Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Lilburne]

It probably isn't fair. But then again without actually contacting the 
copyright holder the CC licenses are nothing more than a indicator that 
reuse may be OK. Then when you get into chains of derivatives you are in 
a world of pain. Websites are particularly prone to fouling up the 
licenses. Flickr does not allow people to upload CC licensed images from 
other people because the attributions will be wrong. Suppose Jane Doe 
uploads an CC image from Joe Blow, everywhere the site displays the 
image it will end up being credited to Jane Doe not Joe Blow. 
Accreditation becomes very hard if Joe Blow's image is actually a 
derivative that contains parts of images from multiple other people.


When those on Commons start cloning out watermarks on images they create 
a liability for down stream reusers.



On 07/03/2017 03:13, Andreas Kolbe wrote:

People usually encounter images in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia does not comply
with the CC licence requirements either, the way downstream re-users are
expected to comply with them. That's a problem.

For example, the CC BY 3.0 licence requires re-users to name the image's
author, and much else besides. But when a CC BY 3.0 image is used in
Wikipedia, or indeed on a content page in Commons, none of that information
is present. All Wikipedia does provide is a link to the image's Commons
page.[1]

Wikipedia is advertised as the free encyclopedia. This includes people
being free to re-use any part of it, even for commercial purposes. So why
shouldn't people think that they are allowed to use an image in exactly the
same way Wikipedia is using it?

If a user sees an image in Wikipedia, it is quite natural for them, given
what they have been told, to right-click on it and select copy, without
even going to the Commons page with the detailed licence info. But if they
do what Wikipedia does, i.e. only providing a link to the source, they can
get slapped with a bill for several thousand dollars or euros.

One recent press article[2] gave the example of a single mum on benefits
who received a demand for 7,500 euro (nearly 8,000 dollars) from a
Wikipedian because of two images she had used without giving the required
attribution.

It doesn't seem fair.


[1] Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cercospora_capsici
[2]
https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Wikipedia-beraet-ueber-Distanzierung-von-Fotolizenz-Abzockern-3630842.html?seite=2


On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Gergő Tisza  wrote:


I can read some German and looked into a similar case the last time this
came up (the thread was called "harald bischoff advertising to make images
"for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users"). It involved (amongst
others) an amateur news blog which took an image from the Wikipedia article
of some politician and credited it to "Wikipedia" (with link to the image
description page; but no author or license), and was slapped with a ~$1000
fee. These kind of predatory tactics hurt the reputation and moral standing
of the movement IMO.




I think asking for damages might be acceptable if
- the reuser is a big organization which has its own copyright lawyers
(e.g. a commercial news publisher) and really should have known better
- the reuser refuses to fix the attribution when asked
- the reuser does not even attempt to indicate that the image is from
elsewhere
but when none of those is the case, threatening to sue violates the spirit
of free content, even if it is in accordance with the fine print of the
license.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 





___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Lilburne]

On 06/03/2017 06:37, Gergő Tisza wrote:

On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:


I'm not a German speaker, and I know context and nuance can be lost in
machine translation. That being said, the one about someone who was
offering attribution and then got slapped with a bill for a simple
technical error is very disturbing. Especially since as brought up before,
a direct link would always lack the attribution contained on an
accompanying page.


I can read some German and looked into a similar case the last time this
came up (the thread was called "harald bischoff advertising to make images
"for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users"). It involved (amongst
others) an amateur news blog which took an image from the Wikipedia article
of some politician and credited it to "Wikipedia" (with link to the image
description page; but no author or license), and was slapped with a ~$1000
fee. These kind of predatory tactics hurt the reputation and moral standing
of the movement IMO.

I think asking for damages might be acceptable if
- the reuser is a big organization which has its own copyright lawyers
(e.g. a commercial news publisher) and really should have known better
- the reuser refuses to fix the attribution when asked
- the reuser does not even attempt to indicate that the image is from
elsewhere
but when none of those is the case, threatening to sue violates the spirit
of free content, even if it is in accordance with the fine print of the
license.


But Commons does the same thing in reverse. I recall some 12yo uploading 
a photograph of a butterfly in the mistaken belief that it could only be 
used on wikipedia. Then when realising the mistake wanted the image 
removed. The Commons denizens harangued and hounded the kid across 
various talk and administrator pages for several weeks in respect to the 
fine print of the license.



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Lilburne]

On 07/03/2017 02:24, James Forrester wrote:
On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 at 18:14 Lilburne <lilbu...@tygers-of-wrath.net 
<mailto:lilbu...@tygers-of-wrath.net>> wrote:


For the last 12 years Flickr have a system where people can click on a
link and get the HTML or BBCODE that properly attributes the image
along
with the link to the license and all the rest of the requirements for
the CC license. Why can't commons do the same?

Otherwise its not hard to properly attribute a CC- licensed image.


This was provided in MediaViewer some years ago. (See e.g. today's 
Commons POTD 
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ehrenstetten_-_%C3%96lbergkapelle6.jpg#/media/File:Ehrenstetten_-_%C3%96lbergkapelle6.jpg>, 
unless you're logged into an account that has the feature disabled.)





In which case I have little sympathy for those too lazy to use the tools 
provided.



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Lilburne]

For the last 12 years Flickr have a system where people can click on a 
link and get the HTML or BBCODE that properly attributes the image along 
with the link to the license and all the rest of the requirements for 
the CC license. Why can't commons do the same?


Otherwise its not hard to properly attribute a CC- licensed image.

On 02/03/2017 05:44, rupert THURNER wrote:

on the german wikipedia there was a poll to ban images of users who
send cease and desist letters, triggered by a recent case of thomas
wolf trying to charge 1200 euro out of a tiny non-profit which
improperly reused one of his images [1]. thomas article work includs
"improving text deserts, and changing bad images to (often his own)
better quality images"[2]. there is a broad majority against people
who use cease and desist letters as a business model. anyway a small
number of persons do have such a business model, some of them even
administrators on commons, like alexander savin [3][4].

but the topic of course is much more subtle than described above, the
discussion was heated, and the result close - as always in the last 10
years. a digital divide between persons supporting the original
mindset of wikipedia which sees every additional reuse, unrestricted,
as success, and the ones who think it is not desired to incorrectly
reference, or feel that others should not make money out of their
work.

as both are viable opinions would it be possible to split commons in
two, for every opinion? the new commons would include safe licenses
like cc-4.0 and users who are friendly to update their licenses to
better ones in future. the old commons would just stay as it is. a
user of wikipedia can easy distinguish if she wants to include both
sources, or only one of them? there is only one goal: make cease and
desist letters as business model not interesting any more,
technically, while keeping the morale of contributors high, both
sides.

[1] 
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
[2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Der_Wolf_im_Wald
[3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:A.Savin
[4] 
https://tarnkappe.info/ausgesprochen-peinlich-abmahnfalle-wikipedia-interview-mit-simplicius/

best
rupert

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 





___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

[Lilburne]

On 02/01/2017 00:52, Pine W wrote:

(: I think that Legal could at least describe in general terms what they
are currently doing and have plans to do in the near future.

If it turns out that the answers are "we aren't doing much and we aren't
planning to do more", then yes, asking the higher-ups to do something about
this sounds like a good idea. By the way, I think the timing for this
discussion is good, because WMF should be in the early stages of
formulating the 2017-2018 annual plan.



Aren't they likely to get hoisted by their own petard? When Dcoetzee 
snaffled those images from the NPG WMF Legal argued that as there was no 
specific need to ever having read a websites T a website could not 
take action if anyone violating said T


Any compliant by the WMF is also likely to raise the ire of the EFF .
 
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/07/court-violating-terms-service-not-crime-bypassing



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Music industry threats to safe harbor?

[Lilburne]

On 21/12/2016 02:53, Newyorkbrad wrote:

I think it might be useful to focus on how any of the proposed changes
to the law would affect Wikipedia/Wikimedia specifically, apart from
the broader philosophical discussion.  Is there a good link for
exactly what changes to the safe harbor laws are being considered, as
opposed to the more general statement that there's a discussion of
scaling them back?



It wouldn't have any effect. Apparently the WMF get a little over 40 
DMCA requests a year in 2015 a massive 12 tick all the boxes. In 2016+ 
its not an onerous task to make sure that those 12 items stay off the 
site. One could even get the bosom pals at Google to finger print the 
uploads. Though they are probably more than pleased to have the WMF play 
the existential card for them.





___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Music industry threats to safe harbor?

[Lilburne]

The DMCA and safe harbours is certainly why Google makes so much and 
pays so little from YT. So much copyright violating material gets 
uploaded there they just sit back and say "If you want it taken down you 
either play whack-a-mole or you allow us to run ads next to it and pay 
you a fraction of what you'd get elsewhere and if you don't like the 
deal well we'll run ads against anyway, and BTW you need to license all 
your stuff for use on our paid service again at a fraction of that you'd 
get elsewhere." IOW Google use safe-harbour  and the DMCA as a form of 
protection racket.


This isn't one user it is several 100 million of them.

Google also know that most independent creators cannot afford to 
instigate a federal copyright case against some John Doe. WMF also knows 
that, which is why they still hold those stolen Macaque photos and 
taunted the photographer in London. The proposed copyright small claims 
court may fix some of those issues. Nevertheless contrary to fantasy 
most creators aren't looking to use copyright as a lottery ticket, they 
simply want the violations to stop, and that when a site is informed 
that X is not licensed, that X isn't republished on that same site again.


This is 2016 and digital finger printing for images, music, and film is 
established technology. Major websites should no longer be able to hide 
behind a DMCA whack-a-Mole. So safe-harbour in the first instance, but 
once informed keep the stuff off the site, or lose the safe harbour.


On 19/12/2016 21:37, Todd Allen wrote:
What you posted there regards contract terms between the artist and 
Youtube. That's between them to fight out. If they don't like 
Youtube's terms, they can take their stuff elsewhere.


DMCA safe harbor has nothing to do with contracts. It means that, if 
you run an interactive web site (essentially, anything where users are 
allowed to post stuff), you can't be held liable if one of your users 
posts copyrighted material. The user still can be, but you, as the 
site operator, cannot.


In exchange, you must provide a way that a copyright holder can 
contact you, using a standard method, and tell you that they've found 
material that infringes their copyright. You must then take that 
material down (within a certain period, I think ten days) and provide 
notice to the user that you've done so. The user can then either file 
a "counter notice" if they believe the material is not infringing, 
which you'd send back to the copyright holder if they choose to do so, 
or drop it, in which case the material stays gone. If a counter notice 
is filed, the copyright holder can at that time either take the matter 
up in court directly with the user, or drop it. If they don't file in 
court after a counter notice, you can automatically reinstate the 
material after a certain period of time. If the DMCA notice was 
malicious or fraudulent, the safe harbor provision also establishes 
liability against the person or entity who filed it. But as long as 
you file those procedures, you, as the site operator, are immune from 
liability for either the material being present to start with or for 
it being taken down.


Without that protection, no one in their right mind would operate an 
interactive web site, at least not in the US. It protects everything 
from classic car hobbyist forums operated by a few people at their own 
cost, to sites like Youtube and Facebook. None of those would be 
possible without it. Or, at the very least, they would have to be 
operated from countries which are, shall we say, much more lax on 
copyright enforcement. That's bad for everyone, including the 
copyright holders--they no longer would have an effective method of 
getting infringements taken down.


Since Wikimedia is DMCA-compliant, that means that, say, AP or Getty 
can't sue Wikimedia if a user uploads a bunch of their images to 
Commons. They would have to find and sue that user. And of course, 
they could file DMCA requests to have their stuff removed. But since 
WMF is much easier to find and has much deeper pockets, if they had 
the option of suing WMF, I guarantee you that they would. The only 
thing that stops them from that is safe harbor.


That, and Section 230 of the CDA (which excludes liability from site 
operators for other types of illegal conduct like threats) are, 
without exaggeration, the very reason that interactive web services 
can exist at all. Without those, you'd be accepting liability for 
anything a user of your site might choose to do. You'd have to be 
insane to do that.


Todd

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Lilburne 
<lilbu...@tygers-of-wrath.net <mailto:lilbu...@tygers-of-wrath.net>> 
wrote:


On 19/12/2016 16:45, David Gerard wrote:

For various reasons * I follow music industry news. One drum
the record
industry has been beating *hard* in the past year is attempts
to reduce the
DMCA "safe harbor"

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Music industry threats to safe harbor?

[Lilburne]

Well they might have a point.

A recall that 18months ago in the wake of bad publicity Google vowed to 
do something about.


https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jun/24/google-youtube-anti-isis-push-inhuman-beheading-videos-censorship

However it seems that once the bad publicity died down they went back to 
running ads for pressure cookers, semtex, and 9 inch nails along side 
those ISIS videos.


https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=google+isis+videos+=utf-8=utf-8=firefox-b_rd=cr=r4ZZWPHfL4rc8AfgzqGQDg

As Justice Jackson said "The Constitution is not a suicide pact".


On 20/12/2016 16:36, Ariel Glenn WMF wrote:
The Communications Decency Act of 1996, Section 230, mentioned in 
Todd's email, is the subject of a recent lawsuit:

http://fortune.com/2016/12/20/orlando-shooting-google-facebook-twitter/


Ariel


On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com 
<mailto:toddmal...@gmail.com>> wrote:


What you posted there regards contract terms between the artist and
Youtube. That's between them to fight out. If they don't like
Youtube's
terms, they can take their stuff elsewhere.

DMCA safe harbor has nothing to do with contracts. It means that,
if you
run an interactive web site (essentially, anything where users are
allowed
to post stuff), you can't be held liable if one of your users posts
copyrighted material. The user still can be, but you, as the site
operator,
cannot.

In exchange, you must provide a way that a copyright holder can
contact
you, using a standard method, and tell you that they've found
material that
infringes their copyright. You must then take that material down
(within a
certain period, I think ten days) and provide notice to the user that
you've done so. The user can then either file a "counter notice"
if they
believe the material is not infringing, which you'd send back to the
copyright holder if they choose to do so, or drop it, in which
case the
material stays gone. If a counter notice is filed, the copyright
holder can
at that time either take the matter up in court directly with the
user, or
drop it. If they don't file in court after a counter notice, you can
automatically reinstate the material after a certain period of
time. If the
DMCA notice was malicious or fraudulent, the safe harbor provision
also
establishes liability against the person or entity who filed it.
But as
long as you file those procedures, you, as the site operator, are
immune
from liability for either the material being present to start with
or for
it being taken down.

Without that protection, no one in their right mind would operate an
interactive web site, at least not in the US. It protects
everything from
classic car hobbyist forums operated by a few people at their own
cost, to
sites like Youtube and Facebook. None of those would be possible
without
it. Or, at the very least, they would have to be operated from
countries
which are, shall we say, much more lax on copyright enforcement.
That's bad
for everyone, including the copyright holders--they no longer
would have an
effective method of getting infringements taken down.

Since Wikimedia is DMCA-compliant, that means that, say, AP or
Getty can't
sue Wikimedia if a user uploads a bunch of their images to
Commons. They
would have to find and sue that user. And of course, they could
file DMCA
requests to have their stuff removed. But since WMF is much easier
to find
and has much deeper pockets, if they had the option of suing WMF, I
guarantee you that they would. The only thing that stops them from
that is
safe harbor.

That, and Section 230 of the CDA (which excludes liability from site
operators for other types of illegal conduct like threats) are,
without
exaggeration, the very reason that interactive web services can
exist at
all. Without those, you'd be accepting liability for anything a
user of
your site might choose to do. You'd have to be insane to do that.

Todd

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Lilburne
<lilbu...@tygers-of-wrath.net <mailto:lilbu...@tygers-of-wrath.net>>
wrote:

> On 19/12/2016 16:45, David Gerard wrote:
>
>> For various reasons * I follow music industry news. One drum
the record
>> industry has been beating *hard* in the past year is attempts
to reduce
>> the
>> DMCA "safe harbor" provisions in order to squeeze more money
from YouTube.
>> It's been a running theme through 2016.
>>
>>
> Oh dear! If this gets traction poor little Google, won't be able
to run
> their protection racket any longer. It is so worrying that a
l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Music industry threats to safe harbor?

[Lilburne]

On 19/12/2016 16:45, David Gerard wrote:

For various reasons * I follow music industry news. One drum the record
industry has been beating *hard* in the past year is attempts to reduce the
DMCA "safe harbor" provisions in order to squeeze more money from YouTube.
It's been a running theme through 2016.



Oh dear! If this gets traction poor little Google, won't be able to run 
their protection racket any longer. It is so worrying that a little 
cellist might bring a $400 billion company to its knees.


https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/27/zoe-keating-youtube-google-music



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why are articles being deleted?

[Lilburne]

On 25/06/2016 06:49, Mitar wrote:

Hi!

I am an occasional editor of Wikipedia, I read it a lot, I edit
sometimes, and I am at all not familiar with bureaucracies and rules
Wikipedia community has developed through years (call me lazy, but
they simply always look too scary and too many for me to even start
reading them, walls and walls of text). When I interact with Wikipedia
I thus try to assume what reasonable rules for creating a
collaborative source of all human knowledge would be.




I don't know which articles you are referencing and I don't think I need 
to know.
The problem, is that less than 5% of the articles are in any way useful. 
There are
100s of thousands of articles that simply tell me that X x is moth, or a 
beetle and
nothing more. If I know to be looking up X x then I already know that it 
is a moth
and not some form of frog. The there are the 100s of thousands of 
articles that
simply tell me that A B played one game of professional baseball in 
1927. Or the
100s of thousands of articles that simple state that Z is a village in 
Iran with 43

people.

Wikipedia is full of this stuff which you can see by pressing the random 
article
link a few times. If you find anything comprehensive which isn't also 
riddled
with errors. It will almost certainly be a direct cut from 
somewhere else.


Simple the site is overflowing with useless junk that monitoring it has 
become

impossible. Know one can stop Z from being moved to Cambodia, or A B from
being noted for playing tiddlywinks, or indeed turning X x into a frog.


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Sweden loses copyright suit

[Lilburne]

You still haven't got it right. What you can't do is publish a database 
of images for commercial use.


If I were to go to Sweden take photos of every publicly placed work of 
art and put them on a website
there wouldn't be an issue. If I were to put them on a website and 
announce that they could be used

by commercial enterprises for any purpose then I would have a problem.

Its the creation of a database of images for commercial reuse that is 
the problem.


On 05/04/2016 20:40, Samantha Lien wrote:


Hi Andreas,


This blog post was corrected earlier this morning PST:

<https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/04/strike-against-freedom-panorama/>https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/04/strike-against-freedom-panorama/


The sentence you mentioned now reads:

The Court decided that Swedish copyright law does not allow Wikimedia 
Sverige to post images in its online database offentligkonst.se 
<http://offentligkonst.se> (a website / database covering publicly 
placed art) without permission from the artist.



There are also correction notes at the top and end of the post, and 
we’ve updated our social media posts from the @Wikipedia Facebook and 
Twitter accounts to acknowledge and reflect this correction.



Thank you,

Sam


On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Lilburne 
<lilbu...@tygers-of-wrath.net <mailto:lilbu...@tygers-of-wrath.net>> 
wrote:


Its not "a large-scale online database" per se. Its the commercial
aspect of it that is at issue.


 On 05/04/2016 19:06, Andreas Kolbe wrote:

Report in The Guardian:


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/05/wikimedias-free-photo-database-of-artworks-violates-copyright-court-rules

Wikimedia Sweden press release:


http://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/pressreleases/hoegsta-domstolen-vaeljer-att-krympa-det-offentliga-rummet-istaellet-foer-att-gaa-paa-wikimedia-sveriges-linje-1360834

WMF blog post:

https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/04/strike-against-freedom-panorama/

I would note here that in my opinion, the WMF blog post and some
journalists who seem to have read it materially misrepresent
the decision
made, when they say or imply that


The Court decided that Swedish copyright law does not allow
individuals or
organizations to post images online of publicly-placed artwork
without
permission from the artist.


Supreme Court Justice Lars Edlund has expressly contradicted
that. He's
made very clear that the decision is specifically about a
large-scale
online database, and does not impact users who want to post a
picture to
Facebook or Instagram.


http://www.svt.se/kultur/konst/brottsligt-sprida-bilder-av-offentligt-konst-pa-natet


http://www.hogstadomstolen.se/Domstolar/hogstadomstolen/Avgoranden/2016/2016-04-04%20%C3%96%20849-15%20Beslut.pdf

Andreas
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org>?subject=unsubscribe>



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org>?subject=unsubscribe>




--
*Samantha Lien*
Communications | Wikimedia Foundation
149 New Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94105

sl...@wikimedia.org <mailto:sl...@wikimedia.org>







___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: 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] My posts going to spam

[Lilburne]

On 29/02/2016 22:10, George Herbert wrote:

Just to confirm, all Jimmy's email in these threads were in my Gmail spam 
folder when I looked.

If you're using Gmail, go look at the spam folder and bring his messages back 
in...





Perhaps that is the penalty for attempting to compete with search companies.


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] US Copyright Law Forces Wikimedia to remove Public Domain Anne Frank Diary

[Lilburne]

On 16/02/2016 18:39, Lodewijk wrote:

If we were publishers trying to make a buck out of selling the work, I
would agree with you, and move on. However, that is not what we want to do
as a movement. We don't try to take advantage, but we want to build upon
works. We want to collaborate and stand on the shoulders of giants. Giants
like this little girl.




But that is exactly what you are doing. A publisher can fight for the 
right to make a buck
without WP's help. A book of the diary costs a few pence, far less then 
the cost of the
paper and ink for individual printing it. A digital copy is still a far 
inferior offering from a
book version. I'm not sure that many actually prefer works like this as 
a pdf, html, or any

other format over the book.


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Changes in the Board

[Lilburne]

On 27/01/2016 21:04, Andreas Kolbe wrote:

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:


Thank you, Arnnon!



Indeed. Thank you, Arnnon, and best wishes to you.




This is a reminder that very little touched by Google remains untainted, 
in the UK we hope that George Osborne follows suite.



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

[Lilburne]

On 26/01/2016 20:27, Pine W wrote:


While I realize that staying on may be your personal preference, I believe
that for the good of WMF and for our collective movement, you should resign.




A quote from history would have been more succinct:
http://quotationsbook.com/quote/29200/


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Lilburne]

On 10/01/2016 04:04, Comet styles wrote:

Jimmy has always been biased so I personally won't trust his words but
the way this is playing out, its like James somehow revealed the pass
codes to the WMF Nuclear launch codes or something...did he?

A board made up to govern a community driven project filled with
people no one voted in decides to give a community selected board
member the boot for reason which they supposedly 'cannot' reveal and
they wonder why the community is pissed off at them?



Meanwhile one knows that a Google appointed board member objected to James,
presence at a meeting where they were most likely to be finalizing the 
appointment

of another from the Googleplex, who is a little tarnished.


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

[Lilburne]

Simply if I have a litre of sewage and add to it 100ml of pure water,
I still have sewage. Conversely if I have a a litre of pure water and
pour in 100ml of sewage into it then what do I have?

What if 2 out of 10 bank statements are erroneous is that OK because
8 are accurate?

What if ever 2 out of 10 gas stations delivered Gasoline from the Diesel
pump?


On 29/11/2015 10:38, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

Hoi,
More FUD. Poisonous how?
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 29 November 2015 at 11:33, Lilburne <lilbu...@tygers-of-wrath.net 
<mailto:lilbu...@tygers-of-wrath.net>> wrote:


On 29/11/2015 09:42, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

Hoi, Wikidata is a wiki and, you seem to always forget that. 
> > The corruption of data .. how? Each statement is its own

data item

> how do you corrupt that? As I say so often, when you get a
collection > that is 80% correct you have an error rate of 20%.

Surely this isn't some exam paper where you get an 80% passing mark.
What you have is a basket of eggs ... 20% of which are poisonous.



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
<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] Quality issues

[Lilburne]

On 29/11/2015 09:42, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, Wikidata is a wiki and, you seem to always forget that.  > > The corruption of data .. how? Each statement is its own data item 
> how do you corrupt that? As I say so often, when you get a collection 
> that is 80% correct you have an error rate of 20%.


Surely this isn't some exam paper where you get an 80% passing mark.
What you have is a basket of eggs ... 20% of which are poisonous.


___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

[Lilburne]

On 29/11/2015 00:37, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

Hoi,
It was from the Myanmar WIkipedia that a lot of data was imported to
Wikidata. Data that did not exist elsewhere. I do not care really what
"Freedom House" says. I do not know them, I do know that the data is
relevant and useful It was even the subject on a blogpost..

You may ignore data that is not from a source that you like. This
indiscriminate POV is not a NPOV.



Isn't the point that the data was taken primarily because it was 
available, and that
there was no attempt to verify its accuracy. If I give you 10,000 images 
of lichen but
before hand randomly switch the names of 2000 of them and add misleading 
geodata

randomly to another 2000 are the images useful as data? Would including them
improve NPOV?


___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

[Lilburne]

On 29/07/2015 09:01, Petr Kadlec wrote:

Really? Neither the word instititution nor third party [website] appear
in the text of the CC license, so on what exactly do you base this very
specific distinction just so narrowly fitting our behavior (no image
attribution within articles, only on the image description page reachable
upon clicking on the image), while not fitting anyone else doing exactly
the same? The license requires only that the credit be implemented in any
reasonable manner. [Also note that the _text_ of our projects, while also
licensed under CC-BY-SA, is licensed in way that explicitly states that a
sufficient attribution is [t]hrough hyperlink (where possible) or URL to
the page or pages that you are re-using (since each page has a history page
that lists all authors and editors).]



Many of the images on Commons are from flickr which is CC 2.0 licenses. 
Not 2.5, 3.0,

or 4.0 and there is no automatic upgrade from an older to newer version.

The CC 2.0 licenses do not say that a hyperlink is sufficient that is a 
v4.0 license. Many
photographers are not making CC content available under 4.0 licenses as 
a result. So
you have a problem in that much of your image content is licensed 2.0. 
Those running
flickr2Commons upload bots are violating the license by upgrading it to 
v3.0 unless they
are creating derivatives. None of the pre 4.0 licenses say that a 
hyperelink is sufficient for

attribution. They all say that:

   You must keep intact all copyright notices 
for the Work and
   give the Original Author credit reasonable 
to the medium or
   means You are utilizing by conveying the 
name (or pseudonym
   if applicable) of the Original Author if 
supplied; the title of the
   Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably 
practicable, the
   Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that 
Licensor specifies to be
   associated with the Work, unless such URI 
does not refer to the
   copyright notice or licensing information 
for the Work




___
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] harald bischoff advertising to make images for the wikimedia foundation and then suing users

[Lilburne]

On 21/07/2015 08:00, rupert THURNER wrote:

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 11:46 PM, Lilburne lilbu...@tygers-of-wrath.net wrote:

On 20/07/2015 19:38, Andy Mabbett wrote:

On 20 July 2015 at 18:09, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:


it is also hard for me to get behind the
notion of punishing someone for demanding that reusers due the things
that
Commons actually recommends that they do.

It's not a question of punishment, but of protecting Commons'
reputation (from being brought into disrepute, as it might be
termed)


If you start deleting the images from Commons you put all re-users
absolutely at risk who have linked to Commons.

Why?

Because you will now have removed the link to the attributions and license
that they were relying on. This is why anyone that links like that is a
fool. It is one thing to link to a page containing attribution/license on
your site. Quite another to link to some other site you have no control over
for the attribution/license.

the link is good enough imo, commons does not throw away the record
that the foto was there and everything can be reconstructed in case of
trouble.



You shouldn't need to reconstruct anything. The attribution should be 
there. If someone has linked to the attribution on Commons and Commons 
admins have deleted the page in some snit then the attribution is no 
longer there. Regardless as to whether linking to attribution is finally 
considered by a court as OK. The link is no longer to the attribution. 
Even CC v4 licenses don't say that it is OK to link to a page where the 
attribution may or may not be, or where the attribution may upon request 
be reconstructed, or hunted down. If people are relying on the 
attribution being at the end of the links then you can't effectively 404 
the links.



___
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] harald bischoff advertising to make images for the wikimedia foundation and then suing users

[Lilburne]

On 20/07/2015 19:38, Andy Mabbett wrote:

On 20 July 2015 at 18:09, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:


it is also hard for me to get behind the
notion of punishing someone for demanding that reusers due the things that
Commons actually recommends that they do.

It's not a question of punishment, but of protecting Commons'
reputation (from being brought into disrepute, as it might be
termed)



If you start deleting the images from Commons you put all re-users 
absolutely at risk who have linked to Commons.


Why?

Because you will now have removed the link to the attributions and 
license that they were relying on. This is why anyone that links like 
that is a fool. It is one thing to link to a page containing 
attribution/license on your site. Quite another to link to some other 
site you have no control over for the attribution/license.




___
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] FindArticles.com died in 2012

[Lilburne]

On 30/06/2015 10:58, Ricordisamoa wrote:

Il 30/06/2015 11:41, Lilburne ha scritto:
The average lifespan of a webpage is about 77 days. It matters not 
whether the site is still running or dead. Webmasters shuffle stuff 
about and delete things at will. Click on the random article button 
and see a) how many of the first 10 have external links, and b) how 
many of those links are still live, or don't redirect to the sites 
homepage. I reckon at least 50% of all external links on en.wp are 
dead. Lesson: the internet is ephemeral and the only permanent record 
is on physical material.


Yes, if you forget 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_the_Library_of_Alexandria.


Well of course that was some 1700 years ago. You are equating a event of 
millennial proportion with something that happens every day? Get a grip 
on reality.





___
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] FindArticles.com died in 2012

[Lilburne]

The average lifespan of a webpage is about 77 days. It matters not 
whether the site is still running or dead. Webmasters shuffle stuff 
about and delete things at will. Click on the random article button and 
see a) how many of the first 10 have external links, and b) how many of 
those links are still live, or don't redirect to the sites homepage. I 
reckon at least 50% of all external links on en.wp are dead. Lesson: the 
internet is ephemeral and the only permanent record is on physical material.


On 30/06/2015 05:36, Jonatan Svensson Glad wrote:

The website findarticles died in 2012 causing over 20 000 articles to have dead 
links on them. A few of them was backed up on Wayback, but their robot.txt 
changed so all those archives were deleted as well. So either articles have a 
dead link showing as 200 (which findlinks.com does) or they are claiming to be 
archived while they are not.
Read more in my blog post about this: 
https://jonatanglad.wordpress.com/2015/06/29/findarticles-com/
Can we use a bot to remove all instances of this link, or should we go through 
them all manually? Can we use bots such as CItation bot (which is currently 
blocked) to find doi's and other links to replace these links with? Ideas 
people! Barely any of these links are tagged as dead, and can't by Checklinks 
(unless done manually) since they show as 200.
/Josve05a



___
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] Fwd: Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships

[Lilburne]

Boi,

All comparisons of WP with other sources were cherry picked. They picked 
articles where
the science was well established, or they picked articles which were 
being edit warred to
exhaustion if you know of comparisons where that isn't the case then 
cough them up.


Wikipedia happens to figure high in Google search rankings. That is the 
only reliable relevance that
it has to any subject. Often its high ranking is to the detriment of far 
more reliable sites. Richard II
king of England in 1345 - three years that resided in a feature article. 
Thomas Rainsborough the
noted Ranter a year. Jagged85 years and years falsifying articles in 
History, Medicine,
Mathematics, and Literature, and allowed to carry on doing so for 
several years after discovery.

Much of his nonsense remains.

Ignoring the millions of X is a footballer in the 6th division of the Y 
league, X is a moth in the
Y family, X is a village of 50 people in the region of Y type 
articles. Most of the rest are like
John Dee. An unreadable hodge-podge of 'maybe facts' culled from ancient 
sources, and mangled
into nonsense to avoid charges of plagiarism. Article that give as much 
weight to gossip and
sensation as they do to achievements. Lets try Alfred Gilbert where 
the pursuit of gossip has

lost the actual story of his life.


On 05/04/2015 12:07, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

Hoi,
Research is not what we compete with. Research is not encyclopaedic 
either. The research I refer to compared a set of subjects and 
compared those in several sources... Then again why bore you with 
information you already could know..


Cherry picking an article from Brittanica is wonderful, it proves 
your point, it however fails to convince.


Your God or mine, the fact is that Wikipedia is a most relevant 
source. Given your complaint about the John Dee article, there is an 
opportunity for you. You claim to know the subject matter.

Thanks,
   GerardM

On 5 April 2015 at 12:06, Lilburne lilbu...@tygers-of-wrath.net 
mailto:lilbu...@tygers-of-wrath.net wrote:


On 05/04/2015 06:36, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

Hoi,
Reliable is not an absolute. Wikipedia is in the final analysis an
encyclopaedia. It is not original research.


One can indeed engage in original research by cherry picking the
sources.


Studies have indicated that
Wikipedia is as reliable as its competitors.


Nonsense. Reliability has only ever been checked in the case of
well established scientific
knowledge (where it was found to have 30% more errors), and highly
disputed content.
It has not been checked over the millions of articles that are
neither of the above.

Take the WP article on John Dee and compare it to the Britannica
article. The Britannica
article is both readable and well rounded. The WP article is a
rambling mess that tries
to present Dee the Mathematician, Scientist and natural
philospher, but is thwarted
at every turn by those that want John Dee to be foremost the
magician and conjuror.

Perhaps in the end Dee the mathematician wins out, but it is a
close run thing, and
one has to pour over the stilted language and mish mash of thought
processes to
get there.

Ironically enough many of the sources used to promote Dee the
magician are instead
promoting Dee the mathematician.

I think you have it backward. Given that Wikipedia is best of
breed, people
do care about Wikipedia Zero.


God help us if that is the case. Fortunately there are far more
informative and reliable
sites about then wikipedia. Unfortunately they tend not to be on
the first page of a
search engine's results.



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
mailto:Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
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] Fwd: Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships

[Lilburne]

On 05/04/2015 06:36, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

Hoi,
Reliable is not an absolute. Wikipedia is in the final analysis an
encyclopaedia. It is not original research.



One can indeed engage in original research by cherry picking the sources.



Studies have indicated that
Wikipedia is as reliable as its competitors.


Nonsense. Reliability has only ever been checked in the case of well 
established scientific
knowledge (where it was found to have 30% more errors), and highly 
disputed content.
It has not been checked over the millions of articles that are neither 
of the above.


Take the WP article on John Dee and compare it to the Britannica 
article. The Britannica
article is both readable and well rounded. The WP article is a rambling 
mess that tries
to present Dee the Mathematician, Scientist and natural philospher, but 
is thwarted
at every turn by those that want John Dee to be foremost the magician 
and conjuror.


Perhaps in the end Dee the mathematician wins out, but it is a close run 
thing, and
one has to pour over the stilted language and mish mash of thought 
processes to

get there.

Ironically enough many of the sources used to promote Dee the magician 
are instead

promoting Dee the mathematician.


I think you have it backward. Given that Wikipedia is best of breed, people
do care about Wikipedia Zero.


God help us if that is the case. Fortunately there are far more 
informative and reliable
sites about then wikipedia. Unfortunately they tend not to be on the 
first page of a

search engine's results.


___
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] Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships

[Lilburne]

On 02/04/2015 02:54, Mike Godwin wrote:

Andreas writes:

Prominent organisations campaigning for a free and open web very
strongly disagree with your view.

I said there are no facts, and you responded by citing opinion pieces.
That's cool, but opinions are not themselves facts.

Furthermore, in some circles, I've been considered from time to time
to be someone prominent whose entire career has been dedicated to a
free and open web. If you're suggesting that everyone -- or even
everyone prominent -- who believes in a free and open web very
strongly disagrees with me, then you are misinformed.


No we think that there are relationships between faux advocacy and what 
benefits large
multinational tech corporations to the detriment of everyone else. That 
we do not see
'citizen advocacy' groups speak out against the rape of privacy that 
online web operators
engage in, that they speak mainly of governments who by and large 
out-source the

surveillance to private companies.

For example did the EFF speak out about Google using Apps for 
Education to profile kids?

No totally silent on the vile behavour of its pay master:
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/03/13/26google.h33.html
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2014/04/30/google-stops-data-mining-students-email/



There is an
honest difference of opinion about what the developing world needs
first. And, in my experience, it is only individuals in developed,
industrialized countries with very little direct knowledge about the
infrastructural and access challenges in developing countries who
imagine that zero-rated services are categorically a threat to a free
and open web.


That free and open is bullshit for the entrenchment of the status quo. 
That Government
turned a blind eye to the abuses in the early days, effectively allowing 
monopolies to become

established and that it about time that they reigned the bastards back.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/01/modernise_safe_harbour_for_the_tech_oligarch_era_mike_weatherley/



I've actually written about this issue at length, and will be
publishing another article on the issue next week. I'll post the link
here when I have it.

Whether the U.S. government's Federal Communications is not itself a
prominent organization that has committed itself to a free and open
web is a proposition worth challenging is, of course, up to you. But
I hope you don't expect such a challenge to be taken seriously. I know
the FCC's new Report and Order on net neutrality is a very long
(400-page) document, and there is of course no requirement that you
actually have read it (much less some appreciable fraction of the
comments that led to it). But I've done so. The FCC expressly refused
to adopt the categorical, simplistic, binary approach you have posted
here.


Yeah we heard that. That despite all the supposed brouhaha
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/05/us-usa-internet-google-idUSKBN0L91E420150205

The FCC came out in favour of - GOOGLE
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/13/net_neutrality_rules/

I gather that a recent FTC report is being investigated by a Senate that 
is waking up to the fiddling

that is going on
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/03/senate_to_probe_obamagoogle_lovein/


My friends and colleagues at EFF, Access Now, and elsewhere -- as well
as individual scholars and commentators like Marvin Ammori -- know me,


Those will all be Google shills correct?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/103158031/Google-Shill-List
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/03/10/sopa_copyright_voluntary_agreements_hollywood_lobbyists_are_like_exes_who.html?wpisrc=burger_bar

In effect it is becoming clearer and clearer that the later day robber 
barons, their supporters
and fellow travellers need a clear lessons in citizenship. That the rule 
of law is catching up.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/03/us/califomia-revenge-porn-sentence/index.html



___
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] Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 133, Issue 17

[Lilburne]

On 05/04/2015 14:13, Mike Godwin wrote:

Lilburne writes:

 My friends and colleagues at EFF, Access Now, and elsewhere -- as well

as individual scholars and commentators like Marvin Ammori -- know me,

Those will all be Google shills correct?

Incorrect. My work, and EFF's work, to take two example, predate
Google's involvement in public policy by 15 years.


Really! Seems that the EFF et al have been shilling for tech 
corporations at the expense
of consumers for about 15 years or so. The others from the day before 
they formed.




I understand that for keyboard cowboys it may be hard to understand
that mere agreement with a corporation some of the time does not equal
being a shill and does not entail agreeing with a corporation all
the time. But those of us who actually do activism and public policy
work know who we are and why we do it.


Its not a case of 'sometimes' its nigh on all the time. You'd be more 
accurate to list the
dozen or so times in the last 15 years when the EFF hasn't played drum 
major to corporate

tech, beating out a voodoo rhythm  to entrance the unwary.


In those contexts, I've never heard of you before. Tell us more about
your activism and public-policy work!



Well one thing I don't need to go about name dropping to justify my words.



___
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] Most obnoxious banner yet

[Lilburne]

On 12/01/2015 20:59, Andreas Kolbe wrote:

As for the fundraiser's duration, I believe the 2014 fundraiser ran for 30
days (December 2 to December 31, 2014). This is longer than last year, and
at any rate much longer than 2012, right?



You need to get the most out of the Goose as it nears the end of its egg 
laying and

you switch to stuffing it for Foie gras.

___
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] Awareness of Wikipedia and its usage patterns in Israel

[Lilburne]

Perhaps they need education on the inherent biases.

http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/12/24/wikipedia-all-murdered-israeli-children-are-murdered-by-arabs/

___
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] [Wikimediach-l] red cross

[Lilburne]

On 04/07/2014 09:37, Andy Mabbett wrote:

On Jul 4, 2014 7:55 AM, Frédéric Schütz sch...@mathgen.ch wrote:


Their main worry seems to be how do we make sure that people do not use
the pictures in a way we're not happy with

That question qualifies as frequently asked; my usual answer is to the
effect that You cannot - but anyone who is going to use them maliciously
is not going to worry about niceties like copyright. The people whose
activities you limit by applying a restrictive license are the good guys -
and yourselves.


Not so Andy. Over on Commons last year someone had taken a photo of a 
woman and a horse from flickr cropped it and tagged it as Bestiality. As 
per usual the Commons porn patrol fought like cornered rats to keep it. 
Why should people have to go through that? Yeah the bad guys won't give 
a fig about the license, but the web host most certainly will. When they 
were taking photos of little kids from flickr accounts to post on Orkut 
and play age related sex games, it wasn't the complaints of the parents 
to the uploaders that got it stopped (haha luser you can't do nothing), 
nor complaints to Google (send us your 6 yo kid's drivers license), it 
was the DMCA takedowns that brought an end to it.


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/02/google_orkut_dmca/



___
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