The landscape has changed quite a bit since 2012, and there are a number of
players that could offer a service like this by now. It may be worthwhile
exploring them briefly (including but not limited to Google), if we believe
this is important enough to invest time in (and I agree that there is a
(forking the discussion to allow a focus on more general line, rather than
the specifics of who wrote what, why and when)
My main takeaway from this discussion would be that it's good if there is a
neutral review option for actions by the T team (or the WMF in general),
such as an ombudsperson.
Clarifying one small bit, the "copypatrol" tool was initially developed by
Eran (a Wikimedia volunteer from Israel). It was than further developed by
the Wikimedia Foundation. Agree that it is a great success, not only with
respect to the final result but with respect to it being a successful
(Sorry for x-posting!)
Next Monday, June 24, between 1530-1700 UTC, the Wikipedia & Education User
Group will be hosing its bi-monthly Open Meeting and you're all invited!
The full meeting agenda is listed at the end, but it includes 2 featured
speakers this month: LiAnna Davis, from
Wikipedia itself can never be more reliable than the sources it cites. If
it's allowed to cite itself, then there is no "bottom" to lean on, and its
quality would quickly drop.
That you conclude from that that wikipedia is unreliable and therefore
failed is IMO such a silly proposition, that I
It might be a good thread were it based on a better line of argument.
You are making too much of an artifact of the drafting of a Wikipedia
policy. The intent was clearly to prevent 1., bootstrapping, ie, writing
an article and using it as a 'reliable source' for another article, and 2.,
Google has been offering reverse image search as part of their vision API:
The pricing is $3.50 per 1,000 queries for up to 5,000,000 queries per month:
Above that quantity "Contact Google for more
The "sender is Romaine" is not the same as "Romaine is WMBE". This sort of
confusion should have been prevented by allowing another person to send
this email on behalf of WMBE.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019, 3:48 PM Dariusz Jemielniak
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:26 PM Michel
I started this thread to discuss both conduct and content policies on
Wikipedia, and indeed how the two interact. Wikipedia is a project to
build an encyclopaedia. By its own criteria, encyclopaedias are reliable
sources and Wikipedia is not a reliable source; hence by its own criteria,
Actually, I am afraid, for CCI at some point we will have to remove all
added text by bot. I do not see any other scalable solution.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 5:36 PM Stephen Philbrick <
> I have seen a couple comments on copyright issues in
I'm very sorry for what happened back in Capetown and that today you are
reminded of this again through a public mailing list, where the story is
starting to lead it's own life. I can only imagine that you felt the need
to correct this misinterpretation of what happened to you.
I was forced to step up *today* on this mailing list because the
description of the WIkimania 2018 incident in the first mail was false: the
claim that "none of us expressed there was a problem" is simply not what
And by the way this is exactly why the details of stuff like that are NOT
I have seen a couple comments on copyright issues in the last couple days
so I thought I'd share some information that I think may be not well-known
Very roughly, copyright issues (text) can be viewed in three categories:
1. Addition of copyrighted material to articles in years past,
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 06:28, Yann Forget wrote:
> It has been suggested many times to ask Google for an access to their API
> for searching images,
> so that we could have a bot tagging copyright violations (no free access
> for automated search).
> That would the single best improvement in
I understand Caroline wanted to add that she was finding difficult that
Romain was not aware of her stress or unease on a specific situation
vaguely described there (without any mention to her at all). And that later
they have talked about it, and she accepted his apologies for that
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:54 PM Paulo Santos Perneta wrote:
" I'm referring to message from Caroline" - How have you jumped from Caroline
wanting to further clarify something, to the conclusion that the OP was
"pushing people who felt harassed or mistreated to step forward"?
Thank you WMBE for your long report.
I was at Wikimania 2018 and I was deeply troubled by the actions taken by
the Trust & Safety team. I now have a much clearer understanding of what
went on, and I feel that there really needs to be some introspection done
by the Trust & Safety team.
I am also
" I'm referring to message from Caroline" - How have you jumped from
Caroline wanting to further clarify something, to the conclusion that the
OP was "pushing people who felt harassed or mistreated to step forward"?
Yes, she claims to have been "forced to step up", but were you able to find
It seems to me the best that a (different) member of the WMBE board
contacts a suitable person at WMF. A public list is not the best place
for sorting these things out.
Am Mo., 17. Juni 2019 um 16:48 Uhr schrieb Dariusz Jemielniak
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:26 PM
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:26 PM Michel Vuijlsteke
In other words, the best way to ban anyone from any event is to start a
rumour about them?
My understanding is that noone was banned from an event.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta
I'm comparing it to a case where spreading of rumors led to the
condemnation of presumably innocent people without due process, in a kind
of "precautionary principle".
The punishment in question is immaterial to this case. Or will you argue
that an episode is only worth of attention if people are
Are you comparing banning someone to participate at conference(s) with
hanging innocent people?
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:34 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> " In other words, the best way to ban anyone from any event is to start a
> rumour about them" - that's
" In other words, the best way to ban anyone from any event is to start a
rumour about them" - that's Wikimedia version of the Salem witch trials.
Unbelievable that this sort of thing is coming from one of the WMF
trustees, even as a personal opinion.
Michel Vuijlsteke escreveu no dia
Considering that it was sent by that person, one may reasonably conclude
that it was written by them. That being said, I do not want to believe that
it was not reviewed and approved by the governing board (assuming it was
written by that person). BUT if it was written by another person, reviewed
I've read and reread the WMBE message, and have not found anything near
"pushing people who felt harassed or mistreated to step forward".
I also do not understand why you're addressing WMBE as "Romaine" (begging
Can you please clarify?
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 16:12, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
>If there are rumors about physical violence, unbelievable as they may seem,
>the bottom line common sense is to approach the alleged would-be attacker
>request politely that they stay away, to deescalate even just a
pushing people who felt harassed or mistreated to step forward is not ok at
all. I do not honestly understand why the story from nearly a year ago has
emerged, with personal details.
It is not unusual for people who caused distress to not have done it
intentionally, and to genuinely
It has been suggested many times to ask Google for an access to their API
for searching images,
so that we could have a bot tagging copyright violations (no free access
for automated search).
That would the single best improvement in Wikimedia Commons workflow for
And it would benefit
"One (and not the most important) pieces of evidence for Wikipedia being in
a failed state is precisely that
it does not, by the community's own admission, constitute a reliable source
You have made this argument more than once. That might be a piece of
evidence seems both wrong and not
Since I raised this particular issue,, I'll take the liberty of giving an
answer to this question, even though you addressed it to Benjamin. The
failure that I was pointing to was not the failure to identify copyright
violations, but the failure to address the huge backlog of probable
> Here's a fundamental source of disagreement. It gets at something I'm not
> sure the strategy process is properly addressing. Does the WMF lead and
> direct the Wikimedia movement?
Personally, I don't think the WMF knows the answer to this, either in
practice, or what they want.
We are in a
Am I right in thinking that this email, containing a long account of
the alleged poor treatment of the Treasurer of WMBE, referred to
throughout in the third person, was in fact written by that person?
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 10:00, Romaine Wiki wrote:
> Hello all,
> On Saturday
This rather tends to support my point. One (and not the most important)
pieces of evidence for Wikipedia being in a failed state is precisely that
it does not , by the community's own admission, constitute a reliable
source:whereas "Reputable tertiary sources
I have no opinion whatsoever about all the things going on in this mail,
except for this part :
Three additional anonymous complaints were:
* speaking to loud
* standing to close
* having touched someone's hand/arm
It must be noted that *none* of the people that complained to the Trust
My name is Leila and I'm in the Research team in Wikimedia Foundation.
Please see below.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:59 AM Benjamin Lees wrote:
> The community has been working on copyright violation issues for a long
> time. There are probably ways the WMF could support
What is that "strategic direction", and where was it agreed?
Peter Southwood escreveu no dia segunda,
17/06/2019 à(s) 08:20:
> " Previously a strategic direction has been agreed."
> Not by that many. It is so vague that it can be interpreted to mean
> whatever the WMF want it to mean and
On Saturday 15 June 2019 Wikimedia Belgium had its annual General Assembly
Two board members have indicated to step down:
We thank them for their work and valuable input in the past years!
They remain available for advice to the board.
On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 8:18 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> Let's look at the content first. Even on Wikipedia's own terms, it has
> failed. It is a principle that Wikipedia is founded on reliable sources,
> and by its own admission, Wikipedia itself is not
" Previously a strategic direction has been agreed."
Not by that many. It is so vague that it can be interpreted to mean whatever
the WMF want it to mean and used as a justification for a wide range of
policies and actions that were not obviously specifically discussed. This was
I went ahead and offered my time to participate in the strategy process. My
offer was rejected.. I do not think I will ever do it again.
I an afraid WMF is up to some surprises when they publish the 2030 Strategy
which was not in any way coordinated with the communities, and then see
Mail list logo