Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people
I would like to know where subjects can post their complaint besides on the talk page, since putting complaints there is still a form of publication and only serves to propagate the sensitive information that subjects want removed. - Jane Darnell Yes; we are working on it. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Undiscussed_addition and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Contact_us/Problems#Consent_Issues Jee On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote: Fæ wrote: I hope this is a coincidence. How naive of you, Fæ: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/ index.php?oldid=6705202#Personal_and_Moral_Rights.3F Tomasz ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people
Is there a discussion happening on Commons somewhere about the implications of this resolution? - John Vandenberg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Resolution:Media_about_living_people Jee On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 10:24 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.net wrote: Hi Jane, I am concerned about the issue surrounding the comment the real BLP problems happen when heavyweight (in edit count terms) Wikipedia users swing their weight around I think the problem is that if you ask ten different people about the reason why we have BLP problems, you'll get ten different answers. All ten would probably have some truth in them, but any one in isolation would be inadequate. The list of problems becomes even longer for images. The 2009 resolution on biographies of living people was about identifiable people, given they were the subject of a biography. This new 'media about living people' resolution doesn't make any such distinction for media, which I guess will result in lots of confusion about whether the scope includes images of unidentifiable people. It should, but ... This resolution appears to be asking for verifiability regarding images of living people. We are going to need some clarity around what the board considers to be verifiability (how do we prove the photo was taken at a public event and it is real? etc), and whether that includes unidentifiable people. Ensuring that all projects in all languages that describe or show living people have policies in place calling for special attention to the principles of neutrality and verifiability in those articles;.. On English Wikipedia we have some guidance regarding photos of living people, but I can't find anything relating to verifiability or neutrality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Original_images https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Images Wikimedia Commons has a policy which rejects 'neutrality', and it doesnt have a verifiability policy. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Neutral_point_of_view https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people Is there a discussion happening on Commons somewhere about the implications of this resolution? My own point of view is that our policies and procedures are actually pretty good on paper, but they're just very unevenly and inconsistently applied in the real world. The Tier 1 biographies, such as those of Messrs Obama, Cameron, and Abbott are pretty safe from BLP hijinx, but there is a massive underbelly of poorly defended BLPs on minor celebrities, local politicians, and the like, which are not watched consistently and where hagiography or defamation can take root. This is why, while things like the BoT's declaration are not unwelcome, I feel that they don't have any practical effect in fixing the problem. All it takes is for one negatively written bio to slip through the net to do real harm to someone in the real world. I agree with you Craig up to here .. My preferred way of dealing with this on en.wp would be to massively tighten the notability criteria where they related to biographies of living or possibly living people, but this would no doubt be met with cries of deletionism!. And agree your preferred approach could help. On English Wikipedia, I think we have an article/editor ratio problem, which is only getting worse as articles increase and editors leave, and is meaning watchlists are less useful to scan for problematic edits. The test for this is what is the average length of time between an edit of an old page (e.g. created in 2005) to the point in time that the edit a) appears on a watchlist, or b) is viewed as a diff, or c) is loaded as a page view, or d) leads to another edit. Then compare those averages with the averages from a year before, to determine whether edits are slipping past watchlists and recentchanges. I'm guessing that the length of time from edit to (a) or (b) is increasing, while (c) may be decreasing as Wikipedia readership increases. A smaller Wikipedia scope means there are less articles, with more editors watching and editing the pages the BLP problems appear on. I think it is necessary to add here that FlaggedRevs (Pending Changes) also helps, as any BLP problems are held in a queue. The 'volume of edits' can be a problem with FlaggedRevs in practise, but a) the 'size. Indeed, I don't think it's possible to adequately address the issue on large projects like en.wp or commons without a massive cultural shift and sweeping changes to policy that would cause immense disruption in the community; something the BoT is understandably reluctant to do. Another way the board can get serious about this problem is to mandate that each
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people
And an application at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Contact_us/Problems#Suggested_change Jee On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Jeevan Jose jkadav...@gmail.com wrote: Is there a discussion happening on Commons somewhere about the implications of this resolution? - John Vandenberg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Resolution:Media_about_living_people Jee On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 10:24 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.comwrote: On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.net wrote: Hi Jane, I am concerned about the issue surrounding the comment the real BLP problems happen when heavyweight (in edit count terms) Wikipedia users swing their weight around I think the problem is that if you ask ten different people about the reason why we have BLP problems, you'll get ten different answers. All ten would probably have some truth in them, but any one in isolation would be inadequate. The list of problems becomes even longer for images. The 2009 resolution on biographies of living people was about identifiable people, given they were the subject of a biography. This new 'media about living people' resolution doesn't make any such distinction for media, which I guess will result in lots of confusion about whether the scope includes images of unidentifiable people. It should, but ... This resolution appears to be asking for verifiability regarding images of living people. We are going to need some clarity around what the board considers to be verifiability (how do we prove the photo was taken at a public event and it is real? etc), and whether that includes unidentifiable people. Ensuring that all projects in all languages that describe or show living people have policies in place calling for special attention to the principles of neutrality and verifiability in those articles;.. On English Wikipedia we have some guidance regarding photos of living people, but I can't find anything relating to verifiability or neutrality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Original_images https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Images Wikimedia Commons has a policy which rejects 'neutrality', and it doesnt have a verifiability policy. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Neutral_point_of_view https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people Is there a discussion happening on Commons somewhere about the implications of this resolution? My own point of view is that our policies and procedures are actually pretty good on paper, but they're just very unevenly and inconsistently applied in the real world. The Tier 1 biographies, such as those of Messrs Obama, Cameron, and Abbott are pretty safe from BLP hijinx, but there is a massive underbelly of poorly defended BLPs on minor celebrities, local politicians, and the like, which are not watched consistently and where hagiography or defamation can take root. This is why, while things like the BoT's declaration are not unwelcome, I feel that they don't have any practical effect in fixing the problem. All it takes is for one negatively written bio to slip through the net to do real harm to someone in the real world. I agree with you Craig up to here .. My preferred way of dealing with this on en.wp would be to massively tighten the notability criteria where they related to biographies of living or possibly living people, but this would no doubt be met with cries of deletionism!. And agree your preferred approach could help. On English Wikipedia, I think we have an article/editor ratio problem, which is only getting worse as articles increase and editors leave, and is meaning watchlists are less useful to scan for problematic edits. The test for this is what is the average length of time between an edit of an old page (e.g. created in 2005) to the point in time that the edit a) appears on a watchlist, or b) is viewed as a diff, or c) is loaded as a page view, or d) leads to another edit. Then compare those averages with the averages from a year before, to determine whether edits are slipping past watchlists and recentchanges. I'm guessing that the length of time from edit to (a) or (b) is increasing, while (c) may be decreasing as Wikipedia readership increases. A smaller Wikipedia scope means there are less articles, with more editors watching and editing the pages the BLP problems appear on. I think it is necessary to add here that FlaggedRevs (Pending Changes) also helps, as any BLP problems are held in a queue. The 'volume of edits' can be a problem with FlaggedRevs in practise, but a) the 'size. Indeed, I don't think it's possible to adequately address the issue on large projects like en.wp or commons without a massive cultural shift and sweeping changes to policy
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_151#Resolution:Media_about_living_people Hope this helps. Jee On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 1:16 AM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote: While I appreciate the lengthy discussion about the scope of the resolution and about the ways it can be implemented in on-wiki processes, I would like to raise a different question. I note with some interest that Jimmy's vote is not recorded at https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Media_about_living_people, and I wonder what are the exact reasons behind that, and how this lack of information relates to a March 30, 2012 resolution on Board of Trustees Voting Transparency, https://wikimediafoundation. org/wiki/Resolution:Board_of_Trustees_Voting_Transparency. Perhaps it might also be worth mentioning that there are two additional resolutions approved after March 30, 2012 that do not comply with the Voting Transparency resolution: * https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Stu_West_ reappointment_2013 * https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Jan-Bart_ de_Vreede_reappointment_2013 I believe that the Board or Foundation lawyers might want to have a look at those. Tomasz ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community consultation + Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director selection process
Founder of the Wikimedia Foundation = One who founded/established the foundation? Sorry; I didn't get your question. Regards, Jee On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the assurance that the community directly and indirectly influences 100% of the board. Could someone point me to where this happened for the founder of the Wikimedia Foundation? Thanks again, Fae On 21 January 2014 17:28, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hey I am sure it is technically feasible, its just not realistic from a hiring perspective. I cannot tell a potential candidate that process includes a public vetting process, this is something that is just not going to happen. We are hiring an ED for the Wikimedia Foundation, and the Board of Trustees of that Foundation is simply the body that is responsible for the final decision on this. I am not going to debate the different kinds of movement representation in the board, but I would argue that the community directly and indirectly influences 100% of the board, as appointed members are appointed by (s)elected members and the founder of the Wikimedia Foundation. Jan-Bart On 21 Jan 2014, at 15:57, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Thanks for getting back to me. Jan-Bart de Vreede wrote: There is no community consultation period in the selection proces. It's simply not feasible or desirable to have someone have a public vetting phase. I'm not sure I understand how it would be infeasible. It's 2014, not 1814. I think we've figured out how to solicit feedback in a timely manner. It seems less desirable to me to reduce the Wikimedia community to waiting for the white smoke. The new Executive Director will be publicly vetted, to be sure, it just sounds as though it'll happen after or he or she has been firmly appointed by the Board. It would be dishonest to suggest that there's no merit to this approach, but I do wonder if it's in line with Wikimedia's values. The good news is that you elected representatives on the board who have a strong voice in the selection process and final approval. I'm not quite sure who you is, but only three of ten Board seats are directly elected. I suppose that's a strong voice? MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- fae...@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] COM:IDENT?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Odderoldid=124445321#Commons_talk:Nudity Is this the way Commons:Photographs of identifiable people works? Regards, Jee ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] COM:IDENT?
Thanks all for your opinions, suggestions and advice. I was away due to a personal emergency; just back home today. I read all the responses above, including Pierre-selim's advise on how to handle such cases in future. I agree, and my intention was not to ignore in Commons discussions and make a commons is broken rant as Pleclown complained above. I was in the midst of switching off my computer and run as one of my relative just admitted in hospital. The repeated revert on that page increased my blood pressure and I forwarded it to here as I know I can't participate in that thread for at least a few days. I disagree with Pierre-selim's opinion that In the end I just think we are having this thread because of the topic being related to nudity (which is clearly a not consensual topic in our communities, probably because it is cultural) and not really because of any real breach of privacy. As a husband of a woman who had undergone TAH-BSO at the age of twenty (ten years before our marriage), I'm well aware of the value of our reproductive system and the importance of educating common people about the healthy maintenance of them. I know how photographs are more helpful than graphical illustrations in some occasions. But we should be more careful on verifying whether the subjects are fully consented in such cases. Moreover, there is no need to reveal the identity of non notable persons in such cases. (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Smoking_Crack.jpg is another similar case where no relation to nudity; but clear real breach of privacy. There people even tried to revert Odder. Finally I had to bring it at AN to revedelete other versions. I still believe such a picture is not good for our projects as we have no evidence of consent and the person can be easily identifiable from the external links.) Now I (glad to) see Russavia did some homework and made an alert to another crat and (as a result) most links are removed. ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MichaelMaggs#Paedophile_advocate_needs_blocking ). Regards, Jee On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 1:59 AM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.comwrote: Though in this case it does seem that Commons has given sound advice that any photos submitted should be accompanied by a model release. If only more photos on Commons had model releases! On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.comwrote: @Risker: I was thinking the same, hence my disagreement with Odder's decision. But I've visited the linked website (NSFW) and one can only assume that the person on the pictures is fully aware of the implication of said photos on the internet and willing to see them diffused. I don't think there are pictures of someone on the internet can in any circumstances imply that person has given their consent for those pictures to be on the internet. Even if it is clear that the person concerned gave permission for the picture to be taken, that is no evidence that they have given any consent for those pictures to be circulated. Chris ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] About Wikipedia medical entries
Wikipedia discourages self diagnosis and treatment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Medical_disclaimer And I think professionals are capable enough to verify the credibility of the referred sources instead of blindly reading the articles. Regards, Jee On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Lane Rasberry l...@bluerasberry.comwrote: Hello, I am a participant in WikiProject Medicine on English Wikipedia and know about this case. I also have talked to the researcher who published this paper since its publication. Lots of people have lots of objections to Wikipedia. In my opinion, the study itself is correct for what it reports, but no newspaper or other media understands what the study is saying and they are reporting all kinds of silly things. Here is the discussion of this paper in WikiProject Medicine - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_48#Poor_paper_.5B4.5D_on_Wikipedia That is in the archives, so if someone has more to say, post to the main forum. While I think this study is being perceived negatively, I appreciate any research team who does any kind of research on Wikipedia's health content. Here is a list of what has been done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Research_publications @geni - The problem is the number of doctors who use wikipedia. I disagree. I feel that the problem is that for all of history there has never been health information accessible to doctors and patients. Wikipedia at least says that people should have health information, whereas every government and health organization in the world (NIH, NHS, WHO and the rest) are still saying Not yet, it is not important, nobody wants this and not providing any alternative. There are no alternatives or competitors to Wikipedia for what it does, so of course doctors use it. The problem is that no one else thinks doctors need ready access to good information right now, and Wikipedia is just doing the best it can to meet the existing demand that is otherwise ignored. @Todd Allen - ask your doctor should always be the end of the process. The number of people how have as much access to their doctors as they wish is definitely not more than 20% of the English speaking world and the reality is probably closer to 2-3% of people. Doctors simply do not have more than minutes to answer questions and many people would like to study for hours over their lifetimes. Referring people to doctors ignores the problem that people do not get as much access to healthcare as they would like, and doctors are not ready to provide health information on demand. At the same time, patients are being encouraged to make more health decisions with their doctors, but not given educational resources to help them make those decisions. I wish there were enough doctors, and people should try hard to ask them lots of questions, but something more is needed too. yours, On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: Actually, Don't diagnose yourself is just generally good advice. Even if the medical information you have is accurate, there might be other possible causes or factors that need to be considered. Internet information, Wikipedia or otherwise, might be a good place to get things to ask your doctor about, but ask your doctor should always be the end of the process. On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 05/27/2014 10:18 AM, Martijn Hoekstra wrote: From what I remember from it is that what is called Osteopathy in the UK isn't the same thing that's called Osteopathy in the US Ah, that explains it. :-) Regardless, Don't diagnose yourself with Wikipedia seems to be infinitely good advice, regardless of any hyperbole about article accuracy! -- Marc ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
[Wikimedia-l] Importance of educating the media contributors
In many recent discussions in Wikimedia Commons, I noticed that many of our media contributors are not well aware of the terms of licenses they grant. Main confusions are in three areas: 1. Attribution: Many people think we can demand attribution near the work used in off wiki cases. But according to CC, a mere link/hyper link to the source is enough for attribution as we practiced in WMF projects. I don't know whether all courts agree with it; but our contributors should be aware of it. Anyway there is no separate agreement between the contributors and Wikimedia; people can't expect more for off wiki uses. Moreover, many uploads are by third parties; so no chances for such special agreements. ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Luftbild_Grindelhochh.C3.A4user_Hamburg.jpg ) 2. File resolution: Recently CC clarified that the license is applicable for the copyright eligible works; so it may applicable for high quality file of that work too. ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Could_someone_please_post_a_summary_of_this.3F ) 3. Personality/privacy rights in case of self portraits: Here also CC advised that such rights may affected. ( http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#How_are_publicity.2C_privacy.2C_and_personality_rights_affected_when_I_apply_a_CC_license.3F, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Uploaded_by_the_depicted_person ) In most cases, people reveal such things very late, try to defend, and ended up in edit wars and even a block. So do we have a responsibility to educate the contributors than misusing their ignorance in such cases? Regards, Jee ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Importance of educating the media contributors
For us, point 1 is covered by ToU - Nemo But my understanding is Tou (7 g) is only applicable for Wikimedian who contribute their own works. We have so many third party uploads and they all must meet exact license terms. Regards, Jee On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Jeevan Jose, 05/06/2014 07:59: So do we have a responsibility to educate the contributors than misusing their ignorance in such cases? The three points you raise are legally untested in most countries and even CC's FAQ is not legal advice. For us, point 1 is covered by ToU, but for 2 and 3 it would be inappropriate to have a ghost CC FAQ, while giving legal advice is out of question. The licensing tutorial shown by UploadWizard can certainly be improved in some way, please propose tweaks: https://commons.wikimedia. org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Commons_licensing_tutorial In general however, rather than controversial edge cases, it's better to focus the little licensing outreach we manage to have on the really crucial aspects/mission, in particular how copyleft/-SA is the way while -NC and -ND generally do the opposite of what folks expect. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Free_knowledge_based_on_ Creative_Commons_licenses Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Importance of educating the media contributors
See. I upload a freely licensed photo from Flickr to Commons and another user added it to a Wikipedia article. A court concluded that mere linking to file description page in commons.wikimeda.org is not enough for attribution. Who is responsible for this infringement? Me, the user who added it, or WMF? We have a similar case here: http://bilderklau.lucan.de/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/LG-M%C3%BCnchen-I-37-O-9798-11-Endurteil.pdf It says In this case , the Court considers that a duty to name the author ( copyright notice ) requires a mention of the filings by the creator's name in the immediate spatial context of the photograph. Specifying the picture authors in a linked site, the first by clicking the light image can be achieved, in contrast, does not meet the requirements of the license conditions. The Creative Commons license provides that the name of the author / copyright holder is to be called in the manner determined by it. This is to be understood that the author indicated in the image information page under author the name, pseudonym must be etc. are mentioned . At Wikipedia you reach the image description page of Wikipedia , which is on the same server. - It is not fully true; they are different domains owned by WMF. Moreover, it is conceivable that the image description page , which is so far on a foreign server sometimes is unreachable. - True; sometimes Wikimedia Commons is down even if Wikipedia is available. So uploading third party images to Commons is a risky business? Regards, Jee On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Jeevan Jose jkadav...@gmail.com wrote: For us, point 1 is covered by ToU - Nemo But my understanding is Tou (7 g) is only applicable for Wikimedian who contribute their own works. We have so many third party uploads and they all must meet exact license terms. Regards, Jee On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Jeevan Jose, 05/06/2014 07:59: So do we have a responsibility to educate the contributors than misusing their ignorance in such cases? The three points you raise are legally untested in most countries and even CC's FAQ is not legal advice. For us, point 1 is covered by ToU, but for 2 and 3 it would be inappropriate to have a ghost CC FAQ, while giving legal advice is out of question. The licensing tutorial shown by UploadWizard can certainly be improved in some way, please propose tweaks: https://commons.wikimedia. org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Commons_licensing_tutorial In general however, rather than controversial edge cases, it's better to focus the little licensing outreach we manage to have on the really crucial aspects/mission, in particular how copyleft/-SA is the way while -NC and -ND generally do the opposite of what folks expect. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Free_knowledge_based_on_ Creative_Commons_licenses Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Importance of educating the media contributors
If someone can prove their copyright is not respected they'll get the content deleted, end of story. Good; but shouldn't be this an eye opening for WMF to approach copyright matters seriously. Or we can amend the Commons:PCP: #6. If someone can prove their copyright is not respected they'll get the content deleted, end of story. Regards, Jee On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Jeevan Jose, 05/06/2014 14:04: So uploading third party images to Commons is a risky business? IANAL, but: not under DMCA unless a zealous attorney uses the new ToU to file criminal charges against you under CFAA. If someone can prove their copyright is not respected they'll get the content deleted, end of story. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Importance of educating the media contributors
As far as I am aware, the CC-by-sa comes in many flavours. One for each country and all of them are different in their own way. Specific country specific implementations may exactly allow for things people are not aware off. True up to version 3.0; but it seems they stopped it for version 4.0 and started calling it International License. http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_are_the_international_.28.E2.80.9Cunported.E2.80.9D.29_Creative_Commons_licenses.2C_and_why_does_CC_offer_.E2.80.9Cported.E2.80.9D_licenses.3F http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Should_I_choose_an_international_license_or_a_ported_license.3F Jee On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, As far as I am aware, the CC-by-sa comes in many flavours. One for each country and all of them are different in their own way. Specific country specific implementations may exactly allow for things people are not aware off. Yes the INTENTION is for them to be the same. As to why things go wrong? They do. Thanks, GerardM On 7 June 2014 04:51, Jeevan Jose jkadav...@gmail.com wrote: CC does NOT say anything that people can understand clearly. That is the sole problem here. 1. They said If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must: retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material: a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the extent reasonably practicable. must != to the extent reasonably practicable 2. You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode#s3a1 in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material. What is the meaning of it? It means nothing to anyone have some commonsense. 3. As with most copyright questions, it will depend on applicable law. Then why our admins punishing a user who try to follow the judgement by the court of his country? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Luftbild_Grindelhochh.C3.A4user_Hamburg.jpg Regards, Jee On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:10 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, The CC does NOT say that the license of a low resolution image allows for the use of a high resolution image. This is because it depends on the law of the land. Some countries consider them to be the same where other do not. Thanks, GerardM On 5 June 2014 07:59, Jeevan Jose jkadav...@gmail.com wrote: In many recent discussions in Wikimedia Commons, I noticed that many of our media contributors are not well aware of the terms of licenses they grant. Main confusions are in three areas: 1. Attribution: Many people think we can demand attribution near the work used in off wiki cases. But according to CC, a mere link/hyper link to the source is enough for attribution as we practiced in WMF projects. I don't know whether all courts agree with it; but our contributors should be aware of it. Anyway there is no separate agreement between the contributors and Wikimedia; people can't expect more for off wiki uses. Moreover, many uploads are by third parties; so no chances for such special agreements. ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Luftbild_Grindelhochh.C3.A4user_Hamburg.jpg ) 2. File resolution: Recently CC clarified that the license is applicable for the copyright eligible works; so it may applicable for high quality file of that work too. ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Could_someone_please_post_a_summary_of_this.3F ) 3. Personality/privacy rights in case of self portraits: Here also CC advised that such rights may affected. ( http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#How_are_publicity.2C_privacy.2C_and_personality_rights_affected_when_I_apply_a_CC_license.3F , https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Uploaded_by_the_depicted_person ) In most cases, people reveal such things very late, try to defend, and ended up in edit wars and even a block. So do we have a responsibility to educate the contributors than misusing their ignorance in such cases? Regards, Jee ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons and OCILLA
BTW, why we have separate policies for Commons and Wikipedia? I just noticed that photographs deleted from Common per not free in source country are restored by our own (Commons) admins in English Wikipedia. Jee On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 5:18 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 8 June 2014 12:21, matanya mata...@foss.co.il wrote: Hello, Commons licensing policy determines media should be free in source country and in US. I want to propose We change the policy to be: free in source country only, and to cope with US laws where the servers are hosted found a DMCA take down notice Team in OTRS, that will handle requests to remove Items that are non-free in the US after verifying proper grounds for the claim. This approach to copyright will prevent issues like URAA issues, shorter term issues and restored copyright issues. No it it won't. UK restored a bunch of copyrights when EU went life+70 It will enrich commons with many files that are FREE (mostly PD) in source country, but not on commons due to US laws. Unless the copyright holder (mostly Gov's and archives) will not request removal, and they won't since they released the media, we will be using those files. If the government held the copyright then you contact them and ask them about their position on potential overseas copyrights. I'm not a lawyer, so I probably missed most of the legal implication, But I do volunteer to found and lead the team, if this idea is accepted and commons community would want this policy change. I'm seeking input from copyright experienced users and lawyers, before i start an official policy change on commons. The main problem that you hit is that free in source country and in US is a pretty good proxy for free pretty much anywhere (well unless the source country is the US but that's a separate problem). For example depending on how you read Saudi law there are a bunch of photos that are free in Saudi Arabia and pretty much nowhere else (Switzerland perhaps) but unless our resuser know their way around over 100 copyright systems they probably aren't going to know that. Thus from a reuse POV commons goes from being useful (as long as you allow for US weirdness) to being (from a copyright perspective) a radioactive mess. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons
Accidentally, I have one of these FFD nomination pages on my watchlist. Yesterday it was renominated for the THIRD time by the same user (the second one was keep as well). And I can not act on it anymore. Apparently, at some point the user will get an admin with a stricter interpretation of the policies, and the file gets deleted. Could you give the DR link? We can think about topic ban him from any URAA related DRs. Jee On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote: On 17.06.2014 16:47, Osmar Valdebenito wrote: If you take a look at the undeletion requests after the URAA discussion, most of the images restored were deleted afterwards anyway.[1][2] The only exception that I've seen are some German stamps that haven't been deleted (yet). The problem is that, at this moment, most of the people whose valid images were quickly deleted and re-deleted are tired and have no intention to start again defending their contributions when they will be deleted no matter what. I personally kept several Argentinian flies arguing that the URAA can not be the sole reason for deletion. Accidentally, I have one of these FFD nomination pages on my watchlist. Yesterday it was renominated for the THIRD time by the same user (the second one was keep as well). And I can not act on it anymore. Apparently, at some point the user will get an admin with a stricter interpretation of the policies, and the file gets deleted. Cheers Yaroslav ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons
All ended in a good way as Sven Manguard unblocked her. Hope the Hebrew Wikipedia will recover from the painful memories soon. Regards, Jee On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 2:33 AM, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote: Suite of the drama. A request for a topic ban against LGA, who made these deletion requests, was started by Hanay, a user from the Hebrew Wikipedia. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:LGA Now she is blocked for one week for canvassing, because she informed the Hebrew Wikipedia of the request. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Block_of_Hanay_for_cross-wiki_canvassing This affair is going to degenerate in a full war between Commons and some Wikipedias, if a solution is not found. Regards, Yann 2014-06-17 5:04 GMT+05:30 Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com: Hi, Some Commons contributors like to ask impossible requirements, and threaten to delete files if these are not met. We have now a case of famous pictures from the government of Israel and Israel Defense Forces. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#Files_and_pages_that_were_deleted_by_User:Fastily_that_I_am_aware_of_them https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beba_Idelson_Ada_Maimon1952.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abba_Hushi_1956.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aharon_Meskin_-_Ben_Gurion_-_Israel_Prize1960.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Avraham_Shlonsky_1952.jpg These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia. These files have already been deleted and restored 3 times. When the URAA issue was not convincing enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition, publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in Israel. After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a delete-only account: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Yann There, more contributors argue on this issue. By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons. Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is gone. Instead of looking for a reason to destroy these files, they should try to find a reason to keep them. Regards, Yann ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Lets delete everything from commons (was The tragedy of Commons)
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:%D7%AA%D7%92%D7%95%D7%91%D7%AA_%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%93_%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A4%D7%98%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9F_%D7%96%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%99%D7%95%D7%A6%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D.jpg Such a statement from GOI can't override US copyright law for all works originated from Israel. (as Geni said above) But one thing they can do. They can make a statement that they have no plan to claim copyright for Govt works per URAA in USA. So all the works of Israel will become PD in USA too when they become PD in Israel. I think this is the opinin expressed by Carl Lindberg at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2014/04#New_URAA_policy_and_the_rule_of_the_shorter_term Jee On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: On 22 June 2014 12:08, Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.net wrote: ... parody/satire angle, my understanding is that a CC licence does not extinguish things such as moral rights that are not related to copyright. This is fundamentally misleading. Please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_%28copyright_law%29 If you have not read up on IP law, or are confused about copyright terms, I suggest having the discussion on-wiki rather than on an email list, where corrections like this either get skipped, leading to later readers thinking that these are factual statements, or we end up repeating basic copyright law endlessly. Thanks, Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Lets delete everything from commons (was The tragedy of Commons)
I think following the opinion of Carl Lindberg is the best option [1]: I would personally be happy about not having to delete governmental works which have expired in their own country... those always have felt different to me than privately-held copyrights. Hope Fae will support me when I start a mass de-admin request followed by my self admin request. :) Links: 1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2014/04#New_URAA_policy_and_the_rule_of_the_shorter_term Jee On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 June 2014 13:42, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: The question is whether that is implicit, and whether that is necessary at all. I find the argument that for government works we only have to bother about the law of the source country, very persuasive. I can see no point in this discussion. Folks had every opportunity to give viewpoints during the RFC on Commons in April. No opinion in this list makes any tangible difference to the existing on-Commons RFC, on-Commons policies or published U.S. copyright law, even though it may be a good way of blowing off steam. GUIDE TO PLACES TO COMPLAIN ON COMMONS AND MAKE A DIFFERENCE: A. If anyone thinks that the April RFC was unclear as to the process that administrators should follow, they can create another.[1] B. If anyone feels that a particular admin is misusing their powers, then AN/U is a good place to complain, where it might make a difference or ensure that admin publicly justifies their actions.[2][3] C. A useful place to discuss copyright is the noticeboard on Commons for copyright, the advantage being that the same things do not get said several times over and where it is possible to correct something you write after you press 'send'.[4] D. Become an admin and do it yourself, or de-sysop an admin you feel has misused their powers, using simple standard processes.[2][5] Links 1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment 2. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-June/072926.html 3. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems 4. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright 5. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons
Hi Erik:
Thanks for your comment. I noticed your comment at [[1]] so hope they are
related.
Yes; making proper attributions and satisfying all license requirements are
a bit complicated and time consuming. See my proposal at [[2]].
I requested the help of CC team; but didn't get any response so far.
I requested the help of the WMF legal; Luis Villa (WMF) commented that Yup,
I understand - it is a difficult situation, and we'd like to help. But
interpreting the license obligations for the public is also tricky for us,
so we're working on it. [[3]]
Any further help is highly appreciated.
Regards,
Jee
Links:
1.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peteforsyth#Some_recent_speedies.
..
2.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Propose_to_update_CC_license_tags_to_comply_with_the_new_wordings_in_CC_deeds
3. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LuisV_(WMF)#Attribution
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is the behavior of a certain core set of Commons admins; time
and time and time again we have it reported here, we see it on Commons.
While not lawyers, they attempt to be extraordinarily demanding when it
comes to legal accuracy. Far more than the actual WMF lawyers have
required, incidentally.
Yes, agreed. Deletion is frequently applied in an overzealous manner
based on arbitrary interpretations and lack of nuance. It would be
appropriate to more frequently apply tags like {{Disputed}} and to
rely more on social contact to resolve incomplete metadata, rather
than aggressively purging content in the fear that a single byte of
potentially non-free content may infect the repository.
It is correct that I proposed Commons as a repository of freely
re-usable media -- indeed, that is a key characteristic which
distinguishes it from other sites and services, as others have pointed
out. I think it's absolutely crucial to maintain that aspect of its
identity. I worry that the creation of any kind of non-free repository
would dramatically alter the incentive structure for contributing to
our projects. Especially when negotiating releases of large
collections, it will be much harder to argue for free licensing if it
becomes trivial to upload and re-use non-free files.
But maintaining that commitment requires that we also maintain a
capacity for nuance in how we enforce it, or we turn into a club of
zealots nobody wants to be part of rather than being effective
advocates for our cause. That includes understanding that some
situations in international copyright law are ambiguous and
unresolved, that some files may present a minimal level of risk and
can reasonably be kept unless someone complains, and that copyright on
all bits that make up a work can be difficult to trace, identify and
document comprehensively and consistently. Moreover, it should include
(in policy and application) an emphasis on communication and
education, rather than deletion and confrontation.
In that way, the problems in the application of Commons policy are not
that different from the problems in the application of policy on
Wikipedia. It's just that Wikipedians who are used to operating under
the regime of Wikipedia's policies frequently get upset when they are
subjected to an entirely different regime. Their experience is not
that different from that of a new user whose article gets speedied
because the source cited to establish its notability doesn't quite
cross the threshold applied by an admin.
In my view, it would be appropriate for WMF to take a more active role
not in the decision-making itself, but in the training of and support
for administrators and other functionaries to ensure that we apply
policy rationally, in a manner that's civil and welcoming. That goes
for these types of deletion decisions just as much as for civility and
other standards of conduct. WMF is now organizationally in a position
where it could resource the consensus-driven development of training
modules for admins across projects to create a more welcoming,
rational environment - on Commons and elsewhere.
Erik
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons
Well, just yesterday I saw a (good but slightly amateurish-looking) image that is to be deleted because the metadata embedded in the /other/ images of the uploader indicates multiple cameras were used. Clearly, no one has more than one camera, so it must be a copyright violation. (would post the URL but forgot which image) Childish fears indeed. Magnus Indeed. The old days had gone. Now people have so many gadgets. Further, forensic research is not our business. Another grey area is the handling of selfies. People need evidence that the photo is taken by themselves. They even do dummy tests to verify if it is possible from such an angle. Tired by the arguments, Legal released [1]. Links: 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Authorship_and_Copyright_Ownership Jee Regards, Jeevan Jose On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Pipo Le Clown plecl...@gmail.com wrote: Aren't you mixing things a little bit ? Nobody denies that there are problems with video support, Search engine and image display. But this is not (completely) the responsability of the Commons community. The software is provided by the foundation, and we deal with what they give us. If you want to point fingers, point them in the right direction. Regarding the URAA shitstorm in a teacup, I will stand on my position: Saying It's not our problem, and we won't provide legal advice or help if there is any problem (ie: I wash my hands of it) is not very helpfull. The position of the BoT and the statement from the legal team are at least confusing and a open door to problems. The current situation at hand is messy, and not very well handled by the community, I will admit that. Quoting from a famous movie: it's a huge shit sandwich, and we're all gonna have to take a bite, but adding manure to shit will not help to sweeten the taste. Pleclown. Le 27 juin 2014 09:22, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com a écrit : Pete Forsyth wrote: On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: than aggressively purging content in the fear that a single byte of potentially non-free content may infect the repository. You're attacking a straw man. I hope you do not sincerely believe anybody acts out of such a childish fear. Rather, we have committed volunteers at Commons who take seriously our commitment to the world, to provide a repository of files that can be (pretty) reliably reused under a free license, or as public domain materials. Maintaining the integrity of the collection, in the face of literally hundreds of problematic uploads every single day, is a big job, and certainly some less-than-ideal decisions will be made along the way. Apart from the moaning I see on this email list, I generally hear good things from those who visit Wikimedia Commons. Tragedy? Citation needed, for real. Uploading media to Commons isn't as awful today as it once was. That's nice. But video support is pretty awful. Search support is pretty awful. Even browsing images is pretty bad. Support for moving (renaming) files is rudimentary and restricted. And there are many other flaws... but you're right that it probably doesn't amount to a tragedy quite yet. There's plenty of moaning on this e-mail list, but the issues are alive and real. I largely agree with Erik. Users at the extremes have the power at Commons and this reality is actively damaging the wiki culture. Commons isn't alone in having this problem: the defensive (and hostile) response to the firehose is expected and predictable. But it still remains a real problem. MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote: Indeed, and as there is a notice on the Wikilegal article stating that it is not legal advice, it can and will be ignored by those who think they know better. Cheers, Peter That message on their every advice as part of [1] because they can't advise the community. Jee 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: What I *did* want, and am still waiting for, is some explanation from Erik Möller, the WMF's Deputy Director, about his inflammatory claim that the Wikimedia Commons community may be turning into a CLUB OF ZEALOTS (emphasis mine). Please stop asking explanation from people who are coming to Commons with a helping mind. I agree his comment had a insisting tone. But does Commoners are too immature to tolerate any small criticism? If we start attacking people and ask explanation or apology for every comment they make, no one is going to visit Commons. Instead we should welcome Erik, SJ, Jimmy or any body else who have an idea to improve Commons. Jee ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
I agree with Erik here. Media Viewer may have some bugs that need to be fixed. But there are plenty of issues in other places too (like license tags). They also need to improved. See this ongoing discussion. [1] See my comment on RfC on Commons. [2] Jee Links: 1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Propose_to_update_CC_license_tags_to_comply_with_the_new_wordings_in_CC_deeds 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Requests_for_comment/Media_Viewer_software_featurediff=128434830oldid=128433051 On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: Just a note that I am drafting a request to the Board about governance of WMF product launches. Similar problems have happened enough times that I think the Board needs to step in with a more active role. I am also taking a look at the policies around office actions as they relate to product launches, and will likely request that the Board examine that policy as well. Pine On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:02 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: Or .. sometimes the licensing and attribution information isnt correct In the common case, Media Viewer provides more prominent and appropriate attribution and license information than the File: page. The author name, license, license URL, and source URL are all immediately accessible below the image, whereas on the File: page there are sometimes screenfuls of metadata between the image and this crucial information. This is actually a pretty remarkable accomplishment given that this information comes from a huge number of different templates that vary across wikis. Media Viewer makes use of standardized CSS classes to extract metadata, and the team has actively worked with the community to broaden their use: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/multimedia/2014-March/000135.html Ultimately we'll want to use proper structured data for this, but these changes lay the groundwork, and there's already an API (used by Media Viewer but open to anyone) that exposes this information. Where no license is detected, Media Viewer still falls back to a View license link. The more problematic cases are where actual errors occur and important information is not extracted, and there will certainly inevitably be some cases where this happens, but this can only be worked on over time. The expectation that an unbounded problem like this is completely solved prior to deployment of a feature is unreasonable -- it's similar to TemplateData, in that the positive feedback loop into Media Viewer should actually help encourage more and consistent use of machine-readable data. sometimes you get resolutions which are silly (especially svgs at launch, but also slideshows on a file page include a very large license logo) Can you give a specific, current example? it takes extra clicks to get to the full-size version, It takes exactly one click using the View original file button. Thanks, Erik -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Gergo Tisza gti...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:58 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't, however, help the concern that millions of users are pulling up the images without immediately seeing the license requirements and author information. To the contrary, Media Viewer displays the license, author and source as an always visible part of the image. On a typical file page, you have to scroll down to find any of this information; most users won't do that, if what they are looking for is the image, and that is available without scrolling. (It is well known in web usability http://www.nngroup.com/articles/scrolling-and-attention/ that relatively little attention is given to things above the fold; one of the main benefits of Media Viewer is that it brings the most important things above it.) Agree. The best practices for marking a work is to *make sure that the license information is clearly visible underneath (or otherwise next to) the image. [1] [2]* *1. **http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking_your_work_with_a_CC_license http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking_your_work_with_a_CC_license* *2. http://www.newmediarights.org/guide/how_to/creative_commons/best_practices_creative_commons_attributions http://www.newmediarights.org/guide/how_to/creative_commons/best_practices_creative_commons_attributions* *Unfortunately our file description page give more importance for subject description and bury the attribution parameters in a negligible location. As a result most reuses end up with an attribution, Credit:Wiki[m/p]edia. :(* *Jee* ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wrong attribution in PDF output of Wikipedia atricles
Thanks Mark for pointing me to the new PDF exporter; hope it will improve the accuracy of data gathering from file pages. BTW, I improved the file page [1], and now contributor is attributing properly [2]. But it still failed to fetch the license. So my understanding is that the current script is trying to fetch information from author and license fields. If that attempt fails, it simply lists the editors of the file page which is wrong. As Mark mentioned above, this is not a GFDL issue. We need to improve our software in both sides; at the Commons page where data is collected, and at tools which gather the data available there. Hope developers at both side ([3], [4]) will consider this. 1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Cheetah_Feb09_02.jpgaction=history 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Cheetah (export pdf) 3. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/PDF_rendering 4. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data Regards, Jee On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:31 AM, Jean-Frédéric jeanfrederic.w...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, This is definitely a loop worth closing This is mentionned in the Talk page discussion, but for the benefits of all list readers who might not check it out :): please see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/AppropriatelyLicensed -- Jean-Fred ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wrong attribution in PDF output of Wikipedia atricles
I don't know, it seems to me that deploying new software ASAP before it has been exhaustively tested by the end user base has caused a few headaches lately ;-). Cheers, Craig ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe Just disable the Download as PDF and Create a book options till testing is over. Even CC 4.0 licenses require any license violation must be fixed within 30 days. :) Jee ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wrong attribution in PDF output of Wikipedia atricles
I tried to make the PDF of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-6_Twin_Otter It credits File:WinAir De Havilland Canada DHC-6-300 Twin Otter Breidenstein.jpg Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:WinAir_De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-6-300_Twin_Otter_Breidenstein.jpg License: unknown Contributors: Timo Breidenstein License is still unknown Regards, Jee On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 1:00 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: Mike et al On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote: I've swapped it for a CC-licensed file that does allow for commercial reuse. Problem solved? GFDL is a free licence. You can licence under the free GFDL licence and also licence it under an -NC licence. So long as one licence is free on Commons, you can have other combinations. But the problem isn't solved. I have numerous aviation photographers and friends who have licenced their works under GFDL -- many of which are irreplaceable, or are the best illustration of the subject. Examples being: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Abramovich_Chukotka.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Singapore_Airlines_Airbus_A380_woah%21.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Singapore_Airlines_Airbus_A380_Wallner.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Myanmar_Air_Force_Shaanxi_Y-8_MRD.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PLAAF_Xian_HY-6_Li_Pang.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WinAir_De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-6-300_Twin_Otter_Breidenstein.jpg and the list goes on. If there is an issue with how the PDFs are presenting the licencing information, this is still very much an issue, and if it isn't working as it should at this moment, the PDF feature should be switched off. Cheers ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism
I don't think Commons has a clear stand in this matter. I see many old DRs closed as kept. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Beer_bottles https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Bottle_of_Duff.jpg Regards, Jee On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: Nathan To answer the tractor question first. Of course not, there is nothing copyrightable in this image. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Trademarked is never a reason for deletion. The logo is clearly PD-textlogo and is de minimis in that situation -- i.e. it's inclusion is incidental In relation to the car in Tunisia, it could be trickier. It would depend a lot on Tunisian law. It could be de minimis, it might not be. It would depend. Mario If copyright holders are happy to have their materials on Commons it is the copyright holder who needs to speak up for this, and there are ways to go about this. Otherwise https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:PRP is the policy that is drawn upon here. Cheers Russavia The logo is not a text logo - see here for a clearer rendering: http://pictures.tractorfan.nl/groot/f/fendt/795254-logo-fendt.jpg So perhaps in this case the fact that the design logo can't be seen clearly is a defense against deletion, but what if it were clearer and more squarely in frame? Surely there are many thousands of images where this comes up - a design element included in a photo of an object, scene or person that is copyrighted. In photos of Wikimedia events, there are individuals wearing clothing with copyrighted design elements. Delete? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons / OTRS is broken
An there is much stress for our volunteer (unpaid) job too. I definitely need to slow down: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Request_to_confirm_release_from_the_artist.2C_rather_than_the_gallery_-_Joep_van_Liefland Regards, Jee On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Michael Maggs mich...@maggs.name wrote: I mentioned a few basic things in my previous email. There's probably little point in my writing a comprehensive wish list unless you or some other volunteer can agree to work on providing an API against which a tool could be written. Michael Michael On 4 Feb 2015, at 12:19, Krd k...@wikipedia.de wrote: Am 02/04/15 um 13:14 schrieb Michael Maggs: Yes, I do. That is updated manually, at irregular intervals, applies only to one Commons list, and doesn't provide anything like the information that should I think be available. ...which is in detail? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons / OTRS is broken
We have a 57 days backlog now ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/backlog) and we are processing first-come, first-served. In case of emergencies, please make a note at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard or on my talk page. Regards, Jee On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 10:57 AM, John Cummings john.cummi...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Depending on where the content is coming from uploading the images to Flickr and then importing them may be an option. When I worked for the Science Museum we simply changed the licence of some of the images on their Flickr account and I used Flickr2Commons to import them, it also records the attribution and which CC licence the images used. I'm currently working with UNESCO to release some of their archive and will most probably suggest this route which as a bonus creates a second large audience for the content on Flickr. Hope this is helpful John On 2 Feb 2015 22:52, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote: OTRS does not even bother replying to the consents I send them. Thus the images I have received releases for get deleted. Going forwards I am simply uploading to En Wikipedia. Not ideal but not sure what the solution is. -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons / OTRS is broken
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote: Well - regarding permission-commons ques the current problem with mass upload agreements is Common's regulation that ticket-templates has to be added by OTRS volunteers themselves, except, when you are using GLAM tool, but GLAM tool is tailored for really huge mass uploads as it requires lot of preliminary preparations. So, there is no good path for mid-size mass uploads - say from 10 till 100-500 files. This is incredibly boring job to add 100 templates to 100 files. There are some semiautomatic tools for this - but it still requires small programming and/or direct personal assistance - with at least 2 clicks per file. So OTRS volunteers - when they see agreements for for example100 pictures - are avoiding this, becasue handing this means not only aswering for E-mail but also 100 boring edits... I was addressing the issue on OTRS e-mail list, around a year ago, but the answer was, that this is not the problem. But in fact - whenever there is such semi-mass-upload agreement - you can observe that OTRS volunteers are avoiding answering them. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:VisualFileChange.js can be used for mass edits. Jee ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who are the nicest people on our projects ?
Glad to see me there. :) Regards, Jee On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Richard Farmbrough rich...@farmbrough.co.uk wrote: Who was most thanked? On 5 February 2015 at 15:47, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, After reading an interesting related discussion on GenderGap, I have queried the top 10 users of the thanks feature last month, on both the English Wikipedia and Commons. Snapshot image attached and report link below. Perhaps someone might think of a suitable barnstar and award these folks for being nice? :-) Link: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:F%C3%A6/sandboxoldid=149050523 P.S. This is a long query to run, taking 20 to 30 minutes due to the nature of the logging tables. However if someone wanted to make a monthly summary on-wiki somewhere, part of an active be nice campaign, I would be happy to set up an automated monthly report (if someone discovers this is already reported somewhere, that's cool we can use that). Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Landline (UK) 01780 757 250 Mobile (UK) 0798 1995 792 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Veteran Malayalam Wikipedian BabuG signed off...
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 1:46 AM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Eduardo Testart etest...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I was thinking, it is possible to create some sort of hall of fame from/for Wikipedia? It would be nice that stories like this one get a place to stay in time. Many wikis have a project-space page to commemorate deceased Wikipedians[1]. There also exists a putative central location on Meta, but it's underutilized. Nonetheless, because I agree this was a eulogy worth sharing, I have now pasted it there[2]. Asaf An admin added the username to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Deceased_contributors#to_do.2Fadd Jee ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Veteran Malayalam Wikipedian BabuG signed off...
My deep condolences. Jee On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 8:37 PM, ViswaPrabha (വിശ്വപ്രഭ) vp2...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Wikimedians all over the world, One of our stalwarts at ml Wikimedia community, Wikiuser:BabuG https://ml.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Babug ( https://ml.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Babug) expired yesterday night. Despite having paralyzed due to a severe stroke and severely affected by several subsequent health problems, he was guided to Wikipedia by his son, Dr. Ajay, another prominent Malayalam Wikipedian, as a possible remedy to escape perpetual loneliness. His real world name was G. Balachandran.He was born on 14th October 1938 in a small village off North Parur, Ernakulam District, Kerala, the Southernmost state of India.He joined the Armed Forces Engineering College and then continued to serve the Indian Armed forces for long many years. He started contributing to Wikimedia, particularly to Malayalam Wikipedia, in the year 2008. His initial contributions to Malayalam Wikipedia were based upon a pulp-converted digital Encyclopedia, released by the Government through GFDL licence then. He continued to create even more full-featured articles on his own, later. By 2014 October 18 - the day he edited last in Wikipedia- he had 1935 full-blown articles initiated and expanded by himself in ml.wikipedia.org. Besides, he also contributed more than 350 images to Wikimedia commons and a handsome amount of contributions to Wikisource, Wikidata and Wiktionary. He always attributed his renewed energy and life's aspirations to the Wikimedia mission, for having returned to a meaningful life after a 20-year long and frustrating solitude while constrained to an immobile chair. Ever since 2008, he stood up and started walking and moving around. His was an extreme example for us in Malayalam WP to showcase how Wikipedia can change lives. In almost all our Wikipedia Outreach sessions, we utilized this great example to motivate and excite the newcomers to WP. Tory Read mentioned about BabuG thus, in a document http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/india-chronicles.pdf, a review on the state of Indian Wikimedia Communities, in 2011: G. Balachandran, a septuagenarian who lives outside of Ernakulum in Kerala state, said that working on Malayalam Wikipedia helped him recover after a stroke left him paralyzed. “He’s much sharper now,” said his wife Jagadamma K. “He’s made a lot of new friends, and that’s been good for his health.” For us in Malayalam Wikipedia, today is a black day, for having lost a great beacon on our voyage to ultimate openness and freedom in knowledge and wisdom. Yet, we feel, BabuG has made his life stamped immortal for ever and has shown us the pathway we should follow in continuing our humble contributions to the ultimate cause of mankind. -ViswaPrabha (On behalf of Malayalam Wikimedia Community) http://ml.wikipedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Farewell
Hi Fabrice: Best wishes. Hope we can meet again through Flickr. Jee On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 7:43 PM, Ad Huikeshoven a...@wikimedia.nl wrote: Hi Fabrice, You will be missed in the movement. Your approach was inspirational to many. I've met you first at Wikimania Hong Kong where you took pictures of everybody holding a sign with their biggest wish. You reached out to connect. Enjoy your future, Ad Huikeshoven Ad Huikeshoven Bestuurslid / Board member Wikimedia Nederland Internationaal / International Affairs Gemeenschap / Community tel.(+31) (0)70 3608510 mob. (+31) (0)6 40293574 Steun vrije kennis! Kijk op wikimedia.nl http://www.wikimedia.nl/pagina/doneren-aan-wikimedia-nederland *Postadres*: * Bezoekadres:* Postbus 167Mariaplaats 3 3500 AD Utrecht Utrecht ABNAMRO NL33 ABNA 0497164833 - Kamer van Koophandel 17189036 2015-06-18 18:25 GMT+02:00 Fabrice Florin fflo...@wikimedia.org: Hello everyone, After three great years working at the foundation, the time has come to say goodbye. I will be leaving WMF at the end of June, to spend more time with my family, focus on personal art projects and consult part-time on worthy causes. I would like to thank all the community and team members I have had the pleasure to work with over the years. It has been an honor to serve our movement together — and to help our contributors share free knowledge with each other and the world. I’m particularly grateful to Katherine Maher and our WMF communications team for being such wonderful collaborators. I really enjoyed working with them to manage and edit the Wikimedia blog, help grow our team and publish some great stories together, to celebrate the heroes of our movement. Going forward, WMF's Juliet Barbara will manage the Wikimedia blog, in close collaboration with Ed Erhart. As many of you know, Ed is the former editor-in-chief of the Wikipedia Signpost and has now joined our team for the summer. I've worked with him for nearly a month now and find him uniquely qualified for this project. Starting today, please contact them directly with any questions about the blog (they are Cc:d on this message). After June 30, you can reach me at fabriceflo...@gmail.com — or follow me on Twitter ( @fabriceflorin ) or on my blog ( http://fabriceflorin.com ). The last three years have been an incredible experience for me, and I am grateful for all that I have learned from so many of you. You’ve been an inspiration to me and I have many fond memories of our time together. I wish you all the best with the next chapter of the Wikimedia movement and can’t wait to see what you’ll come up with next. Best regards, Fabrice ___ Fabrice Florin Movement Communications Manager Wikimedia Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fabrice_Florin_(WMF) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
