Re: [Wikimedia-l] Updated Terms of Use
On Apr 27, 2012, at 12:49 AM, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 2:26 AM, Philippe Beaudette phili...@wikimedia.orgwrote: Hi everyone, As you may be aware, Wikimedia has updated its Terms of Use. This updated version will become effective on May 25, 2012, and can be reviewed herehttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use_%282012%29/en.[1] A short overview of some of the changes is set out herehttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/New_Terms_of_use. [2] Best wishes, Philippe Terms of use are boring, and most of us are pretty jaded by how impenetrable, legalistic and, well, awful, most terms of use are on the internet. I want to congratulate you and your department on NOT doing this. The new terms of use are written in clear English, well set out, and cover what seem to be the appropriate bases without being overly verbose and cautious. Well done, Philippe, Geoff, and everyone else. I am also impressed. It actually ends up being the best one piece introduction to what Wikimedia *is* that I have ever read. A lot of thought and consideration were soundly invested in that document. Clarity on that level is HARD, but well worth the effort. I also am thinking that the staff have just set a rather high bar for the board. Imagine if all board resolutions were written with as just as much focus on clarity and as on circumspection. These terms of use show it is possible. Birgitte SB ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Updated Terms of Use
On May 1, 2012, at 1:38 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Richard, you removed some relevant language: Certain activities, whether legal or illegal, may be harmful to other users and violate our rules, and some activities may also subject you to liability. Therefore, for your own protection and for that of other users, *you may not engage in such activities on our sites*. These activities include: [..] Using the services in a manner that is inconsistent with applicable law. I think that expecting the ToS to condone violations of laws that are in some way anti-freedom is unrealistic. It seems like it would be difficult to craft language to do that well. ~Nathan Would you like an opportunity to phrase that language in a sense that does not suggest Wikimedia is in support of laws that are anti-freedom? -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] It seems to be that the point of this section is that WMF does not condone users to use the sites in a fashion which breaks their local laws; therefore WMF itself may not be procesuted for conspiracy nor will WMF be liable civilly to users who were prosecuted locally and wish to recieve compensation. If the WMF did not disavow an intention to promote locally illegal things (like Germans printing Swatika images found on Commons), they would be open to liability that would result money going to lawyers. Really very, very few countries have a right to free speech as strong as the US, including countries were WMF actually has significant assets. China is not the issue here. Encouraging people outside the US to live as though they live inside it, is neither wise nor ethical. BirgitteSB ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6
On Jun 2, 2012, at 5:06 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: Moving towards full IPv6 support is part of our responsibility as a good Internet citizen, and this has been in the works for a long time. It's never been an option not to do this as IPv4 addresses are being exhausted. This is the relavent point. For what it is worth I, who am less inclined to follow technical discussions than other kinds, remember that there was enough talk about approaching IPv6 day last year to feel it was settled that WMF was unprepared to participate at that time would make it happen in 2012. It was either here or on wikitech-l. I am not sure how someone who has strong opinions on the subject would be left unable to follow this when I followed with no such interest. Moe importantly, I don't understand what exactly the objectors see as a better option. No one will fix the scripts until they are broken, it is just the nature of the beast. It seems the whole point of IPv6 day is that no one is very confident about level of breakage of things with IPv6 and no one will be able to gain this confidence until a significant number of sites turn it on and there is not another choice on the matter. Objecting to turning on IPv6 because things will break does not seem to be very informed. This is the point. If anyone doesn't trust that WMF will only make a day of it if the breakage is unmanageable, then they've bigger issues than IPv6. And even still, the sun will rise and we will have a few less IPv4 addresses everyday; there are much better battles to pick. Birgitte SB ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness
No that is not a fair characterization. Risker explained that these things are handled by each project, not hide her true intentions toward your campaign, but because it ii the way things are. And it is not at all particular to CU issues. What really reeks of obfuscation is using words and phrasing that requires native level English skills to campaign for a policy that you wish to impose on the Tosk Albanian, and all other, projects. Self-governing communities work for the most part. Which is more than can be said about the alternatives, and there are ghost wikis all over the Internet to prove the point. BirgitteSB On Jun 13, 2012, at 8:30 PM, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote: Risker comment was basically lets not set a global accountability and ability to get CU related logs of our self on a global level, instead take it to each project and fight it out there to me that reeks of obfuscation. Realistically this should be a global policy, just like our privacy policy is. Why shouldnt users know when they have been checkusered and why? On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote: I dunno, John, you almost had me convinced until that email. I saw in that mail a reasonable comment from Risker based on long time precedent. As you may know, there are a number of checks and balances in place. First, the CUs watch each other. With a broad group, you can be assured they don't all always agree and there is healthy debate and dialogue. Second, enwp has an audit subcommittee that routinely audits the logs with a fine toothed comb. They are NOT all previous checkusers, to avoid the sort of groupthink that appears to concern you. Then, the WMF has an ombudsman commission, which also may audit with commission from the Board. Those people take their role very seriously. And last, anyone with genuine privacy concerns can contact the WMF: me, Maggie, anyone in the legal or community advocacy department. Is it an iron clad assurance of no misbehavior? Probably not, and we will continue to get better at it: but I will say that in 3 years of being pretty closely involved with that team, I'm impressed with how much they err on the side of protection of privacy. I have a window into their world, and they have my respect. Best, PB --- Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com Sender: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 21:17:09 To: Wikimedia Mailing Listwikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness Yet another attempt from a checkuser to make monitoring their actions and ensuring our privacy more difficult. On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Each project has its own standards and thresholds for when checkusers may be done, provided that they are within the limits of the privacy policy. These standards vary widely. So, the correct place to discuss this is on each project. Risker On 13 June 2012 21:02, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: Why shouldn't spambots and vandals be notified? Just have the software automatically email anyone that is CUed. Then the threshold is simply whether you have an email address attached to your account or not. This seems like a good idea. People have a right to know what is being done with their data. On Jun 14, 2012 12:35 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 June 2012 19:18, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote: This is something that has been bugging me for a while. When a user has been checkusered they should at least be notified of who preformed it and why it was preformed. I know this is not viable for every single CU action as many are for anons. But for those users who have been around for a period, (say autoconfirmed) they should be notified when they are CU'ed and any user should be able to request the CU logs pertaining to themselves (who CU'ed them, when, and why) at will. I have seen CU's refuse to provide information to the accused. See the Rich Farmbrough ArbCom case where I suspect obvious fishing, where the CU'ed user was requesting information and the CU claimed it would be a violation of the privacy policy to release the time/reason/performer of the checkuser. This screams of obfuscation and the hiding of information. I know the ombudsman committee exists as a check and balance, however before something can be passed to them evidence of inappropriate action is needed. Ergo Catch-22 I know checkusers keep a private wiki https://checkuser.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and I know according to our privacy policy we are supposed to purge our
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?
I can't disagree with your understanding of the different IP laws, however this not a very commonly understood nuance. Many people, when seeing the logo listed as free regarding copyright, will assume they can use it the same as any other copyleft or PD image. They will not necessarily understand that trademark protections will interfere with their actually being able to use the symbol as an image. People who mistakenly use the symbol, and receive the required lawyerly letter to stop this, will feel betrayed by the fact it was listed as free of copyright. However strictly accurate the plan to treat the two areas of IP law separately might be, it cannot be executed very well. Those people, misled by their poor understanding of how these separate areas of laws achieve very similar results, will feel burned. Their goodwill will be lost. They may even become convinced they had been intentionally tricked with mixed messages. It much more pragmatic to simply reserve the copyright on trademarks. To maintain a consistent message of Do not use. Birgitte SB On Jul 3, 2012, at 6:06 PM, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote: You will have to split between trademark laws and copyright laws. Both concepts exist separately from each other. There are a lot of logos that are not copyright protected. For example very simple text logos, depending on country even more complex logos that don't reach the needed threshold of originality or even works that are by now in public domain. Still this logos and it's use is restricted due to trademark laws. So i don't see a true reason why the Wikipedia logos should not be licensed freely, while trademark laws still apply and we promote free content at the same time. Am 04.07.2012 00:06, schrieb Ilario Valdelli: Again, the logo is a symbol, it's not an image. I don't agree with your concept because you can move the Commons content in another website also commercial. So you should split content and repository. The content may be free, the repository may be not free. Following your concept if a newspaper would use the Commons content, it should release under free license his website, his logo, his content. On 03.07.2012 23:47, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: I don't know how it is handled after US law, but if i consider German law then logos and trademarks are often even in the public domain, but protected as a trademark itself. But i also think that our logo is something to protect while being free at the same time. If we go strictly after the policies the logos aren't free and should be deleted (especially with Commons in mind, because it is violation of the policies ;-) ). This is somehow contradictory to the mission itself. So i can understand the point that Rodrigo put up as well. Am 03.07.2012 23:37, schrieb Ilario Valdelli: A mark is not a simple image. A mark it's a symbol. On 03.07.2012 23:32, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote: So in your view, free images can be harmful? So why would I release a picture? And you're telling me is more important to believe in the logo, instead of checking the validity of what you are consuming? But we do not talk to our volunteers always check the sources and not to believe blindly in a single source? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?
That reasoning seems to be begging the question a bit. That we should not make an exception so that there will be no exceptions. I suggested some pragmatic reasons why making an exception for these trademarks more successfully communicates the message for reuse than not doing so. And also how an unsuccessful communication on this point could be harmful. You do not seem to argue that any of my reasoning is inaccurate. Do you really find these practical difficulties to be less important than a perfect record of having no exceptions? What purpose do you see in refusing to make an exception where it seems to make practical sense? Something that can't be used in any context can have no possible purpose for a copyright release. So far as I imagine it, such a release would lead to unnecessary confusion (debatable only to what degree) while offering no practical benefit. I am not at all bothered by the fact that maintaining copyrights on trademarks is inconsistent with the copyrights maintained on non-trademarks. I believe consistency to only be a worthwhile goal so long as it tends to promote clarity, which, in this particular case, it does not. I do not find that consistency is inherently desirable. Birgitte SB On Jul 3, 2012, at 8:03 PM, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote: We have special templates for this case which prominently inform the user that the image is free due to reason XYZ but can't be used in any context due to additional trademark restrictions. This concept does not only apply to logos or trademarks, but also for public domain cases. Commons hosts images which are public domain in some countries (needs to include US) but not in other countries due to different copyright laws. The same way some language Wikis host content that is free after local law but not after US law. Another case are personal rights. For example the German Recht am eigenen Bild is very restrictive and does not allow any usage of a free image from any person. What i mean is: We already have such restrictions for various images in our collection and the re-user has to be careful to comply with all laws aside the copyright law. Releasing the Logos under a free license and including a template which mentions the restrictions would be common practice. Hosting images with no free license is actual exception. Am 04.07.2012 02:16, schrieb birgitte...@yahoo.com: I can't disagree with your understanding of the different IP laws, however this not a very commonly understood nuance. Many people, when seeing the logo listed as free regarding copyright, will assume they can use it the same as any other copyleft or PD image. They will not necessarily understand that trademark protections will interfere with their actually being able to use the symbol as an image. People who mistakenly use the symbol, and receive the required lawyerly letter to stop this, will feel betrayed by the fact it was listed as free of copyright. However strictly accurate the plan to treat the two areas of IP law separately might be, it cannot be executed very well. Those people, misled by their poor understanding of how these separate areas of laws achieve very similar results, will feel burned. Their goodwill will be lost. They may even become convinced they had been intentionally tricked with mixed messages. It much more pragmatic to simply reserve the copyright on trademarks. To maintain a consistent message of Do not use. Birgitte SB On Jul 3, 2012, at 6:06 PM, Tobias Oelgartetobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote: You will have to split between trademark laws and copyright laws. Both concepts exist separately from each other. There are a lot of logos that are not copyright protected. For example very simple text logos, depending on country even more complex logos that don't reach the needed threshold of originality or even works that are by now in public domain. Still this logos and it's use is restricted due to trademark laws. So i don't see a true reason why the Wikipedia logos should not be licensed freely, while trademark laws still apply and we promote free content at the same time. Am 04.07.2012 00:06, schrieb Ilario Valdelli: Again, the logo is a symbol, it's not an image. I don't agree with your concept because you can move the Commons content in another website also commercial. So you should split content and repository. The content may be free, the repository may be not free. Following your concept if a newspaper would use the Commons content, it should release under free license his website, his logo, his content. On 03.07.2012 23:47, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: I don't know how it is handled after US law, but if i consider German law then logos and trademarks are often even in the public domain, but protected as a trademark itself. But i also think that our logo is something to protect while
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?
The most basic answer (someone form WMF can correct me if I am somehow misled here) is that the logos are not released under a free license because they are trademarks. It seems very harsh, to someone who finds this answer good enough, when you ask again in the way you did. It a debatable point, not an obvious one. None of us who feel either way about this are missing the point, we simply do not agree about an issue that does not have a perfect solution. I would not be happy if they were released under a license that was misleading about the their true availability for reuse. You are not happy that they are in their a category apart that is disallowed for non-WMF owned trademarks. We can never both be happy. You think having all the labels brought into line throughout the project is more important than case-by-case usefulness. I think what works best for each case in practice is more important than whatever labels are applied. There is no way to satisfy both of our concerns equally. In this case, the practical concern won out over the idealistic one. Other situations have turned out otherwise, leaving me the one who is less happy. You mentioned, for one example, the freely-licensed images lacking personality releases which for practical purposes cannot be re-used but are categorized with the standard labels as though they for re-use. I respect that you have different priorities than I do and am happy for us both to explain our most important concerns. I truly believe it is important to always respectfully hear out other points of view, even when I do not necessarily expect that there is a perfect solution. I very much like to understand as well as possible, even when I expect to disagree. But, please, explain to me why, once the arguments have been heard, do idealists like yourself tend to find it appropriate to continue again and again around the same wheel? This I have trouble respecting. This I do not understand at all. Birgitte SB On Jul 8, 2012, at 2:06 PM, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com wrote: As well as free photos of people, there is only the release of copyright, and no release of personality rights; we can make a logo under a free license, with the trademark rights guaranteed. Again why is not free? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com +55 11 7971-8884 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Geolocalization improvement proposal
Somehow this only replied to Nemo Begin forwarded message: From: birgitte...@yahoo.com Date: July 23, 2012 12:27:56 PM CDT To: Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Geolocalization improvement proposal On Jul 23, 2012, at 7:42 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: birgitte...@yahoo.com, 23/07/2012 14:28: I am unaware of what the shortcomings of the current system are and where any improvements would be felt. This makes it a bit hard to have a firm opinion of the trade-offs involved with changing the system. So what exactly are the problems people are having with the current geolocation system? As the page tries to prove, looks like the current system is completely unreliable and therefore useless for most geonotices in Italy and probably other places. I think it would be useful to have a wider study of the accuracy of the current system. Privacy issues are always a concern. I am not certain I could support gathering more exact information on users who are well-served by the current system. It would be more supportable, I think, if there were a way to turn on the browser-based system only for those who are in areas that are known to be poorly served by the current system. Or if you were to ask those who geolocate to known ambiguous areas to opt-in to browser-based geolocation. There is obviously a benefit for some people, but a cost to everyone if we were to switch wholesale. Further study to determine exactly how widespread and how significant the benefit would be is something that I think might be useful. Birgitte SB ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly
On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:33 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: On 07/25/12 12:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: So there were how many years of faffing about before they hired *one guy* for this project? This is an organisation with a $20m annual budget, now acquiring umpteen paid chapter officials. The paid chapter officials are employees of the chapters themselves. The money comes from the same pot, as you know. The chapters are funded from the same donations as the Foundation. The best way to bring hostility against your own pet projects is by being hostile towards the projects of others. What makes one project more deserving than another. Simplistically, chapters are marketing, while programmers and designers are product development. Marketing is important, but not more so than product development. To be fair, the Foundation is hiring product development staff, and it's not a choice of either/or. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings You must live in a very simplistic world, but I am afraid it does resemble reality very well. Here are how some various types of things and people are funded. Tool server=chapter. Developers= Mostly WMF but some chapter. Marketing professionals=WMF but no chapter I am aware of. Legal professionals=WMF and chapter. Administration of fundraising campaign=WMF and chapters. You will not find any bright lines in reality. Birgitte SB ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics
On Jul 26, 2012, at 4:23 AM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: Sources for the restrictions: * http://www.tickets.london2012.com/purchaseterms.html * PDF: http://j.mp/london2012prohibited I really can't figure out the difference between your example about personality rights and my previous, so I don't see why you're saying that the above approch could not work, but IANAL. As I said above I think this restrinction on commercial use of the images imposed by IOC is not about copyright but is on a different level and AFAICT is very similar to the case of personality rights to some extent. So may you clarify? There is a contractual arrangement between the IOC and the photographer as specified in terms and conditions on the ticket. If some one makes photos available commercially then they may be sued by the IOC under the terms of that contract. The issue isn't about copyright but about the contractual agreement and personal liability between the photographer and the IOC. This is a contract with the ticket fine print. But I don't see how that contract could actually bind the photographs. Certainly it prevents you, the contractually bound ticket holder, from using media you produced under this contract in a commercial manner. However the IOC cannot possibly extend the contract beyond the ticket-holder. Nor force the ticket holder to police third-parties. Let's run a few possibilities: Ticket-holder (TH) places own-work photo on FaceBook. It goes viral across the Internet and is eventually posters of the photo are found in the marketplace. IOC wishes to end poster sales. Your position that this the contract must be effective against third parties would mean that if TH fails to hire a lawyer and vigorously enforce their copyrights; then they have broken the terms of the contract with IOC and are liable for damages. This is not how contracts work. If TH does not choose to enforce their copyrights then IOC can do nothing. TH has a great photo, their sister owns a bookstore. TH informally licenses the photo to Sis to use in advertising. The IOC does not even have the standing to discover if Sis has a license to use the photo or is instead infringing on the creator's copyright. Only the copyright holder has standing contest the use of their work. IOC can do nothing. TH dies. Daughter inherits copyrights and sells photos taken at last month's Olympics. IOC can do nothing. TH donates the full copyrights on all photos they created at the Games to a non-profit organization on the condition that their identity is not revealed. The non-profit, now copyright holder, licenses the entire collection CC-SA. IOC can do nothing. The only reason the IOC was even able to make the empty threats it did about the Usain Bolt photo is that the photographer and licensing were all easily tracked down on Commons. This issue (limits of contract law vs. copyright law) has been well hashed over in the past. The IOC cannot do what it seems to claim on this issue. I have actually dug around for the links to past discussions of contracts for access used in attempt to control copyright, but sadly no luck. (I did however find useful links on three other issues sitting at the back of my mind!) Really the IOC, whatever it wishes, cannot control the licensing, much less the actual usage, of photo taken at the Olympics. It has no right to do so, not under copyright, not under contract law. It can in a very limited way exert control over individuals who voluntarily entered into binding contracts *with the IOC*. It cannot exert control over the photographs themselves nor any other individuals. The IOC has shown a willingness to harass and threaten people into a level of compliance that it has no right to demand. We can offer a shield from harassment to photographers, if any exist, who would like to offer their work to the common cultural landscape without being credited. Through pseudo-anonymity we can offer photographers a way to attribute their works to an account that cannot be identified today but can be repatriated tomorrow when the heat has cooled off. However, we probably should refrain from encouraging easily identified Flickr users to relicense their work in a way we now know will likely bring the IOC to their doorstep. Birgitte SB ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics
On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:51 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Copyrights wouldn't apply because you own the copyrights in the pictures you take. Maybe. You own the copyright fully if you are the sole contributor of the creative input which went into the picture. If someone else also contributed, then you might own the copyright in the picture as a derivative work (extending only to your contributions), snip I hope you don' t my picking out this piece from your email and ignoring the rest. Simply photographing a copyrighted work does NOT create a photograph that is a derivative works. For a photo to be a derivative work you have to really go beyond timing, lighting, point and click. This claim of photographs as derivative works came up just a few weeks ago in the trademark discussion. I never directly addressed this issue during that discussion While I felt certain at the time, there was some error in this claim. I could not recall the reasoning behind the counter-point. I just came across the in-depth discussion. If anyone is interested the links follow, and don't forget to read the comments. The comments are actually were is explained in lay terms instead judicial terms. http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.html http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.html Birgitte SB ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics
The first version sent too soon and was almost unreadable, sorry if you struggled through it. Here it is again with copy-editing. On Jul 26, 2012, at 9:06 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:51 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Copyrights wouldn't apply because you own the copyrights in the pictures you take. Maybe. You own the copyright fully if you are the sole contributor of the creative input which went into the picture. If someone else also contributed, then you might own the copyright in the picture as a derivative work (extending only to your contributions), snip I hope you don' t mind my picking out this piece from your email and ignoring the rest. Simply photographing a copyrighted work does NOT create a photograph that is a derivative work. For a photo to become a derivative work you have to really go beyond timing, lighting, point and click. This claim that photographs are derivative works came up just a few weeks ago in the trademark discussion. I never directly addressed this issue during that discussion. While I felt certain there was some error in to the claim, I could not recall the reasoning behind the counter-point. I just came across the in-depth discussion. If anyone is interested the links follow, and don't forget to read the comments. The comments are actually were it is all explained in lay terms with good examples instead of judicial terms. http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.html http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.html Birgitte SB ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics
And here is the correct second link: http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/03/photographs-are-not-derivative-works.html On Jul 26, 2012, at 9:13 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: The first version sent too soon and was almost unreadable, sorry if you struggled through it. Here it is again with copy-editing. On Jul 26, 2012, at 9:06 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:51 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Copyrights wouldn't apply because you own the copyrights in the pictures you take. Maybe. You own the copyright fully if you are the sole contributor of the creative input which went into the picture. If someone else also contributed, then you might own the copyright in the picture as a derivative work (extending only to your contributions), snip I hope you don' t mind my picking out this piece from your email and ignoring the rest. Simply photographing a copyrighted work does NOT create a photograph that is a derivative work. For a photo to become a derivative work you have to really go beyond timing, lighting, point and click. This claim that photographs are derivative works came up just a few weeks ago in the trademark discussion. I never directly addressed this issue during that discussion. While I felt certain there was some error in to the claim, I could not recall the reasoning behind the counter-point. I just came across the in-depth discussion. If anyone is interested the links follow, and don't forget to read the comments. The comments are actually were it is all explained in lay terms with good examples instead of judicial terms. http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.html http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.html Birgitte SB ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics
On Jul 27, 2012, at 8:14 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:35 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: I don't see that joint authorship enters into this at all. I think it's safe to assume that the one holding the camera is the one making the creative decisions about the photos. Then continue to advise people that they are the sole owner of a photograph just because they clicked the shutter. My advice is that the law isn't that simple, and that blanket statements of that type are quite often incorrect. To the degree that we can advise people at all on copyright, it is safe to say that at the point someone clicked the shutter they were the sole owner of any copyright. Considering just this moment in time, it is far, far more likely that there is no copyright created at all than that a joint authorship situation is created. However, many things can occur after this point in time which will result in a work with joint authorship. Birgitte SB ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline
Seriously stop hijacking this thread. Let MZMcBride have a chance at some discussion on his question. This below is just not cool. Have some respect for MZMcBride. He didn't write out his thoughts or concerns with idea that the first reply would turn it all into snip fodder. That seems beyond demoralizing to me. I know I am as guilty of a tangent as anyone, but can't we all, at the very least, agree to let one another's sincere *questions* stand without being twisted beyond all recognition. We need to insist on there being some lines in respect for the other person's voice, or else we are all better off to just write a blogs. The only point to joining a mailing list is so you might hear what others wish to say. As a sort of pact. This mailing list, I like it as a mailing list; I think it sucks as a blog. Birgitte SB On Aug 2, 2012, at 7:45 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:11 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: What type of action was the SOPA blackout in January? You mean, given the $500,000 Google donation Wikimedia received in November 2011, one month after the Italian Wikipedia's blackout, and two months before the English Wikipedia's SOPA blackout, and round about the time Wikimedia first made public statements denouncing SOPA? Good question. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
On Aug 21, 2012, at 3:17 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:19 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 21 August 2012 19:44, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: Utilitarian work = uncopyrightable Only under a fairly limited number of legal systems. [[ciatation needed]] I really doubt non-artistic works are copyrighted as a general rule anywhere (. . . but I have been wrong before). Now clearly being able to judge that X is a utilitarian work is the more normal problem with this argument and why it is seldom used. Diagnostic images are one of the few clear-cut situations. And even if it is only the US, other countries would not recognize copyright on diagnostic images created in the US, which gives us at least the NASA situation. Birgitte SB ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
On Aug 22, 2012, at 9:31 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:14 AM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: Now clearly being able to judge that X is a utilitarian work is the more normal problem with this argument and why it is seldom used. Diagnostic images are one of the few clear-cut situations. How do you distinguish whether or not it is a diagnostic image, and what makes it clear-cut? If you define diagnostic image as an image created solely for the purpose of making a diagnosis, then I suppose you've got a clear-cut utilitarian work. On the other hand, this wouldn't include an X-ray which was made by someone who knew the X-ray was going to be used in a medical book. If any such images exist where the technician knew to aim for something more than a mere depiction, I would agree that things become more questionable. if the technician is actually credited by the textbook I personally would find a different image to use, because why bother about it? But just the fact that the technician knew something might it be used in a larger work (x-rays don't have preview), wouldn't flip the copyright switch all by itself. Presumably the textbook in question is for instructing someone on how to interpret a diagnostic image. Presumably an actual diagnostic image would be selected for inclusion in such a textbook. Now if a technician, while working to create diagnostic images, aimed to create an image that might *also* be displayed in an art gallery, then I wouldn't include that image in my general conclusion. But the image has to stand on its own; either was never copyrightable wherever it might be used, or it has always been copyrighted since the moment it was created until the copyright is waived or expires. To reword what I said before the vast majority of X-ray images in existence are diagnostic images. There is no reason at all to purposefully search out X-rays that might land in some grey area. If something makes a particular X-ray really stand out from the vast majority, something about that makes an editor want to use *that* one instead picking another from the mountain on diagnostic images. I would suspect that in such a case the uncopyrightable conclusion would be less certain than it is for the vast majority. We are never going to be able to actually determine the copyright on every single image uploaded. Never. Not even with infinite resources. The unknowable category wrt copyright is significant. It is just tiny subset of all works existing, but not so tiny that you will fail to come across it now and again. If an image is borderline and easily substituted; please refrain from wasting the communities' time and energy on it. Substitute it with an equivalent image with superior provenance. Rule of thumb (that I haven't thought about very long and may later disagree with): If a specific image truly is uncopyrightable as a utilitarian image, then it should be very easy to replace with another equivalent image. If a specific image doesn't seem to have any *possible* equivalents, it probably isn't a utilitarian image. Another rule of thumb: Most images, whatever they depict, are also *designed* to be pleasing to human aesthetics. That is usually the part that creates the copyright, the choices that are made to produce a certain aesthetic. When an image is designed without any consideration for aesthetics at all (i.e. an arm is placed on a plane and arranged at a certain angle in order to best diagnose any possible damage to the elbow joint), then it is a very good candidate to be considered a utilitarian image. Consider any stock story with a comic and a tragic version, consider all the reinterpretations that have been done of Shakespeare's plays. The new derivative is copyrighted on the weight of the aesthetic choices. Not idea of boy meets girl. Copyright is about how something is expressed. The harder it is to express the same information with different aesthetics, whether it is the phone numbers for businesses in a list or the soundness of a joint on an image, the harder it is to attach copyright to any particular expression of this information. Birgitte SB ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
On Aug 22, 2012, at 9:22 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:14 AM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: I really doubt non-artistic works are copyrighted as a general rule anywhere I'm not sure what you mean by non-artistic, but if you mean purely utilitarian, as that term is interpreted by the court, then this is a good point. I was going to suggest UK, but a quick search suggests that you *can't* copyright purely utilitarian works in the UK. (I wouldn't use the term non-artistic though. There are plenty of works that are copyrighted in the US and all over that I wouldn't consider art, and while an argument could be made that such works shouldn't be copyrightable, court precedent is clearly adverse to that argument.), I believe artistic/non-artistic is accurate for images. Technically it is artistic, literary, dramatic, or musical works. The rules can change a bit as you change mediums, so when we are talking about an image I am talking about copyright wrt to images. Now clearly being able to judge that X is a utilitarian work is the more normal problem with this argument and why it is seldom used. Diagnostic images are one of the few clear-cut situations. How do you distinguish whether or not it is a diagnostic image, and what makes it clear-cut? Even using the term utilitarian rather than artistic I can still come up with a large number of examples of things which seem pretty clear-cut as utilitarian to me, but yet which receive copyright protection. gzip, for instance. I actually expanded on this at the end of my last email. If that doesn't clarify, ask again and explain what gzip is. And even if it is only the US, other countries would not recognize copyright on diagnostic images created in the US, which gives us at least the NASA situation. Do you have a citation for this? Also, is it where the image is created, or where it is first published, or something else? Copyright, internationally, is bilateral agreements. If it is not protected in the US, it cannot demand bilateral protection elsewhere. It would be based on the jurisdiction of creation. Publication has had nothing to do with the creation of copyright since the 1970's as far as I am aware. Before 1976, in the US, place of publication was significant for determining copyright protection because of the notice requirement. Now copyright is automatic at fixation. Birgitte SB ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
On Aug 22, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Upperarm.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arm.agr.jpg would probably be a better example. There's a good chance that wouldn't be considered copyrightable under US law. Even if it is, I think an X-ray would be quite different. In taking a photo of a subject's arm, the photographer must consider lighting, angle to which the arm is turned, the proper camera settings, how to find the exact arm that suits the purposes of the intended photo, etc. Heh, I'd argue that the photo in question shows that the photographer obviously does *not* have to make these considerations. Looks like a random arm in a random position against a plain white wall (hardly creative), with auto everything. I think there would be just enough creativity in that arm shot, but it'd be close. Yeah, I agree it'd be close. I think it'd come down to the testimony of the photographer. If he claimed oh, I chose a hairy arm because X, and I opened my thumb because Y, maybe I'd buy it. So if you're feeling particularly copyright-paranoid, it's best to get explicit permission. An X-ray, on the other hand, is made by a technician according to documented procedures. The arm is turned to the proper angle to see what the doctor wants to see, not to an angle that's aesthetically or artistically pleasing. I could be wrong, but I'm not sure there's a requirement for aesthetic or artistic purpose. Non-fiction, software, legal contracts, etc., all have been held to be copyrightable. I think you are overestimating the very minimal amount of creativity that is required to here. The aesthetic choice between noting a pause as a period vs. a dash vs. a semi-colon has been upheld as copyrightable. There is aesthetics within non-fiction and legal documents, whether or not they are primary consideration. The image is taken according to standard and inflexible procedures. The technician is not exercising a bit of creativity in taking the image. In fact, the tech would likely get in trouble if (s)he DID decide to get creative with it. That, on the other hand, is a very important point. On the other other hand, it's not true of all X-ray images. It's certainly possible, for instance, to create an X-ray image with the explicit purpose of putting it in an encyclopedia, or a journal, or even a book of artwork. Where it gets into grey area would be if the person created the X-ray image knowing that it would be used in a book, but that it would also be used for diagnostic purposes. Either way, it's a question of fact what instructions were given to the X-ray tech, as well as whether or not the tech followed them. I disagree here, the intention of the creator has no more to do with copyright than effort expended. It all hangs on whether the work as executed contains some newly created creative expression of the information. Whether it resulted from purposeful or subconscious choices do not matter. On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 22 August 2012 20:50, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: It possibly has a very thin copyright. Copyright doesn't have thickness. Either it is copyrightable or it isn't. Incorrect. In some works, some aspects are copyrighted, and some aspects are not. +1 Birgitte SB ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] Uncopyrightable works and cross-jurisdictional protections was Re: Copyright on Xrays
On Aug 23, 2012, at 7:35 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:20 AM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: Snip And even if it is only the US, other countries would not recognize copyright on diagnostic images created in the US, which gives us at least the NASA situation. Do you have a citation for this? Also, is it where the image is created, or where it is first published, or something else? Copyright, internationally, is bilateral agreements. If it is not protected in the US, it cannot demand bilateral protection elsewhere. It would be based on the jurisdiction of creation. Publication has had nothing to do with the creation of copyright since the 1970's as far as I am aware. Before 1976, in the US, place of publication was significant for determining copyright protection because of the notice requirement. Now copyright is automatic at fixation. Are you sure, or are you guessing? What about all that country of origin stuff in the Berne Convention? That certainly suggests to me that the location of first publication matters. Publication shortens the copyright term that was enjoyed by the unpublished work. That is the only significance I am aware that the first publication has since the 1970's. However, the Berne Convention is insane. It is not set up as a bilateral treaty like I had thought. (Some of the other relevant agreement are.) It reads: [the enjoyment and exercise of copyright] ... shall be independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work. Consequently, apart from the provisions of this Convention, the extent of protection, as well as the means of redress afforded to the author to protect his rights, shall be governed exclusively by the laws of the country where protection is claimed. — Berne Convention, article 5(2). Here is an example of how insane that is. In the US edicts of government are uncopyrightable. A few years ago Oregon forgot about this; they notices on their website and actually attempted to enforce copyright on the statues of Oregon. I am not sure how far this went in litigation before they were educated about copyright law. Now in the UK, edicts of government are copyrightable. The UK recently switched its license on the local statute from Crown Copyright to some new Free Government license. One way that Berne can be read is that if you had printed a copy of the Statues of Oregon from their website in Oregon; you were not infringing on copyright. However if you had printed a copy of the Statues of Oregon from their website *in the UK*; you were infringing on the copyrights owned by the State of Oregon. And if Oregon had sought to enforce these rights in the UK, they would have been able to. Now this is the really insane part. The US policy relies on common law, so there isn't a quotable statue. The summary is such material as laws and governmental rules and decisions must be freely available to the public and made known as widely as possible; hence there must be no restriction on reproduction and dissemination of such documents. Now imagine the US federal government passed a law stating that in order allow for the widest distribution possible, all edicts of government are to be protected by copyright for a term of 1 minute. If that were to happen then Oregon would no longer be able to enforce copyright on the Statutes of Oregon in the UK or any other Berne signatory that does not explicitly revoke the rule of the shorter term (one the provisions of the Convention that can invalidate the the quoted idea above). Obviously, I just pulled all this together. And I am just guessing, as you might say, about how it would actually play out. And while it is a crazy corner of international copyright, it is not an issue I am concerned with about the diagnostic images. I do not believe such images are copyrighted anywhere. Until someone cites some copyright law that is profoundly differently from generic US basis for what copyright is about, I am will remain confident that mere diagnostic images are universally without copyright protection. Birgitte SB ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
On Aug 23, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:49 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: To reword what I said before the vast majority of X-ray images in existence are diagnostic images. There is no reason at all to purposefully search out X-rays that might land in some grey area. One problem with that is that the X-ray images that you are most likely to find are the most likely to have been created with the intention of being distributed. I don't understand why intention to distribute would be relevant. On the other hand, if probably no one will sue is good enough for you, then you really don't need to ask the legal question in the first place. That is not at all what I said, but you are quite good at striking down an argument which I did not make and do not support! Since there is so little left of what I said, I will rephrase: Diagnostic images are not copyrighted and there are lots of interchangeable images that are equally not copyrighted. If one of these interchangeable images credits someone as a creator, and you are worried they probably will sue, then use another interchangeable image. Unless, of course, one purposefully wishes to be a jerk about their understanding of copyright. And while I am sure someone will, I wound prefer not to put any more effort in considering the situation. (So please don't misquote me on this issue!) Another rule of thumb: Most images, whatever they depict, are also *designed* to be pleasing to human aesthetics. I don't understand that. What are you using the term human aesthetics to mean? I meant when creating a common photo no consideration is given to composition of the infrared wavelengths. However, whether the photographer is very aware of it or not, aesthetic choices are being made as the overall composition is selected. It is really outside this topic, but I think the aesthetics which happen please/disturb us are often evolutionary. I tend to always be connecting things in my thinking, I didn't mean to have it spill over and muddy things here. Don't read too much into and pretend I just wrote aesthetics. I doubt any one but me would be reading that sentence and wondering whether non-humans would find most pictures to be pleasing. Sorry for confusing the issue. And even if you're truer about most, that still leaves a great number which were not. Many images were in fact designed to be aesthetically displeasing. I also wrote a sentence about copyrightable images being designed for aesthetic effect. While I think the statement you quoted works as *a rule of thumb*, I purposefully did not limit the statement that followed to only *pleasing* aesthetic effects. And many others were designed, like the X-ray image, to objectively depict reality. _ Yes there are many such images. These types of images are called utilitarian images. Which is what prompted me to write about how copyright hangs upon aesthetic choices. In hopes that it would help people understand why images lacking aesthetic choices also lack copyright. I was very aware there are many such images. I labeled my statement a rule of thumb not a universal rule. I know this all sounds like I am very annoyed. I am really just slightly annoyed ;) Look copyright is really tough. Really. And most people, probably everyone to some degree, misunderstands copyright. I honestly am happy to see you smack down some of my statements, like you did about all the international agreements working as bi-lateral treaties. I learned that Berne is different today, and frankly I think that is awesome. I ran out of low hanging fruit wrt to copyright a long time ago. I really appreciate the opportunity this thread has offered me to gain a nuance to my understanding. Seriously. But I don't appreciate the rhetorical twists that, instead of clarifying the discussion, muddy things by making our that a sentence or two that wrote support a position that I never took. Not that it bothers me personally. But it confuses the discussion immensely for people who may have been struggling to follow it in the beginning. A long time ago, when I knew *nothing* of copyright, this list is where I managed to gather most of the low hanging fruit. Eventually I had to search for understanding elsewhere, but I know people making copyright decisions in the wikis may be using this list as a tool for making those decisions. At one time, I was such a person. So anyways . . . I know it's the internet and all . . . where men are compelled to put on displays of rhetorical prowess as though they were peacocks . . . but please . . . for the children and all that . . . Can we try to avoid picking out the weakest snippets of writing for rhetorical displays and instead focus on the heart of the positions to explore the issue in way that allows us to both improve our understandings? At least about
Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?
The April fundraiser is on translated messages IIRC. Your suggestion is not at all practical for the fundraising team to implement. Also it is terrible idea, which ignores the high costs of planning to hold deliberations in a few months which is designed to nullify the results of recently concluded deliberations. People have work to do in January, February, and March. No sane person can be expected to be put in a holding pattern for three months before an organizations STARTS to decide what internal projects will be supported. If you think there is a talent retention problem now, well if you had your way the current numbers would be blown out of the water by the coming stampede of departures. BirgitteSB On Dec 28, 2012, at 3:45 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote: How about for the April fundraiser, instead of setting a dollar value goal, we agree to use multivariate analysis instead of A/B testing to optimize the messaging from volunteer submissions in advance, then run the whole thing for a fixed time frame, say three weeks, and then use the actual amount raised to decide whether salaries should be competitive with area tech firms, whether Fellowships should be jettisoned, how much personell to put into the Education Program and engineering, and how much of a reserve to invest, preferably with low risk instruments which pay above the rate of inflation? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] If I could talk to the wiki folks...
I am not affiliated with Wiki Med. However as an American, Health to my ear means scammy quacky bullshit that wants to pretend it is medicine for the $$$. There are real reasons NY does not let an organization use the title Medicine without approval from the medical board. And all those reasons use the title Health or Healing instead. I imagine the members of an organization like Wiki Med are more than normally aware of this and would be more than normally distressed to be associated with this. After all, the majority of Wikipedian medical editors seem dedicate a good portion of their time to keeping the scammy quacky bullshit out of the medical articles. Birgitte SB On Dec 29, 2012, at 8:20 AM, Leinonen Teemu teemu.leino...@aalto.fi wrote: Hi, I think the thematic organizations are good for the movement. Could the naming of the affiliated thematic organizations be primary based on the Wikipedia Portal namespaces (from all the Wikipedia's in different languages)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Portals With this logic the Wiki Med could be Wikimedia Health. - Teemu On 28.12.2012, at 19.29, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nlmailto:vand...@wmnederland.nl wrote: Dear James, My sincere congratulations for this important step, and I am really very happy with a Wikimedia Medicine. But the name Wiki Med Foundation - I find the choice for that name just strange (I saw the discussion on Meta too late). Wikimedia Health, by the way, would be as great as Wikimedia Medicine. I understood that there problems in the State of New York to use medicine in the title. So, Wiki Health could have been an alternative until recognition from the AffCom. Kind regards Ziko 2012/12/29 James Heilman jmh...@gmail.commailto:jmh...@gmail.com: Yes so Wiki Med Foundation Inc incorporated Dec 19, 2012 and we had our first official board meeting Dec 26, 2012. We have had expressed interest from 57 people from more than a dozen countries with a large group of interested members from India. Our 9 board members are from 7 different countries. Our first official event is being held January 7-11th at the University of California San Francisco in collaboration with Wikimedia Canada. We have been invited by the college of medicine to give a half dozen lectures on Wikipedia and Medicine and a few editing sessions where students and staff can try their hand at editing themselves. This is in preparation for an elective for 3rd and 4th year medical students which will resolve around contribution to Wikimedia projects hopefully to launch in the spring. Of course we are a new corporation, however our membership is composed of people who have extensive experience within the Wikimedia movement. Once we have had a chance to prove ourselves over the next 6 month we will re approach the aff com / Wikimedia movement to determine if an official association is desired. Currently as stated by Bence we are not officially associated. -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.comhttp://www.opentextbookofmedicine.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- --- Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/ Wikimedia Nederland Postbus 167 3500 AD Utrecht --- ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?
On Dec 30, 2012, at 3:40 AM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote: The April fundraiser is on translated messages IIRC. I'm sorry, I don't understand what this means. Where are plans for the April fundraiser being discussed? It means multivariate testing in X languages is siginificantly more resource intensive than A/B testing in one language. Impractibly so for the fundraising team, IMHO. At least that is what I meant with that plus the following statement that you removed. The meaning required both to be read together. You are subscribed to the same mailing list I am, yet you have been regularly asking people to dig out information that I myself am well aware of. And I do not get any information any place else than this list (except maybe wikitech-l which I am currently months and months behind on). Pay attention or search your own emails. You may not realize this, but your recent messages seem rather disingenuous. Do your own research. Reply individually to others with the full context intact. Actually address the points of the message you reply to straight on, instead of sending the thread on a tangent. Or else, accept that you will be judged insincere and do not be surprised when people largely stop responding to your emails. I am done myself, unless you alter your approach. Birgitte SB (who really hates when people over-snip) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
