyond the call of duty, while
> > other
> > > employees and board members ignore repeated questions, and some people
> > are
> > > in between. The first group seems to me to deserve a lot of credit, while
> > > second group comes across to me as disrespectful and lazy. I have
> > > previously complained about problems with responsiveness to multiple
> > > managers in WMF,  and unfortunately that has not resulted in widespread
> > > improvements that I have observed. I think that the problem may have more
> > > to do with organizational culture and lack of will than with lack of
> > > capacity. Let me emphasize that unresponsiveness is not a problem with
> > > everyone in WMF, but I think that it is a significant problem and I know
> > of
> > > no excuses for it.
> > >
> > > Pine
> > >
> > > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 7, 2019, 10:50 Dan Garry (Deskana) 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue 7 May 2019 at 11:04, Fæ  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I am sure this Wikimedia wide community run list is a perfectly good
> > > > place
> > > > > to check whether the WMF has any commitment to long term public
> > archives,
> > > > > or 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Vi to]

Il giorno mar 14 mag 2019 alle ore 15:46 Yann Forget  ha
scritto:

> 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
> 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 suggestion that people should
> > publish to, for example, Flickr before importing to commons
> >
>
> Unless the external publication is done with a free license, of course.
> AFAIK, there is no "official" suggestion that people should publish to
> Flickr before importing to Commons.
>

For EU citizens upload at Flickr could actually reduce our
GDPR-responsibility as platform.

Il giorno mar 14 mag 2019 alle ore 16:03 Lane Rasberry <
l...@bluerasberry.com> ha scritto:

>
>
> The answer is not to lower the quality of our content, but rather to
> communicate more effectively the standard of quality that we require. With
> our standards already being so low, requiring things like proof of legal
> compliance, minimal verifiability, and having brief civil conversations in
> case of difficulty, it is challenging for me to imagine us reducing any of
> these already reasonable expectations.
>

+10

Il giorno lun 13 mag 2019 alle ore 21:42 Isaac Olatunde <
reachout2is...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> Not all local sysops have a strong knowledge of image licensing and I think
> allowing local sysops not familiar with image licensing and how Commons
> community works in general to delete\undelete files would be
> counterproductive.
>

I still think they can just left performing actions at their own
responsibility.

Il giorno mar 14 mag 2019 alle ore 15:25 Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> 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
> and block... per hour. With some false positives in the middle, of course,
> but nothing is perfect.


 I agree, but most of abusefilter effectiveness lies in 'block' option,
which is not so common among wikis.

Vito
___
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] WMF commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive

[Joseph Seddon]

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.

Seddon

On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 6:11 PM Fæ  wrote:

> 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 year. Using
> off-the-shelf kit, a similar archive on a set of 10 TB hard disks
> might end up being double that cost. Archives like this are good for a
> few years, but in practice a plan would have them periodically tested
> and refreshed, unless they are being replaced every year with the
> latest archive.
>
> It is unclear to me why the WMF would not want to make a hearty
> transparent and public commitment to off-site archives. At least with
> an independently managed archive in another country, that at least
> makes it possible that in some bizarre scenario where an extremist US
> government makes it a federal crime to fail to either 'amend' the
> Wikimedia database against the values of the WMF, or legally orders
> the WMF to take down its websites in order to control certain
> publications, videos or photographs, that WMF employees can
> appropriately comply with US federal law, but are not be required to
> do anything about the public archive hosted by a different
> organization in another country. If such an unlikely scenario came to
> pass (and the unexpected seems to becoming something to realistically
> plan for these days), at least the archive could be resurrected for
> public access within a few weeks by open knowledge organizations who
> have staff that would never be subject to federal law in the US.
>
> If the WMF honestly does not already do something like this already,
> and wanted to earmark the relatively trivial sum of $10,000/year for
> remote archives, us volunteers would be happy to approach a couple of
> suitable national-level partners in Europe that could easily
> physically host the archives each year and would probably like the
> idea of blogging about it, as protecting open knowledge fits their
> values and commitments.
>
> Any WMF board members interested in asking some questions internally,
> if the WMF senior management are unwilling to answer this rather
> simple question publicly?
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 14:36, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > 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 record on responsiveness. Some employees and
> > board members repeatedly go above and beyond the call of duty, while
> other
> > employees and board members ignore repeated questions, and some people
> are
> > in between. The first group seems to me to deserve a lot of credit, while
> > second group comes across to me as disrespectful and lazy. I have
> > previously complained about problems with responsiveness to multiple
> > managers in WMF,  and unfortunately that has not resulted in widespread
> > improvements that I have observed. I think that the problem may have more
> > to do with organizational culture and lack of will than with lack of
> > capacity. Let me emphasize that unresponsiveness is not a problem with
> > everyone in WMF, but I think that it is a significant problem and I know
> of
> > no excuses for it.
> >
> > Pine
> >
> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 7, 2019, 10:50 Dan Garry (Deskana) 
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue 7 May 2019 at 11:04, Fæ  wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am sure this Wikimedia wide community run list is a perfectly good
> > > place
> > > > to check whether the WMF has any commitment to long term public
> archives,
> > > > or not.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your advice as to where to go, but the strategy process
> groups
> > > > are undoubtedly a worse place to ask this question and expect a
> > > verifiable
> > > > answer.
> > >
> > >
> > > I see! Then I will defer to your clear expertise in getting definitive
> > > answers. I look forward to seeing the outcome!
> > >
> > > Dan
> > > ___
> > > 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] WMF commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive

[Fæ]

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 year. Using
off-the-shelf kit, a similar archive on a set of 10 TB hard disks
might end up being double that cost. Archives like this are good for a
few years, but in practice a plan would have them periodically tested
and refreshed, unless they are being replaced every year with the
latest archive.

It is unclear to me why the WMF would not want to make a hearty
transparent and public commitment to off-site archives. At least with
an independently managed archive in another country, that at least
makes it possible that in some bizarre scenario where an extremist US
government makes it a federal crime to fail to either 'amend' the
Wikimedia database against the values of the WMF, or legally orders
the WMF to take down its websites in order to control certain
publications, videos or photographs, that WMF employees can
appropriately comply with US federal law, but are not be required to
do anything about the public archive hosted by a different
organization in another country. If such an unlikely scenario came to
pass (and the unexpected seems to becoming something to realistically
plan for these days), at least the archive could be resurrected for
public access within a few weeks by open knowledge organizations who
have staff that would never be subject to federal law in the US.

If the WMF honestly does not already do something like this already,
and wanted to earmark the relatively trivial sum of $10,000/year for
remote archives, us volunteers would be happy to approach a couple of
suitable national-level partners in Europe that could easily
physically host the archives each year and would probably like the
idea of blogging about it, as protecting open knowledge fits their
values and commitments.

Any WMF board members interested in asking some questions internally,
if the WMF senior management are unwilling to answer this rather
simple question publicly?

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

On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 14:36, Pine W  wrote:
>
> 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 record on responsiveness. Some employees and
> board members repeatedly go above and beyond the call of duty, while other
> employees and board members ignore repeated questions, and some people are
> in between. The first group seems to me to deserve a lot of credit, while
> second group comes across to me as disrespectful and lazy. I have
> previously complained about problems with responsiveness to multiple
> managers in WMF,  and unfortunately that has not resulted in widespread
> improvements that I have observed. I think that the problem may have more
> to do with organizational culture and lack of will than with lack of
> capacity. Let me emphasize that unresponsiveness is not a problem with
> everyone in WMF, but I think that it is a significant problem and I know of
> no excuses for it.
>
> Pine
>
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 7, 2019, 10:50 Dan Garry (Deskana)  wrote:
>
> > On Tue 7 May 2019 at 11:04, Fæ  wrote:
> >
> > > I am sure this Wikimedia wide community run list is a perfectly good
> > place
> > > to check whether the WMF has any commitment to long term public archives,
> > > or not.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your advice as to where to go, but the strategy process groups
> > > are undoubtedly a worse place to ask this question and expect a
> > verifiable
> > > answer.
> >
> >
> > I see! Then I will defer to your clear expertise in getting definitive
> > answers. I look forward to seeing the outcome!
> >
> > Dan
> > ___
> > 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 mailing list, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[John Erling Blad]

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 amateur photographers. If a photo is
previously published it _may_ be an indication of a copyvio, but it
can also clarify the matter as the previous published photo may carry
a byline stating the name of the photographer.
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 6:44 AM Yann Forget  wrote:
>
> The issue is not in that way.
> If you published an image exclusively on Commons, then no problem.
> If you first publish an image outside Commons, how do we know that you are
> the author?
> OK, there may be some factors to prove that (consistency of EXIF data,
> etc.), but in the absence of EXIF data, we the issue remain.
>
> Regards,
> Yann
> Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
> https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
> +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
>
>
>
> Le mar. 14 mai 2019 à 10:00, John Erling Blad  a écrit :
>
> > Again; what is different between me as a photographer taking pictures for a
> > newspaper and me as a photograper taking pictures for Commons? Is it the
> > name written om the lens? The shoes I'm wearing?
> >
> > There are no difference, this is a fallacy.
> >
> > John Erling Blad
> > /jeblad
> >
> >
> > tir. 14. mai 2019, 05.50 skrev Yann Forget :
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was previously
> > > published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons.
> > > I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by
> > > OTRS.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Yann Forget
> > > Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
> > > https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
> > > +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Le lun. 13 mai 2019 à 16:56, John Erling Blad  a
> > écrit :
> > >
> > > > I can imagine a bot comparing photos found by Google (ie. comparing
> > > > hashes) but not a system extracting some kind of unique feature that
> > > > says an image is a copyright violation. So how do you imagine ORES
> > > > being used for copyright violations? I can't see how a copyright
> > > > violation would have any kind of feature that is exclusive? The
> > > > argument is quite simple; I as a photographer for a newspaper could
> > > > take the exact same pictures as I as an amateur photographer. (I have
> > > > photographed a lot for various newspapers.) Using the same equipment,
> > > > and me being me, what is different?
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:21 PM Amir Sarabadani 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
> > > for
> > > > > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
> > > > amount of
> > > > > > material it has to deal with.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > Yaroslav
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> > > > benjaminik...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
> > > capable
> > > > to
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
> > > > > > GLAM-related
> > > > > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
> > > > what it
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
> > > > create a
> > > > > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
> > > > Common's
> > > > > > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote
> > you
> > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
> > > something
> > > > > > > similar.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright
> > violating
> > > > > > files a
> > > > > > > > day:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > See the list from just one day:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

Thanks Lane for the clarification. I disagree on some points, but it is useful 
to read the points.

Galder

From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf of Lane 
Rasberry 
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 4:34 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

wiki norms which seem to have been transgressed -

   - recognition that the program and submitted content was unusual and
   extraordinary
   - lack of on-wiki documentation of program
   - lack of links between submitted content and on-wiki documentation
   - lack of small pilot before collecting the attention of many new
   Wikimedia contributors doing something unusual
   - failure to tag participants in the program as being connected to the
   program and its documentation

It is not the fault of your program and organization that you did not do
these things. The documentation for all this should have been in place from
~2013, because this situation happens repeatedly. Unfortunately we as a
movement are losing tremendous value in institutional engagement and
donations for lack of documentation. I would guess that in the United
States we identify hot leads for about 10 organizations to pay their staff
to do wiki programs which have a salary cost of US$50,000 in addition to
the value of their media contributions. Globally the amount of content lost
for lack of documentation could be 1 million / year, when conceivably we
could stop a lot of this loss with a one-time investment in training
material development.

Programs have to follow rules. The rules are not published but lots of
people know them. It seems like as a movement we prefer the damage of
opportunity costs in favor of risky or more expensive administrative
development. I feel like if somehow you had connected to a guide for what
to do, then with preparation none of these problems would have happened.

I do not blame the moderators. If these moderators had not reached this
decision, then almost any other moderator would have reached the same
decision. The moderators are well trained and precise in the sense that
they tend to uniformly make the same evaluations in situations. Besides the
reviewers that you saw issue judgement, at least 5 times as many people
reviewed the case and declined to comment or make their presence known.
Those quiet people agreed with the discussion.

You and everyone else deserve clear documentation and guidance. For our
inability to create this and deliver it to you, I apologize and have
regret.

On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 10:13 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry Lane... which " wiki publishing norm" did we fail?
>
> Thanks
> 
> From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf of
> Lane Rasberry 
> 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 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.
>
> Wikimedia projects already have an low quality standard. The two most
> common complaints that Wikipedia gets are #2 Wikipedia publishes low
> quality content and #1 Wikipedia's quality standards are too high. I see
> this issue as a complaint for us to lower quality.
>
> The answer is not to lower the quality of our content, but rather to
> communicate more effectively the standard of quality that we require. With
> our standards already being so low, requiring things like proof of legal
> compliance, minimal verifiability, and having brief civil conversations in
> case of difficulty, it is challenging for me to imagine us reducing any of
> these already reasonable expectations.
>
> If anyone wants to meet professional Wikimedia colleagues for institutional
> partnerships then here is a Wikimedia community organization which supports
> Wikimedians in Residence with a monthly online meetup and some conversation
> space.
> WREN - Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_in_Residence_Exchange_Network
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 9:46 AM Yann Forget  wrote:
>
> > 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
> > 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 suggestion that people should
> > > publish to, for example, Flickr before importing to commons
> > >
> >
> > Unless the external publication is done with a free license, of course.
> > AFAIK, there is no "official" suggestion that people should publish to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Lane Rasberry]

wiki norms which seem to have been transgressed -

   - recognition that the program and submitted content was unusual and
   extraordinary
   - lack of on-wiki documentation of program
   - lack of links between submitted content and on-wiki documentation
   - lack of small pilot before collecting the attention of many new
   Wikimedia contributors doing something unusual
   - failure to tag participants in the program as being connected to the
   program and its documentation

It is not the fault of your program and organization that you did not do
these things. The documentation for all this should have been in place from
~2013, because this situation happens repeatedly. Unfortunately we as a
movement are losing tremendous value in institutional engagement and
donations for lack of documentation. I would guess that in the United
States we identify hot leads for about 10 organizations to pay their staff
to do wiki programs which have a salary cost of US$50,000 in addition to
the value of their media contributions. Globally the amount of content lost
for lack of documentation could be 1 million / year, when conceivably we
could stop a lot of this loss with a one-time investment in training
material development.

Programs have to follow rules. The rules are not published but lots of
people know them. It seems like as a movement we prefer the damage of
opportunity costs in favor of risky or more expensive administrative
development. I feel like if somehow you had connected to a guide for what
to do, then with preparation none of these problems would have happened.

I do not blame the moderators. If these moderators had not reached this
decision, then almost any other moderator would have reached the same
decision. The moderators are well trained and precise in the sense that
they tend to uniformly make the same evaluations in situations. Besides the
reviewers that you saw issue judgement, at least 5 times as many people
reviewed the case and declined to comment or make their presence known.
Those quiet people agreed with the discussion.

You and everyone else deserve clear documentation and guidance. For our
inability to create this and deliver it to you, I apologize and have
regret.

On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 10:13 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry Lane... which " wiki publishing norm" did we fail?
>
> Thanks
> 
> From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf of
> Lane Rasberry 
> 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 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.
>
> Wikimedia projects already have an low quality standard. The two most
> common complaints that Wikipedia gets are #2 Wikipedia publishes low
> quality content and #1 Wikipedia's quality standards are too high. I see
> this issue as a complaint for us to lower quality.
>
> The answer is not to lower the quality of our content, but rather to
> communicate more effectively the standard of quality that we require. With
> our standards already being so low, requiring things like proof of legal
> compliance, minimal verifiability, and having brief civil conversations in
> case of difficulty, it is challenging for me to imagine us reducing any of
> these already reasonable expectations.
>
> If anyone wants to meet professional Wikimedia colleagues for institutional
> partnerships then here is a Wikimedia community organization which supports
> Wikimedians in Residence with a monthly online meetup and some conversation
> space.
> WREN - Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_in_Residence_Exchange_Network
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 9:46 AM Yann Forget  wrote:
>
> > 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
> > 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 suggestion that people should
> > > publish to, for example, Flickr before importing to commons
> > >
> >
> > Unless the external publication is done with a free license, of course.
> > AFAIK, there is no "official" suggestion that people should publish to
> > Flickr before importing to Commons.
> > This is the primary evidence when images are deleted as copyright
> > violation.
> > Others may be watermarks, copyright mentions in EXIF data, etc.
> >
> > > I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed
> by
> > > > OTRS.
> > >
> > > Feel free 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

Sorry Lane... which " wiki publishing norm" did we fail?

Thanks

From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf of Lane 
Rasberry 
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 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.

Wikimedia projects already have an low quality standard. The two most
common complaints that Wikipedia gets are #2 Wikipedia publishes low
quality content and #1 Wikipedia's quality standards are too high. I see
this issue as a complaint for us to lower quality.

The answer is not to lower the quality of our content, but rather to
communicate more effectively the standard of quality that we require. With
our standards already being so low, requiring things like proof of legal
compliance, minimal verifiability, and having brief civil conversations in
case of difficulty, it is challenging for me to imagine us reducing any of
these already reasonable expectations.

If anyone wants to meet professional Wikimedia colleagues for institutional
partnerships then here is a Wikimedia community organization which supports
Wikimedians in Residence with a monthly online meetup and some conversation
space.
WREN - Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_in_Residence_Exchange_Network



On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 9:46 AM Yann Forget  wrote:

> 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
> 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 suggestion that people should
> > publish to, for example, Flickr before importing to commons
> >
>
> Unless the external publication is done with a free license, of course.
> AFAIK, there is no "official" suggestion that people should publish to
> Flickr before importing to Commons.
> This is the primary evidence when images are deleted as copyright
> violation.
> Others may be watermarks, copyright mentions in EXIF data, etc.
>
> > I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by
> > > OTRS.
> >
> > Feel free to raise an RfC to make that policy if you think it would
> > gather support.
>
>
> This is simply a consequence of the above.
> If images of professional quality are imported to Commons after being
> published elsewhere, their copyright status will be questioned,
> and rightly so. Now if these images are only published on Commons, fine,
> but the objective of a professional is to sell his images, not to give them
> away for free.
> In addition, many professionals use stock image agencies (Getty, etc.),
> which often requires exclusivity, and therefore prevent publication under a
> free license.
>
> Regards, Yann
> PS: I am probably one of the most inclusive admins on Commons (or less
> strict regarding copyright issues), so if you think yelling at me would
> solve the issue, you are mistaken. I really want Commons to improve, and I
> am open to critics, that's why I come here to discuss, but do not shoot the
> messenger.
>
> --
> > Andy Mabbett
> > @pigsonthewing
> > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
>
>  Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
> https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
> +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
> ___
> 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,
> 



--
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
206.801.0814
l...@bluerasberry.com
___
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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Lane Rasberry]

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.

Wikimedia projects already have an low quality standard. The two most
common complaints that Wikipedia gets are #2 Wikipedia publishes low
quality content and #1 Wikipedia's quality standards are too high. I see
this issue as a complaint for us to lower quality.

The answer is not to lower the quality of our content, but rather to
communicate more effectively the standard of quality that we require. With
our standards already being so low, requiring things like proof of legal
compliance, minimal verifiability, and having brief civil conversations in
case of difficulty, it is challenging for me to imagine us reducing any of
these already reasonable expectations.

If anyone wants to meet professional Wikimedia colleagues for institutional
partnerships then here is a Wikimedia community organization which supports
Wikimedians in Residence with a monthly online meetup and some conversation
space.
WREN - Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_in_Residence_Exchange_Network



On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 9:46 AM Yann Forget  wrote:

> 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
> 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 suggestion that people should
> > publish to, for example, Flickr before importing to commons
> >
>
> Unless the external publication is done with a free license, of course.
> AFAIK, there is no "official" suggestion that people should publish to
> Flickr before importing to Commons.
> This is the primary evidence when images are deleted as copyright
> violation.
> Others may be watermarks, copyright mentions in EXIF data, etc.
>
> > I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by
> > > OTRS.
> >
> > Feel free to raise an RfC to make that policy if you think it would
> > gather support.
>
>
> This is simply a consequence of the above.
> If images of professional quality are imported to Commons after being
> published elsewhere, their copyright status will be questioned,
> and rightly so. Now if these images are only published on Commons, fine,
> but the objective of a professional is to sell his images, not to give them
> away for free.
> In addition, many professionals use stock image agencies (Getty, etc.),
> which often requires exclusivity, and therefore prevent publication under a
> free license.
>
> Regards, Yann
> PS: I am probably one of the most inclusive admins on Commons (or less
> strict regarding copyright issues), so if you think yelling at me would
> solve the issue, you are mistaken. I really want Commons to improve, and I
> am open to critics, that's why I come here to discuss, but do not shoot the
> messenger.
>
> --
> > Andy Mabbett
> > @pigsonthewing
> > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
>
>  Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
> https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
> +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
> ___
> 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,
> 



-- 
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
206.801.0814
l...@bluerasberry.com
___
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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Yann Forget]

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 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 suggestion that people should
> publish to, for example, Flickr before importing to commons
>

Unless the external publication is done with a free license, of course.
AFAIK, there is no "official" suggestion that people should publish to
Flickr before importing to Commons.
This is the primary evidence when images are deleted as copyright violation.
Others may be watermarks, copyright mentions in EXIF data, etc.

> I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by
> > OTRS.
>
> Feel free to raise an RfC to make that policy if you think it would
> gather support.


This is simply a consequence of the above.
If images of professional quality are imported to Commons after being
published elsewhere, their copyright status will be questioned,
and rightly so. Now if these images are only published on Commons, fine,
but the objective of a professional is to sell his images, not to give them
away for free.
In addition, many professionals use stock image agencies (Getty, etc.),
which often requires exclusivity, and therefore prevent publication under a
free license.

Regards, Yann
PS: I am probably one of the most inclusive admins on Commons (or less
strict regarding copyright issues), so if you think yelling at me would
solve the issue, you are mistaken. I really want Commons to improve, and I
am open to critics, that's why I come here to discuss, but do not shoot the
messenger.

-- 
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk


 Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
+91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
___
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] WMF commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive

[Pine W]

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 record on responsiveness. Some employees and
board members repeatedly go above and beyond the call of duty, while other
employees and board members ignore repeated questions, and some people are
in between. The first group seems to me to deserve a lot of credit, while
second group comes across to me as disrespectful and lazy. I have
previously complained about problems with responsiveness to multiple
managers in WMF,  and unfortunately that has not resulted in widespread
improvements that I have observed. I think that the problem may have more
to do with organizational culture and lack of will than with lack of
capacity. Let me emphasize that unresponsiveness is not a problem with
everyone in WMF, but I think that it is a significant problem and I know of
no excuses for it.

Pine

( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )



On Tue, May 7, 2019, 10:50 Dan Garry (Deskana)  wrote:

> On Tue 7 May 2019 at 11:04, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > I am sure this Wikimedia wide community run list is a perfectly good
> place
> > to check whether the WMF has any commitment to long term public archives,
> > or not.
> >
> > Thanks for your advice as to where to go, but the strategy process groups
> > are undoubtedly a worse place to ask this question and expect a
> verifiable
> > answer.
>
>
> I see! Then I will defer to your clear expertise in getting definitive
> answers. I look forward to seeing the outcome!
>
> Dan
> ___
> 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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

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
and block... per hour. With some false positives in the middle, of course,
but nothing is perfect.

Best,
Paulo

Mister Thrapostibongles  escreveu no dia
segunda, 13/05/2019 à(s) 20:44:

> Fae,
>
> I think that what you are describing is essentially the sort of mechanism
> that would be mandated by Article 17 on the proposed new European copyright
> directive.  Since the Foundation has explicitly opposed that, see their
> blog post
>
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/03/26/european-parliament-limits-internet-freedom-in-controversial-copyright-vote/
> I
> presume that they will not permit the use of such an automated system on
> their projects.
>
> Thrapostibongles
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 12:41 PM Fæ  wrote:
>
> > A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for
> > access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a
> > copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be
> > terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see
> > if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
> > reduced.[1]
> >
> > Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping
> > image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass
> > housekeeping very easy.
> >
> > A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image
> > hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat
> > on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than
> > mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck
> > up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
> >
> > Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that
> > several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were
> > originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short
> > term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful
> > experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
> >
> > Links
> > 1.
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Google_has_opened_an_API_for_image_recognition
> > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash
> >
> > Fae
> >
> > On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
> for
> > > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> > >
> > > Best
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
> > amount of
> > > > material it has to deal with.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Yaroslav
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> > benjaminik...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
> capable
> > to
> > > > do
> > > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
> > > > GLAM-related
> > > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
> > what it
> > > > > is
> > > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
> > create a
> > > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
> > Common's
> > > > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
> > > > project
> > > > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
> something
> > > > > similar.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on
> > the
> > > > > other
> > > > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright violating
> > > > files a
> > > > > > day:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See the list from just one day:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > > >
> > > > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope
> > with
> > > > > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some
> > time -
> > > > > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the
> other
> > > > issue
> > > > > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

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 overactive in the usual tasks, and even get a motion
by some of the most established sysops of Commons toward forgiveness and
tolerance of plainly destructive behavior, for all the "good work" it also
did there.

Paulo



Asaf Bartov  escreveu no dia segunda, 13/05/2019
à(s) 15:51:

> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 1:10 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As a Commoner, I can tell we certainly are, James, please apply here:
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators
> >
> > Even if your sysop actions are rather occasional or seasonal, or focused
> on
> > a certain topic, like mine, all help is very much welcomed there.
> > rg/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > ,  > wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> That has not been my experience.  I recently wanted to help reduce the
> load, in my volunteer capacity, by becoming a Commons admin focused on
> undeletion requests (which ties in with my volunteer work as an OTRS agent,
> and would save me and Admins the time of filing and handling a COM:UDR
> request).  Despite my thousands of contributions to Commons, my track
> record in the movement, and my understanding of copyright, a small majority
> opposed. Some of them specifically said they don't want admins focused on a
> certain topic, and others wanted to see me active in deletion discussions
> (specifically) before they would consider accepting my help.  This does
> suggest there is a certain reluctance to give the admin bit even to very
> low-risk volunteers like me.
>
> I certainly did not feel my help was welcomed.
>
>A.
> --
> Asaf Bartov 
> ___
> 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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Philip Kopetzky]

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 2019 at 17:08, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> I love this thread.  Thank you to all participating in it...
>
> Also: speeding these things with automation is also much easier once there
> is a quarantine where anyone can see flagged material without being an
> admin!   SJ
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 7:39 AM John Erling Blad  wrote:
>
> > This is wrong: "The upload system allow you to upload something if you
> > are the author. Period."
> >
> > The system as it is now will allow anyone to upload a file given (s)he
> > has the necessary rights. That does not imply the uploader being the
> > author of the material.
> >
> > Note that verifying whether the uploaded material already exist out on
> > the web must be done before the file is made public, otherwise any
> > attempt on detecting a copyviolation will fail. That would imply that
> > a copyvio algorithm must be automated. The questionable material could
> > still be uploaded, but then a permission should be forwarded to OTRS.
> > Also, a report from the copyvio algorithm should be stored with the
> > uploaded material, as it is impossible to retrace the detection after
> > the material is made public.
> >
> > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 4:23 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > As I am the author of the post, some remarks:
> > >
> > >   *   Commons is, indeed, the only [cloud] storage for file in most of
> > the Wikipedias. Making an accusation of using Commons as a storage place
> is
> > unfair and nonsense.
> > >   *   Communication could be better, of course, but we don't have to
> > think on experienced editors and wikimedians, but on people we are trying
> > to convince to upload to the Commons and find this burden. They don't
> know
> > how to communicate and why they must do it.
> > >   *   The upload system allow you to upload something if you are the
> > author. Period.
> > >   *   Claiming that something is a derivative work without saying which
> > is the original work is not a good practice.
> > >   *   Of course, commons volunteers are few, and they have a great
> > job-queue. But outreach volunteers are less, and a project like this can
> > take a whole year of volunteer work.
> > >   *   After all the victim-blaming seen on this discussion no one was
> > able to point to a page where the procedure was clear for everyone.
> > >
> > > Let's hope we can follow with this project next year and we will have
> > less problems.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > Galder
> > > 
> > > From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf
> > of Vi to 
> > > Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 3:35 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
> > >
> > > I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete images
> > on
> > > commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come
> > from
> > > cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
> > >
> > > Vito
> > >
> > > Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman <
> jmh...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > ha scritto:
> > >
> > > > It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested
> in
> > > > having more admins?
> > > >
> > > > James
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for
> > > > > access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a
> > > > > copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be
> > > > > terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to
> see
> > > > > if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
> > > > > reduced.[1]
> > > > >
> > > > > Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping
> > > > > image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make
> mass
> > > > > housekeeping very easy.
> > > > >
> > > > > A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image
> > > > > hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons
> > hat
> > > > > on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use
> than
> > > > > mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to
> suck
> > > > > up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
> > > > >
> > > > > Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long,
> that
> > > > > several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were
> > > > > originally interested have since retired. Without some positive
> short
> > > > > term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful
> > > > > experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
> > > > >
> > > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Andy Mabbett]

> 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.  Your assumption of bad faith
> here is stupendous.

I too would like to see Yann's justfictation for this claim; and for
his on-wiki post threatening Andrew with a block.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Andy Mabbett]

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 suggestion that people should
publish to, for example, Flickr before importing to commons

> I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by
> OTRS.

Feel free to raise an RfC to make that policy if you think it would
gather support.

[snip quote of the entire thread to date]

Will *everyone* please stop doing that?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Fæ]

Any image recognition system has the potential to be misused. What we
imagined was flagging images for the later attention of volunteers to
look at.

A simple image hash might just be the basis for identifying potential
close matches to previously deleted files or derivatives of existing
Commons hosted files. These benefits could be delivered without any
reliance on external databases.

The Article 17 aspect is from my perspective a large tangent. The WMF
opposing those systems does not stop us from using automation and
databases to identify potential copyright issues for our own purposes.

Fae

On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 20:44, Mister Thrapostibongles
 wrote:
>
> Fae,
>
> I think that what you are describing is essentially the sort of mechanism
> that would be mandated by Article 17 on the proposed new European copyright
> directive.  Since the Foundation has explicitly opposed that, see their
> blog post
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/03/26/european-parliament-limits-internet-freedom-in-controversial-copyright-vote/
> I
> presume that they will not permit the use of such an automated system on
> their projects.
>
> Thrapostibongles
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 12:41 PM Fæ  wrote:
>
> > A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for
> > access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a
> > copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be
> > terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see
> > if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
> > reduced.[1]
> >
> > Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping
> > image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass
> > housekeeping very easy.
> >
> > A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image
> > hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat
> > on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than
> > mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck
> > up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
> >
> > Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that
> > several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were
> > originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short
> > term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful
> > experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
> >
> > Links
> > 1.
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Google_has_opened_an_API_for_image_recognition
> > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash
> >
> > Fae
> >
> > On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani  wrote:
> > >
> > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support for
> > > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> > >
> > > Best
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
> > amount of
> > > > material it has to deal with.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Yaroslav
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> > benjaminik...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or capable
> > to
> > > > do
> > > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
> > > > GLAM-related
> > > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
> > what it
> > > > > is
> > > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
> > create a
> > > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
> > Common's
> > > > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
> > > > project
> > > > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do something
> > > > > similar.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on
> > the
> > > > > other
> > > > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright violating
> > > > files a
> > > > > > day:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See the list from just one day:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > > >
> > > > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope
> > with
> > > > > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some
> > time -
> > > > > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

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 
uploading duties.

From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf of Yann 
Forget 
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 6:43 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

The issue is not in that way.
If you published an image exclusively on Commons, then no problem.
If you first publish an image outside Commons, how do we know that you are
the author?
OK, there may be some factors to prove that (consistency of EXIF data,
etc.), but in the absence of EXIF data, we the issue remain.

Regards,
Yann
Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
+91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)



Le mar. 14 mai 2019 à 10:00, John Erling Blad  a écrit :

> Again; what is different between me as a photographer taking pictures for a
> newspaper and me as a photograper taking pictures for Commons? Is it the
> name written om the lens? The shoes I'm wearing?
>
> There are no difference, this is a fallacy.
>
> John Erling Blad
> /jeblad
>
>
> tir. 14. mai 2019, 05.50 skrev Yann Forget :
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was previously
> > published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons.
> > I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by
> > OTRS.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Yann Forget
> > Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
> > https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
> > +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
> >
> >
> >
> > Le lun. 13 mai 2019 à 16:56, John Erling Blad  a
> écrit :
> >
> > > I can imagine a bot comparing photos found by Google (ie. comparing
> > > hashes) but not a system extracting some kind of unique feature that
> > > says an image is a copyright violation. So how do you imagine ORES
> > > being used for copyright violations? I can't see how a copyright
> > > violation would have any kind of feature that is exclusive? The
> > > argument is quite simple; I as a photographer for a newspaper could
> > > take the exact same pictures as I as an amateur photographer. (I have
> > > photographed a lot for various newspapers.) Using the same equipment,
> > > and me being me, what is different?
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:21 PM Amir Sarabadani 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
> > for
> > > > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> > > >
> > > > Best
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
> > > amount of
> > > > > material it has to deal with.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > > Yaroslav
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> > > benjaminik...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
> > capable
> > > to
> > > > > do
> > > > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
> > > > > GLAM-related
> > > > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
> > > what it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
> > > create a
> > > > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
> > > Common's
> > > > > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote
> you
> > > > > project
> > > > > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
> > something
> > > > > > similar.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but
> on
> > > the
> > > > > > other
> > > > > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright
> violating
> > > > > files a
> > > > > > > day:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > See the list from just one day:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to
> cope
> > > with
> > > > > > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after
> some
> > > time -
> > > > > > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the
> > other
> > > > > issue
> > > > > > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
> > > > > >