[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation Board resolution and vote on the proposed Movement Charter
Just to be clear, this means that the Charter will not take effect even if, hypothetically, the community and the affiliates voted to approve it? Newyorkbrad/IBM On Thursday, July 11, 2024, Nataliia Tymkiv wrote: > Dear all, > > As we await the outcome from all stakeholders who voted on the draft > Movement Charter ratification, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees > met on Monday, July 8, to discuss and cast the Foundation’s vote. > > *On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees I am sharing the > results of that vote, the resolution, meeting minutes, and proposed next > steps.* > > *==Draft Movement Charter== * > > > The proposed charter represents a tremendous amount of work done by the > Movement > Charter Drafting Committee > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee>, > alongside several others. The creation of a charter was one of several > recommendations to come from the Movement Strategy process alongside the > Strategic Direction that continues to guide the Wikimedia Foundation. > > At the same time, the vote on the proposed charter has provided an > opportunity for all of us to reflect on what has changed – and continues to > change – since the original Movement Strategy process started in 2018. The > Foundation has tried to consistently identify these issues in its annual > plan > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2024-2025>, > strategic planning priorities > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation/Chief_Executive_Officer/Updates/April_2024_Update>, > and elsewhere > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation/Chief_Executive_Officer/Updates/February_2024_Update>. > They include numerous and growing external threats (and some opportunities) > of a rapidly changing and fragmenting internet – from the nature of search > to the rise of generative AI. We have also seen an increase in global > regulations of content and platforms that have an impact on our people and > our projects. Furthermore, our collective resources have not been growing > as quickly > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2024-2025/Financial_Model> > as we had seen in prior periods. This has required more clarity on > priorities, trade-offs, and pragmatism. > > It is because of these myriad challenges and complex realities that > clarifying roles and responsibilities within the Wikimedia movement is > more, not less, important. That is why the Board and the Foundation have > been cautiously assessing how best to move forward at this point, after > providing significant support to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee in > undertaking this task. > > Our hope is to take solutions from the intent of the draft charter and > consider where a future Global Council may be able to provide benefits to > us all. We believe that this can only be done through concrete, > practical, and time-bound next steps, based on the areas identified in the > final draft charter text, rather than a wholesale adoption of the > proposed charter in its final form. > > *==Board resolution==* > > > Therefore, in the Special Board meeting this week, the Wikimedia > Foundation Board of Trustees voted not to ratify the proposed Charter. > You can read the full Board resolution [1] and minutes of the meeting [2]. > > The Board also approved a way forward, including three experiments that > the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia affiliates, and community members can > jointly conduct in the three areas identified in the proposed Movement > Charter to be taken on by a future Global Council. The outlines of the > proposals are included in the resolution in the appendix [3] with > concrete proposals for these key areas. These include experiments designed > to test the feasibility of proposals related to resource distribution, > technology > advancement, and support of Wikimedia movement organizations. Solutions > for these collaborative experiments should be designed for co-ownership and > build on the capabilities of the entire Wikimedia movement. And the comments > received with the votes during the ratification would help shape these > proposals more. > > *==What’s next==* > > > As of this writing, 2,451 individual voters participated and 129 affiliate > votes were cast, meeting the quorum for both groups. By July 24, the > outcome of these votes along with comments will be published so that any > proposed next steps can benefit from the input, reflections, and > recommendations of all voters. It is important to listen to the feedback > that has been provided through this process before taking further steps. > > Following that, we shall ask
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Simplifying governance processes
I haven't steeped myself in WMF governance details in the past couple of years, but SJ's observation strikes me as sensible. For example, after 15+ years of board governance, we shouldn't have to spend time every year debating how the Board is to be selected, each time resulting in a more complicated process than before. The situation reminds me of the sort of rules-creep we frequently see on English WIkipedia. Each individual change is well-intentioned and on its own may make sense, but the cumulative effect is much too complicated, and to newcomers sometimes virtually impenetrable. (Cf. https://slate.com/technology/2014/06/wikipedias-bureaucracy-problem-and-how-to-fix-it.html , which as it happens was written by a current WMF board member.) That being said, I'm not sure what specifically should be done to address this problem. In particular, let's not create a committee and process to decide whether we have too many committees and processes. Best regards, Newyorkbrad/IBM On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 4:45 PM Samuel Klein wrote: > Dear Board (and all), > > The growing complexity of governance efforts is defeating us. Process > creep <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_instruction_creep> is > an existential threat for projects like ours – it is self-perpetuating if > not actively curtailed, as it filters out people who dislike excess > process. There's a reason 'bureaucrats' and 'stewards' have unglamorous > titles. > > Global governance in particular seems to be suffering from this now. Let's > try to scale it back! Recent developments, all at least somewhat confusing: > > *Global Council*: A three-stage vote for the drafting committee. After 6 > months of work in private, we know the charter will cover governance, > resourcing, & community > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Content>. A ratifiable > charter by 2023 should include Council scope, then *another* group may > draft an election process. Council elections would start mid-2024. > > *Conduct*: Two years from first draft to realization. Custom review & > revision process for policy, set to change ~once a year. Enforcement by > *another* group (U4C), not yet defined, with an idea about annual > elections for it [starting in 2023?]. > > *WMF Board*: A *four*-stage election, with a new complex nomination > template. Nominees evaluated by *another* elected 9-person Analysis > Committee, followed by a two-stage vote. > Months of process, 16 staff facilitators. > > Something has to give. We don't have time for all of these to be > different, complex affairs. > And this complexity feels self-imposed, like trying to push spaghetti > through a straw. > > ~ ~ ~ > Four short proposals for your consideration: > > 1. Focus discussions on the decisions we need to resolve, not on process. > We need a foundation Board & global Council for specific practical > reasons. What challenges do they need to resolve this year? What major > issues + nuances are at play? > > 2. Make elections simple, flexible, consistent. > Build tools and frameworks that *conserve* rather than soak up community > time. Make longer processes capture proportionately detailed results. > Empower a standing election committee. > > 3. Highlight ways people can engage with governance + prioritization, > regionally + globally, beyond winning elections to procedural bodies. > *Support* organizers + facilitators rather than *hiring* them out of > their communities to facilitate on behalf of a central org. > > 4. Delegate more. Delegate to community. Delegate *design* and > *implementation*. > Our communities excel at self-organization, and rebel against arbitrary > mandates. Avoid language or policies that remove agency or > exaggerate staff-community division. > > 𝒲♡, SJ > > -- > Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/7UVDBQTEWTR3ZNYLEP5TWAOVHF372OEL/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/YRALVPPHAWMMATDUSUTZVBHG2CXOKAU6/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: "content was" when deleting pages - is it useful?
The problem with this feature was that when the deleted material was libelous, offensive, etc., it would still automatically be copied into the deletion summary, which served to defeat the entire purpose of deleting it. Newyorkbrad/IBM On Monday, January 17, 2022, Amir E. Aharoni wrote: > Hallo! > > There's an old MediaWiki feature: When an administrator deletes a page, a > bit of its content is automatically added to an edit summary. This is later > viewable in deletion logs. > > If you edit in the English, German, or Italian Wikipedia, then you haven't > actually seen this feature in years, because administrators in these wikis > essentially removed it by locally blanking the system messages that make it > work. > > In many other wikis, however, this feature is still working. > > Is it actually useful? Or should it perhaps be removed? > > Here's a Phabricator task about it: > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T299351 > > If you have an opinion, weigh in there or here. > > Thanks! > > -- > Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי > http://aharoni.wordpress.com > “We're living in pieces, > I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore > ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/JFRQXYH7QPC3UE4K7G7APCVPPD64JP6M/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimedia-l] June 4 1800 Maggie Dennis office hour (with a twist)
Every time I see the title of this thread, I momentarily wonder why this event is being held 220 years ago. Newyorkbrad/IBM On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 5:37 AM Rajeeb Dutta wrote: > Thank you, Maggie for the kind update, I am looking forward to it. > > Best Regards, > Rajeeb Dutta. > (U: Marajozkee) > (Sent from my iPhone pardon the brevity) > > > On 30-May-2020, at 2:53 PM, Ziko van Dijk wrote: > > > > Thanks for the link, Ciell, I easily get confused about time zones. > > I am looking forward to attend on June 4th, if it is possible for me. > > Kind regards > > Ziko > > > >> Am Fr., 29. Mai 2020 um 20:20 Uhr schrieb Ciell Wikipedia < > >> ciell.wikipe...@gmail.com>: > >> > >> This will be very interesting, thank you Maggie. > >> (To check your local time for this office hour: click here > >> < > >> > https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Maggie+Dennis+office+hour+%28with+a+twist%29&iso=20200604T18&p1=1440&ah=1 > >>> ) > >> > >> > >> Vriendelijke groet, > >> Ciell > >> > >> > >> Op do 28 mei 2020 om 14:03 schreef Maggie Dennis >: > >> > >>> Hello, all. > >>> > >>> With the Board’s recent statement, this seems like a good time to > launch > >>> the quarterly office hours I’ve been wanting to create for people who > >> want > >>> to talk to me about issues involving “community resilience and > >>> sustainability,” including the work of Trust & Safety, whom I oversee. > >>> (after months of wanting to do this I’ve come to realize that I will > >> always > >>> be "too busy" to feel like it's the perfect time for this. So I’m going > >> to > >>> do it now anyway!) > >>> > >>> There’ve been requests to make office hours more personal, so I will > >> host a > >>> Zoom hangout where people can join me, but I'll also take questions > from > >>> Telegram and IRC.[1] I know that finding an hour that works for > everybody > >>> is not going to happen, and I know from past office hours I’ve been > >>> involved in that I may get far more questions than I can answer (or, > >>> contrarily, nothing at all :)). Nevertheless, I will do my best to > answer > >>> questions posed to me in that hour by Wikimedians in good standing (not > >>> Foundation or community banned) and to follow up in writing with any I > >>> don’t have time for over the next few days or week or so, time > allowing. > >> I > >>> might aggregate similar questions into a kind of FAQ. We’ll publish > >> notes, > >>> anonymizing those who’ve asked questions, after. > >>> > >>> I do, however, have the following caveats: > >>> > >>> - > >>> > >>> I can’t and won’t discuss specific Trust & Safety cases. Instead, I > >> can > >>> discuss Trust & Safety protocols and practices and approaches as well > >> as > >>> some of the mistakes we’ve made, some of the things I’m proud of, and > >>> some > >>> of the things we’re hoping to do. > >>> - > >>> > >>> I will not respond to comments or questions that are disrespectful to > >>> me, to my colleagues, or to anyone in our communities. I can talk > >>> civilly > >>> about our work even if you disagree with me or I disagree with you. I > >>> won’t > >>> compromise on this. > >>> > >>> > >>> I’m not sure if I will stick with Zoom as the way I do office hours > >>> forever, but I am responding to some requests for spoken interaction > >> while > >>> also trying to provide text options for those who prefer. I admit to > >> being > >>> a little camera shy myself, so this is a challenge for me! If I > embarrass > >>> myself too badly, I may retreat to the safety of text in future. > >>> > >>> I was hoping to have the Zoom link already, but while that’s being > >>> expedited by our office technology team, I don’t have it yet. I wanted > to > >>> give interested people notice as soon as I knew the time. I’ll follow > up > >>> with links again at least two hours in advance. > >>> > >>> The meeting will be on June 4th at 1800 UTC. > >>> > >>> I hope to s
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Face recognition
This whole subject raises interesting and important legal and ethical issues, but are there any direct implications at this time for Wikipedia/Wikimedia projects? Newyorkbrad/IBM On Sunday, January 19, 2020, Ryan Merkley wrote: > I don't believe it implies that. As with many things legal, the answer re: > derivatives is likely "it depends". > > R. > > On Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 10:30 PM Benjamin Ikuta > wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks for that. > > > > Pardon me if I've missed something, but that seems to imply, but not > > directly state, that AI training is a derivative work; could you clarify > > that? > > > > > > > > On Jan 18, 2020, at 2:58 PM, Ryan Merkley > wrote: > > > > > [My comments are my own, and don’t reflect or suggest any official > > position from WMF] > > > > > > The NBC story linked below come out about a year ago. Around the same > > time, when I was CEO at Creative Commons, we published a statement and > > updated FAQs that attempted to respond to questions being asked about > > permitted uses and attribution related to the licenses. > > > > > > CC’s statement (March 2019) is here: > > https://creativecommons.org/2019/03/13/statement-on- > shared-images-in-facial-recognition-ai/ > > < > > https://creativecommons.org/2019/03/13/statement-on- > shared-images-in-facial-recognition-ai/ > > > > > > The FAQs are here: > > https://creativecommons.org/faq/#artificial-intelligence-and-cc-licenses > < > > https://creativecommons.org/faq/#artificial-intelligence-and-cc-licenses > > > > > > > > r. > > > > > > _ > > > > > > Ryan Merkley (he/him) > > > Chief of Staff, Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/ > > > > > > > > rmerk...@wikimedia.org <mailto:rmerk...@wikimedia.org> > > > @ryanmerkley <https://twitter.com/ryanmerkley> > > > +1 416 802 0662 > > > > > >> On Jan 18, 2020, at 2:14 PM, John Erling Blad > wrote: > > >> > > >> There are several reports of face recognition going mainstream, often > > >> in less than optimum circumstances, and often violating copyright and > > >> licenses > > >> > > >> > > https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/18/technology/clearview- > privacy-facial-recognition.html > > >> > > https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/facial-recognition-s- > dirty-little-secret-millions-online-photos-scraped-n981921 > > >> https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/01/diversity-in-faces/ > > >> > > >> In my opinion building a model for face recognition is a derived work, > > >> and as such must credit the photographers. That pose a real problem > > >> when the photographers counts in the millions and billions. Even a 1px > > >> fine print would be troublesome! > > >> > > >> What is the official stance on this? Is it a copyright infringement or > > >> not, does the license(s) cover the case or not? > > >> > > >> John Erling Blad > > >> /jeblad > > >> > > >> ___ > > >> 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> > > > > > > ___ > > > 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> > > > > ___ > > 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> > ___ > 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> ___ 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] Wikimedia Foundation supports legal challenge to new travel-related executive order
Also of interest for those following these cases, today a majority of the Ninth Circuit voted against an en banc rehearing regarding the stay order in the State of Washington case. The order and concurring and dissenting opinions can be found at http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/03/15/17-35105%20en%20banc.pdf Newyorkbrad/IBM On 3/15/17, Michelle Paulson wrote: > Hello All, > > I’m writing with a brief update; this afternoon, Judge Derrick K. Watson > granted the temporary restraining order [1], blocking the executive order > from enforcement nationwide. We are pleased with this result, and look > forward to the next stages of the case, when the court will examine the > order and its effects more thoroughly. We have updated the Foundation blog > to reflect the hearing’s outcome [2]. > > Best, > > Michelle Paulson > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13780#Hawaii > [2] > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/03/15/amicus-brief-us-travel-restrictions/ > > == > Michelle Paulson > Interim General Counsel > Wikimedia Foundation > 149 New Montgomery Street, 6th Floor > San Francisco, CA 94105 > mpaul...@wikimedia.org > 415.839.6885 ext. 6608 (Office) > 415.882.0495 (Fax) > > *NOTICE: This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you > have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the > mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation and for legal/ethical > reasons, I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community > members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more > on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.* > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Michelle Paulson > wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> Yesterday, the Wikimedia Foundation joined more than 50 other >> organizations, including Electronic Arts, Pinterest, and Zendesk, in >> signing an amicus brief[1] that was filed in State of Hawaii v. Trump,[2] >> a challenge to the new immigration-related executive order issued in the >> United States.[3] This order was issued following legal challenges to a >> previous executive order that instituted restrictions on immigration and >> travel based upon national origin.[4] >> >> The amicus brief was filed in support of an application for a temporary >> restraining order,[5] which would prevent the executive order from going >> into effect until legal challenges to its substance can be heard by a >> court. It details how the order’s provisions would harm the operations of >> the signatories, including the Wikimedia Foundation. As an organization >> that collaborates across borders daily, with staff, contractors, and >> members of the Wikimedia communities, these restrictions will hamper the >> Foundation’s ability to work effectively in pursuit of our mission to make >> free knowledge globally available. >> >> The Wikimedia Foundation continuously monitors events around the world >> that may impact the Foundation’s ability to support the projects and >> communities. When that capacity is threatened, as in the case of these >> travel restrictions, we will take action to protect the future of the >> projects, our mission, and our team's ability to serve both. This is not >> about political ideology, it is about preservation. More about today’s >> filing is available on the Wikimedia blog.[6] >> >> Best, >> >> Michelle Paulson >> >> [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:Tech_Amici_ >> Curiae_Brief,_Hawaii_v._Trump,_3.14.17.pdf >> >> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13780#Hawaii >> >> [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13780 >> >> [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769 >> >> [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injunction >> >> [6] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/03/15/amicus-brief-us- >> travel-restrictions/ >> >> == >> Michelle Paulson >> Interim General Counsel >> Wikimedia Foundation >> 149 New Montgomery Street, 6th Floor >> San Francisco, CA 94105 >> mpaul...@wikimedia.org >> 415.839.6885 ext. 6608 <(415)%20839-6885> (Office) >> 415.882.0495 <(415)%20882-0495> (Fax) >> >> *NOTICE: This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you >> have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the >> mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation and for legal/ethical >> reasons, I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, >> community >> me
Re: [Wikimedia-l] MediaWiki project
I suspect that this was posted not by OhNoItsJamie but by an imposter. Newyorkbrad On 2/6/17, OhNoitsJamie 1 wrote: > Hello, > > I have been long interested in starting my own MediaWiki project, but the > issue is that I cannot maintain server infrastructure myself. Also, most of > the MediaWiki hosting services listed do not meet my requirements. > Therefore, I was wondering if the WMF would consider starting a new project > that I could be founder of. I'm open to a variety of topics, please let me > know what you would prefer. > > Thank you for your time, > Jamie > ___ > 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> ___ 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] Keeping historical documents related to Wikimedia
If it is decided not to host these materials on a wiki, whether for copyright or any other reasons, then someone (either in the Office or a volunteer) should be designated to retain a copy privately. That way, he or she will be able to upload it later if the copyright status or policy changes in the future, or to make it available offline for research use or consultation by historians or other researchers who could make good use of it. Newyorkbrad/IBM On 1/11/17, Pete Forsyth wrote: > Thank you for bringing this up, Yann. Some relevant context is that Meta > Wiki users considered permitting such files on Meta Wiki a year and a half > ago, and decided not to. The electorate was not very big (14 votes, total), > but it was carefully considered, with compelling arguments made on both > sides.[1] > > In my opinion, the best outcome would be that Meta Wiki should have an > Exemption Doctrine Policy (the board's name for a project's local policy > that would permit copyrighted files under specific circumstances)[2] I > think the Meta Wiki decision should be revisited and considered in more > depth, with more participation, and probably reversed (with some careful > work on defining the proper circumstances for an exemption). > > But of course, that's not an easy task. I have no ready answer, but am > interested to see what ideas others have. > -Pete > [[User:Peteforsyth]] > > [1] > https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Babel&diff=prev&oldid=13362698#General_discussion_on_allowing_or_rejecting_fair_use_at_Meta > [2] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Yann Forget wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I would like to get more opinions about what to do with files such as >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Education_and_WGIG.pdf >> >> This is a draft from a United Nations conference which mentions Wikipedia >> (the first and only AFAIK), and as such, an important historical document. >> >> It doesn't have a formal license, but there is no real copyright issue. >> >> Where and how should we keep such files? >> >> Regards, >> >> Yann Forget >> ___ >> 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> > ___ > 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> ___ 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] Music industry threats to safe harbor?
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? Thanks, Newyorkbrad/IBM On 12/20/16, Lilburne wrote: > 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 si
Re: [Wikimedia-l] On Trump supporters (was: Our problem with India)
I suggest that we just drop the Trump tangent from the discussion, as it is a distraction. Newyorkbrad On 6/28/16, Milos Rancic wrote: > Moving this issue out of the thread about India, as it doesn't belong to it. > > It seems that my explanation of explanation was not quite useful. Just > the last paragraph was a satire and I've got complaint that > satirically playing with the racist stereotypes could seem racist. > That was the target of the explanation of explanation. > > However, your question that it's still not clear to you why I am > talking about Trump supporters is much more important. > > If we tend to be an inclusive movement, we should do our best to > include people from as much of society as we are able to do. > > The first and the most obvious problem in Wikimedia community was > striking lack of women. And, for a long time we have the programs > which promote inclusion of women in our movement. > > Then we have the issue of minorities. Depending on the country, those > processes started sooner or later. > > However, as we articulated Wikimedia movement as a progressive one, we > are slowly but surely losing large portions of our societies. > > The metaphor for that portion is "a Trump voter", but those people > exist in every society. They do not vote for Trump; they could be even > a progressive force in their society; but, as with Trump supporter, > they've been ostracized from the dominant part of the society as less > worthy. > > I've said those parts of the societies are our new underrepresented > groups. In United States it's about middle class people scared of > those who are socially in worse (immigrants) and better position > (among others, us) than themselves, voting for Trump. In Austria, it's > about working class people scared of those in worse and better > position than themselves, voting for FPO. And so on. > > And if you are asking me why we should take care about their > incorporation, I will tell you that I was getting quite similar > questions when I raised the problem of lack of participation of women > in Wikimedia movement. It's the wider social role of our movement. > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Peter Southwood > wrote: >> Still not clear. Why? >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On >> Behalf Of Milos Rancic >> Sent: Tuesday, 28 June 2016 1:28 PM >> To: Wikimedia Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Our problem with India >> >> On Jun 28, 2016 09:58, "Milos Rancic" wrote: >>> >>> (Hint for American >>> Wikimedians: Trump supporters are your next target for positive >>> discrimination.) >> >> It seems I have to clarify this sentence. >> >> I didn't say Trump, I didn't say Cruz, I didn't say Cruz supporters, I >> said Trump supporters. >> >> I have in mind very specific population, genuinely scared by the >> privileged Mexican illegal immigrants, working lazy for the American >> agricultural industry for $5/h or less and supported by Bay Area hipsters >> and Jewish lobby. >> ___ >> 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> >> >> - >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 2016.0.7640 / Virus Database: 4613/12507 - Release Date: 06/28/16 >> >> >> ___ >> 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> > > > > -- > Milos > > ___ > 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> ___ 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] Community Tech survey on watchlist use
"Talkpage watcher" would do fine. Newyorkbrad/IBM On 5/26/16, David Goodman wrote: > talk-page stalker is not necessarily an unfriendly term. It's meant as an > explanation for why the person saw the question, and posted there. But > perhaps we could find a better term for this, as stalker does have > unfortunate connotations. > > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Trillium Corsage > wrote: > >> My English Wikipedia talkpage is watchlisted by a surprising number of >> users that I have no cooperative or friendly editing relationship with. >> Some of them refer to themselves as "talkpage stalkers." Might it be >> possible for a user to prohibit such persons from watchlisting him or her? >> If it's not possible to selectively prohibit, how about an on/off switch, >> i.e. *no-one* may watchlist an editor's individual talkpage. >> >> Trillium Corsage >> >> 21.05.2016, 02:20, "Johan Jönsson" : >> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:06 AM, Danny Horn wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> >> >> WMF's Community Tech team is starting to work on a Cross-wiki >> watchlist, >> >> one of the top 10 wishes in the Community Wishlist Survey that we >> conducted >> >> at the end of last year. [1] >> >> >> >> We're running a survey on how people use their watchlists, to help >> inform >> >> our work. >> > >> > Hi everyone, >> > >> > A couple of months ago, the Community Tech team ran a survey to gather >> > information on how Wikimedians use their watchlists. You can see the >> > results here: >> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Tech/Cross-wiki_watchlist#Survey_results >> > >> > If you're interested, there are also some very early and rough >> > wireframes available on the project page: >> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Tech/Cross-wiki_watchlist#Current_work.2C_for_discussion >> > >> > //Johan Jönsson >> > -- >> > >> > ___ >> > 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> >> >> ___ >> 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> > > > > > -- > David Goodman > > DGG at the enWP > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG > ___ > 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> ___ 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] A quick note about the future
Although there may be aspects of the Doc James situation that legitimately must, or at least should, stay private, I am sure more can be revealed than has been to date. Let me see if I can help with one aspect of the issue. One stated reason that information has not been forthcoming, has been that revealing it could be a violation of Doc James's own privacy or his expectations of confidentiality. I expect that if asked point-blank, Dr. Heilman would agree to waive any confidentiality interest that he personally might have in keeping any aspect of the matter confidential or undisclosed. So I hereby ask him if he is able and willing to do that.. (My apologies if this has been done before and I missed it.) Doc James' agreeing that nothing needs to be kept confidential for HIS sake will not cut the entire Gordian knot that has kept this situation unclear for months -- but perhaps it will be helpful at least to some extent. Newyorkbrad/IBM On 2/29/16, Amir E. Aharoni wrote: > Nathan, as pretty much always, is correct. > > Everybody is tired of this mystery. > > I'm not blaming anybody - it's part of the unfortunate atmosphere of > unnecessary secrecy, which plagued us for way too long. That's what creates > the accusations and the wild rumors in all sides. We all have to fix it in > ourselves. > > Simply telling everybody's stories fully and openly is the only right thing > now. > בתאריך 29 בפבר׳ 2016 15:53, "Nathan" כתב: > >> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Jimmy Wales >> wrote: >> >> > >> > One of the things that someone asked me privately to discuss is what I >> > think of the possibility of James running for the board again. >> > >> > First, I have no opinion about whether or not he will be eligible at the >> > next election. That's a matter for people other than me to decide. I >> > don't know. >> > >> > Second, if he is eligible, and if he runs, and if he wins, then I will >> > support his joining the board. Because I've been willing to be vocal >> > about what I view as his failures, people have sometimes gotten the >> > mistaken impression that this is primarily a personal conflict between >> > him and me. That's not true. Before the board vote to remove him, I >> > told him that I would vote with the majority - because it is my feeling >> > that on matters of trust, if he was unable to command the trust of at >> > least the majority of other trustees, his position would be untenable. >> > >> > Third, it may interest you all to know that I did not and would not have >> > instigated the meeting in which he was removed from the board. Indeed, >> > I missed an online board meeting where things happened apparently that >> > brought this to a head, and in the final meeting with James, I mainly >> > inquired "What brought this up now?" as I thought things were settling >> > down. >> > >> > Fourth, having said all of that, I remain very disappointed in James and >> > the way he has spun this without coming forward with the community about >> > what happened. He claimed reasons for his dismissal that everyone else >> > on the board agrees unanimously are not the reasons. I haven't seen him >> > acknowledge that he was wrong about that, and I haven't seen him own up >> > to the things that actually upset people. >> > >> > There are many narratives being spun by people who weren't there, who >> > have made all kinds of assumption that aren't true. >> > >> >> There is a simple and easy way to rectify this: you and the other members >> of the board can honestly and fully describe the circumstances that led >> you >> to eject Heilman from the board. I've seen lots of indirect and >> non-specific claims from both sides; I wish you would all stop making >> vague >> assertions and just tell us what happened. I'm sure you can come up with >> lots of reasons why you Simply Cannot Do That, but if that's the case then >> maybe stop talking about it altogether. >> ___ >> 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> > ___ > 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> ___ 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] Post mortems
I too am one of those people who is not to be found on Facebook. I only have room in my life for one online timesink ... and I already have Wikipedia :) Newyorkbrad On 2/21/16, Risker wrote: > As has already been explained on this list, many people do not have access > to Facebook. If this is something germane and useful to a lot of people on > this list, perhaps it would be appropriate to ask Jonathan to post it here. > > Risker/Anne > > On 21 February 2016 at 18:34, Anthony Cole wrote: > >> For those not following, I recommend the discussion in response to >> Jonathan >> Cardy's comment here: >> >> https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/permalink/960989863948845/ >> >> Anthony Cole >> ___ >> 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> > ___ > 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> ___ 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] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google
It would be great if we could have Arrnon's input and perspective on the events that have caused the concern raised in this thread. However, it's been stated that major shareholder litigation involving the issue is still pending. If that is so, it is very unlikely that he's going to be able to make any public statement about the subject. Newyorkbrad/IBM On 1/10/16, Craig Franklin wrote: > I don't disagree that we need an explanation not only of his actions, but > also on how he was selected without this being disclosed to existing > trustees, but even at a show trial it's usually considered necessary to > allow the accused to say a few words in their own defense. I'll be > reserving my judgement until I hear his side of the story (or he declines > to provide one). > > Cheers, > Craig > > On 10 January 2016 at 03:51, David Gerard wrote: > >> ... and the court papers, and the smoking gun documents, and ... >> >> This is the sort of thing that needs some serious explaining. Assume >> good faith, but we're starting from some pretty *startling* >> circumstances and evidence here. >> >> >> - d. >> >> On 9 January 2016 at 09:19, Craig Franklin >> wrote: >> > Chris, >> > >> > Thanks for saying that. I'd also add that while the situation with >> Arrnon >> > looks damning on the face of it, I'm a little disappointed that people >> are >> > breaking out the pitchforks based purely on media reports, before he has >> a >> > chance to present his own side of the story and before Dariusz and the >> > others can properly look into the matter. I also think that some of the >> > more 'excitable' commentary on this list in the past couple of weeks is >> > more likely to push the trustees away than get us the explanations we >> > want. Yes, what is happening is deeply concerning, but lets not all >> > lose >> > our heads. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Craig >> > >> > On 9 January 2016 at 19:06, Chris Keating >> > wrote: >> > >> >> > I suspect they need a few days, based on past experiences. To dig >> >> > into >> >> the >> >> > matter, and prepare an answer >> >> >> >> Quite, and thanks for saying that Lodewijk. >> >> >> >> In my view, the WMF board's top priority has to be the issues about >> >> strategy, leadership and staff morale that are being made public now. >> It is >> >> in everyone's interests that these issues get sorted out and some key >> parts >> >> of the solution have to happen in private. >> >> >> >> I am sure that the Board have invested a huge amount of time and energy >> in >> >> these issues already. Unless you have been on the board of an >> organisation >> >> that's gone through a serious problem it's difficult to appreciate the >> >> pressure this creates. I have, and I would urge everyone to take a deep >> >> breath and think before emailing. It's worth repeating that Board >> members >> >> are all volunteers with jobs and families and what's more are trying to >> >> coordinate between three different continents. >> >> >> >> In particular hundred-email threads on this list where everyone >> speculates >> >> and demands answers to their particular questions (and some people >> >> downright stir the shit) are less than helpful - a board member who >> spends >> >> 5 hours a week on WMF business could easily spend that just reading all >> the >> >> emails >> >> >> >> Dariusz has said the Board is looking into the situation with Arnnon, >> which >> >> they were clearly not aware of - that is what needs to happen and yet >> more >> >> emails on this list won't mean that happens any more quickly. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Chris Keating >> >> ___ >> >> 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] WMF Conflict of Interest Policy
As a "non-technical" Wikimedian, I too would welcome a discussion, starting with the basics, of what the project formerly known as the "Knowledge Engine" is, or might become, and the pros and cons of the WMF focusing major resources on it. (Perhaps best to put have that discussion in a new thread, though?) Regards, Newyorkbrad/IBM On 1/11/16, Chris Keating wrote: > Ok - I would be really surprised if WMF have discussed Google in their > executive sessions either - given the difficulties around staff and > strategy they probably haven't had five minutes to mention Google, even if > they wanted to. So the most economical hypothesis is that the reason Denny > hasn't recused himself is because the subject hasn't come up. > > I would agree that board members should step aside from discussions about > anything that will have a commercial impact on their employers, though I > don't quite understand how Wikidata affects Google's bottom line and so > can't work out how this might be a conflict - can anyone explain this? Or > indeed what the "Knowledge Engine" actually is? > > Regards, > > Chris > On 11 Jan 2016 03:17, "Anthony Cole" wrote: > >> Chris, there have been no resolutions since Denny assumed his seat that >> impact Denny's employer, as best as I can tell, unless there is an >> existing >> direct relationship between Google and one or both of the new trustees, >> and >> no one's provided evidence of that. I hope Denny will recuse from any >> decision-making that might impact his employer, not just those decisions >> that directly address his employer. >> >> I would be concerned if he were involved in *discussions* on topics that >> impact Google, not just topics where Google is named. By this I mean, but >> not only, anything touching on the Knowledge Engine and WikiData, and I'm >> not just referring to discussions related to a resolution. The executive >> session of each board meeting is secret. >> >> On Monday, January 11, 2016, Chris Keating >> wrote: >> >> > > I am concerned that Denny may not have been recusing from discussions >> and >> > > decisions affecting Google. This strikes me as exceptional, and that >> the >> > > board doesn't find it so troubles me, and hints that you may all have >> > > something to gain from independent advice. >> > >> > >> > Out of interest, do you know of a single decision made by the WMF board >> > regarding Google while Denny has been on the Board? >> > >> > All their resolutions are public, and the members voting in favour and >> > against and absent or recused from each decision are listed. So if the >> WMF >> > has been discussing WMF's relationship with Google and Denny hasn't >> recused >> > himself this should be apparent. >> > >> > I have not checked the list of resolutions myself but I suspect that the >> > WMF board rarely, if ever, considers anything to do with any major tech >> > companies. >> > >> > Chris >> > ___ >> > 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> >> >> >> >> -- >> Anthony Cole >> ___ >> 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> > ___ > 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> ___ 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] Announcement about changes to the Board
I don't think it's been mentioned on this list that Jimmy Wales (one of the board members) commented about this matter today on his En-WP talkpage. Since I assume many people on this list don't follow that page, I have copied his comment below: "Hi everyone. I couldn't possibly agree more that this should have been announced with a full and clear and transparent and NPOV explanation. Why didn't that happen? Because James chose to post about it before we even concluded the meeting and before we had even begun to discuss what an announcement should say. WMF legal has asked the board to refrain from further comment until they've reviewed what can be said - this is analogous in some ways to personnel issues. Ideally, you would have heard about this a couple of days from now when a mutual statement by James and the board had been agreed. For now, please be patient. Accuracy is critically important here, and to have 9 board members posting their own first impressions would be more likely to give rise to confusions. -- Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)" I'm not endorsing Jimbo's comment -- or the reverse -- as I frankly find this whole situation strange and unfortunate. However, it seems relevant and I thought people in this discussion might want to be aware of it.. I also agree that the information about the two new board members should be circulated promptly. Newyorkbrad/IBM On 12/29/15, Steinsplitter Wiki wrote: > The removal is not transparent at all. > > Apart from that James was community elected. A democracy words different. > > Very disappointing. > >> From: rupert.thur...@gmail.com >> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 16:51:14 +0100 >> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board >> >> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:00 PM, MZMcBride wrote: >> > issue here. This is hardly unusual. Regarding the removal itself, at >> > least >> > in the United States, it's fairly common for members of a body to be >> > able >> > to remove/expel one of their own. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of >> > Trustees bylaws explicitly allow for removal of a member, with or >> > without >> > cause. Unlike in older Board resolutions, there's a clear public >> > accounting of how each of the Board members voted (as opposed to simple >> > numeric totals). James posted that he will work with Patricio to provide >> >> like others on this thread i think the WMF bylaws are broken in this >> respect. not legally broken, but morally. i'd love to vote for a >> trustee, and i'd love to reverse my decision in case a sufficient >> party is not happy. if in this case james does not want to have a >> public discussion he is free to resign. if the board thinks it cannot >> work with james anymore, and is able to remove him without him beeing >> ok with it, without public discussion, then i do not find it >> transparent. >> >> best, >> rupert >> >> ___ >> 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> > > ___ > 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> ___ 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] harald bischoff advertising to make images "for the wikimedia foundation" and then suing users
I would have a serious problem with someone litigating, or threatening to litigate, over an instance of technical non-compliance with the license terms; much less so if the (alleged) infringer persisted in republishing without requested attribution information after warnings. Has anyone directly contacted Mr. Bischoff and asked him what he is doing and why? Regards, Newyorkbrad On Monday, July 20, 2015, Robert Rohde wrote: > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) < bjor...@wikimedia.org >> wrote: > > >> Since when has that ever been a thing? With respect to licenses such as CC, >> we follow the same rules as anyone else. >> > > Not really. Commons actually recommends that an explicit credit line > accompany CC BY images, which is something that Wikipedia doesn't do in > articles. See below. > > >> If the description here is accurate, it sounds to me like this harald >> bischoff should be blocked and possibly have his files deleted as >> incorrectly licensed (since he apparently doesn't accept the usual >> interpretation of CC BY), unless he publicly renounces the behavior of >> suing reusers. But I'll leave that to Commons and dewiki to work out. >> > > Commons' own guidance to reusers [1][2][3] recommends including an explicit > credit line alongside CC BY images, e.g. > > "You must attribute the work to the author(s), and when re-using the work > or distributing it, you must mention the license terms or a link to > them..." > "[R]eusers must attribute the work by providing a credit line" > > And recommends credit lines of the form: "John Doe / CC-BY-SA-3.0", with > an included link to the license. > > As I understand it, Harald sent a demand letter to a reuser who failed to > mention his name and the license. In other words, he demanded compensation > from a reuser who failed to do precisely the things that Commons actually > says that CC BY image reusers are supposed to do. While I agree that > Harald's actions are not friendly, 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. His behavior is either A) a > mean-spirited attempt to extract money from unexpecting people by fighting > against the spirit of the license, or B) a vigorous defense of his rights > under the license. And I'm not really sure which. Suppose, > hypothetically, that Harald actually sued someone (as opposed to just > sending demand letters) and the courts actually agreed that the 3.0 license > requires that reusers provide a credit line (not an impossible outcome). > Would that change how we viewed his behavior? > > CC BY 4.0 explicitly says that a link to a page with attribution and > license terms is sufficient, but prior to 4.0 it isn't clear whether such a > link actually compiles with the license. There has been enough recurring > doubt over the issue that CC decided to explicitly address the linking > issue in the 4.0 version. Wikipedia behaves as if merely linking to an > attribution page is always okay, but Commons' advice to reusers seems to be > written with the perspective that it might not be. (I don't know the > history of the Commons pages, so I'm not really sure of the community's > thinking here.) > > I do think there is something of a problem that Wikipedia models a behavior > (i.e. linking) that is different from what Commons recommends (i.e. credit > lines). > > -Robert Rohde > > [1] > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia > [2] > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia/licenses > [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Credit_line > ___ > 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] Thousands of images on Wikipedia and Commons in danger, action needed
Just out of curiosity, if this legislation were to pass in Europe, and (for example) an American tourist took a photograph of a covered building in Europe and posted it when he or she arrived back in the U.S., would it be deleted on the ground that the image was non-free at the site, or kept on the ground that it was free where it was posted? Newyorkbrad On 6/22/15, Fæ wrote: > On 22 June 2015 at 13:17, James Heilman wrote: >> Yes I agree an example of what Wikipedia would look like if this >> regulation passed is an excellent idea. Could we base it on the geo >> tags? > > Geotags on their own would be haphazard apart from certain types of > Wikipedia articles, such as those for notable buildings in Europe, > designed in the mid 20th century onwards. It is possible to put some > SQL queries together like this, but the resulting lists or statistics > would only ever be a small slice of relevant articles that could be > affected. > > A simple analysis for Commons can be found at > <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:F%C3%A6#number_of_files_under_FOP.3F> > which gives a sense of size, along with relevant Freedom of Panorama > (FoP) categories. However, as noted there, keep in mind that it is > probable that *most* public domain photographs that in some way rely > on European FoP provisions are not categorized in a way that we can > current track relevance to FoP, so statistics are going to remain less > useful than educated guesstimates. > > 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] Mexican case law on Wikipedia reliability
For some links to US cases citing Wikipedia, and discussing whether and when to cite Wikipedia, see my essay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Final_exam_for_wikilawyers#Question_2 For a short article on a Chilean case, see http://www.greenbag.org/v11n2/v11n2_hendrick.pdf Regards, Newyorkbrad On 6/17/15, Paolo B. wrote: > The Philippines' Supreme Court has, on some occasions, cited Wikipedia > articles in their decisions to provide supplementary background > information. Here's one example---and one that was written as early as 2005! > > http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jan2005/155282.htm > > (the citation is on Footnote #34, near the bottom of that page) > > More examples can be found here: > https://www.google.com.ph/search?q=site%3Asc.judiciary.gov.ph+wikipedia&oq=site%3Asc.judiciary.gov.ph+wikipedia&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.16344j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8 > > There are probably more that doesn't show up on the Google search link > above. This is because the Supreme Court has published the more recent > decisions as PDF files. Since some of the decisions are scanned PDFs rather > than true PDFs, some recent Wikipedia citations might not have been indexed > (yet). > > > Regards from Manila, > Paolo > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote: > >> Szymon Grabarczuk (Tar Lócesilion) - made a study how many times Wikipedia >> was cited in Polish courts, by browsing public database of courts' >> decissions: >> >> https://depot.ceon.pl/handle/123456789/2232 >> >> He counted (till 2012) 223 such cases :-) >> >> Some uses of Wikipedia by the courts are quite controversial. I mean - it >> may happed that someone edit or even write an article in order to use it >> as >> an argument in the court. I personally would not liked to be judged based >> on Wikipedia entires :-) >> >> >> >> >> 2015-06-17 10:49 GMT+02:00 Pine W : >> >> > To the best of my knowledge, the US Supreme Court has yet to cite >> > Wikipedia, but US Federal appeals courts have done so. Also, a state >> > supreme court cited Wikipedia prominently in a decision about insurance >> > coverage: >> > >> > >> http://abbottlawfirm.com/blog/2012/08/16/utah-supreme-court-cites-wikipedia-in-published-decision/ >> > >> > Pine >> > On Jun 16, 2015 5:35 PM, "Salvador A" wrote: >> > >> > > Hi folks! >> > > >> > > This month one mexican federal court generated an interesting case law >> > > related to use of Wikipedia as source of knowledge on trials, >> > > specially >> > in >> > > law resolutions. The tribunal that solved this was the "Tribunal >> Federal >> > de >> > > Justicia Fiscal y Administrativa". This court is not the supreme court >> of >> > > Mexico but is the most important tribunal after that one in all the >> > matter >> > > related to tax and administrative law and its precedents are binding >> for >> > > all mexican administrative authorities and al the judges on >> > administrative >> > > and fiscal law. >> > > >> > > The case law is the number VII-J-SS-191 and you can read it in the >> > > next >> > > link: >> > > >> > > (only in Spanish) >> > > >> > > http://sctj.tfjfa.gob.mx/SCJI/assembly/detalleTesis?idTesis=41716 >> > > >> > > The title is at the same time a brief of the content of the precedent, >> > and >> > > it can be translated in this way: >> > > >> > > *"Wikipedia".- The information that is obtained from this website can >> > help >> > > to elucidate some controversial matter, thence the courtrooms of this >> > > tribunal may use it when ruling.* >> > > >> > > Inside the text the court makes a fair clarication: "*It must not be >> the >> > > only source of knowledge in which the resolutions are based on [...] >> the >> > > judges must care about gathering diversity of sources of information >> such >> > > as specialized books, encyclopedia, including the electronic ones, >> [...] >> > > and others*." >> > > >> > > Maybe is just a curiosity, but for me is ilustrative of the good >> > reputation >> > > that our work is getting even in some closed circles as the law >> practice. >> > > At
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Regarding knowledge
On related points concerning the accuracy level and overall usefulness of Wikipedia as compared with other resources, people may be interested in my posting here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Newyorkbrad/Newyorkbradblog#A_reference_librarian_reviews_Wikipedia and the second half of my book review here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-07-30/Book_review Regards, Newyorkbrad/IBM On 4/7/15, Anthony Cole wrote: > It's an encyclopedia, Marc. The world's encyclopedia. People should be able > to trust it. You and the rest of the WMF need to get that through your > heads or you'll wake up one morning soon and find Wikipedia on page 2 of > Google and you out of a job. This is the most important issue facing > Wikipedia. Denial isn't helping. > > Anthony Cole <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole> > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:04 AM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: > >> On 15-04-07 12:51 PM, Anthony Cole wrote: >> > Wikipedia >> > should not be trusted for anything - least of all health matters . >> >> That's a perfectly true, but perfectly vacuous assertion. Wikipedia >> should be trusted exactly as much as any other single source may be >> trusted, for exactly the same reason. Striving to find the most >> reliable sources is fraught with pitfalls whether you attempt do to it >> yourself or rely on the collective efforts of Wikipedia editors to do so. >> >> Wikipedia is a giant collection of summaries and overview of topics, and >> it never pretendend to be anything else. If you *end* your reasearch >> there for anything of importance, then you commit as sin no graver (nor >> lighter) than picking any other random book on the topic and ending your >> research there. >> >> -- 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> ___ 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] Announcing: The Wikipedia Prize!
I agree with the others who have opined that this should not happen. Newyorkbrad On 3/29/15, Brian wrote: > I'm sure many of you recall the Netflix Prize > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix_Prize>. This is that, for Wikipedia! > > Although the initial goal of the Netflix Prize was to design a > collaborative filtering algorithm, it became notorious when the data was > used to de-anonymize Netflix users. Researchers proved that given just a > user's movie ratings on one site, you can plug those ratings into another > site, such as the IMDB. You can then take that information, and with some > Google searches and optionally a bit of cash (for websites that sell user > information, including, in some cases, their SSN) figure out who they are. > You could even drive up to their house and take a selfie with them, or > follow them to work and meet their boss and tell them about their views on > the topics they were editing. > > Here, we'll cut straight to the privacy chase. Using just the full history > dump of the English Wikipedia, excluding edits from any logged-in users, > identify five people. You must confirm their identities with them, and > privately prove to me that you've done this. I will then nominate you as > the winner and send you one million Satoshis (the smallest unit of Bitcoin, > times 1 million), in addition to updating this thread. > > I suspect this challenge will be very easy for anyone who is determined. > Indeed, even if MediaWiki no longer displayed IP addresses, there would > still be enough information to identify people. Completely getting rid of > the edit history would largely solve the problem. In the mean time, this > Prize will serve as a reminder that when Wikipedia says "Your IP address > will be publicly visible if you make any edits." what they mean is, "People > will probably be able to figure out where you live and embarrass you." > > An extra million Satoshis for each NSA employee that you identify. A full > bitcoin if you take a selfie with them. > > Let the games begin! > > Brian Mingus > ___ > 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] Cryonics
Here's a compromise between those who want to discuss cryonics and those who think it's weirdly off-topic: We'll freeze this thread. Newyorkbrad/IBM On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Wil Sinclair wrote: > Hmmm. James and Liam just put a smile on my face, and honestly, if > we're going to have off-topic discussions here, I prefer these over > intra-community flame wars any day. > > James, it may not be appreciated- or appropriate, actually- on > wikimedia-l, but I would love it if you put an op-ed making your case > for "gender-inclusive cryonics solutions" on my user talk page for the > Wasted Times. > > ,Wil > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Lodewijk > wrote: > > This does it to me. Dear list moderators, could you please pretty please > > consider putting James on moderation indefinitely? This behaviour has > gone > > on long enough, and clearly resulted in a net negative contribution to > the > > movement. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Lodewijk > > > > 2014-10-15 13:03 GMT+02:00 Liam Wyatt : > > > >> Ok, everyone can go home now. The competition for most abstract > suggestion > >> on Wikimedia-L is now closed. As much as I would love for us to discuss > >> our own personal preferences in 'supercooling vitrification freezer' > >> manufacturers... > >> Perhaps if the WMF purchased their own cryogenics system for the > >> aforementioned company and instead it in the office cleaning cupboard, > >> staff coud keep the after-work drinks chilled in there too? > >> In the mean time, as a personal challenge, see if you can include the > >> phrase "gender-inclusive cryonics solution" in a casual conversation > >> without anyone noticing. > >> > >> On Wednesday, 15 October 2014, James Salsman > wrote: > >> > >> > It has come to my attention that certain companies in the Foundation's > >> > employment peer group have been offering ova cryonics as a family > >> planning > >> > benefit: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/10/14/apple-and-facebooks-newest-perk-freezing-your-eggs/ > >> > > >> > I recommend that the Foundation explore gender-inclusive cryonics > >> > solutions. I understand that supercooling vitrification freezers such > as > >> > those manufactured by ABI, Ltd. of Chiba, Japan called CASfresh or > Cells > >> > Alive System may be of some interest. > >> > > >> > Best regards, > >> > James Salsman > >> > ___ > >> > 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> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> wittylama.com > >> Peace, love & metadata > >> ___ > >> 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> > ___ 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] SatuSuro, stop stalking the home of my parents
Actually, those would not be appropriate ways of handling the (alleged) situation either. Newyorkbrad On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Dennis Pierri wrote: > You can go to SatuSuro's talk page and say this personally to him or > vandalize it or whatever your heart desires, but please keep personal > things personal, this is about wikimedia projects, not about your personal > life. > > On 02/08/2014, at 21:56, Russavia wrote: > > > In mid-July I was advised by an editor that on 5 July 2014 they had > > received via the Wikimedia mailing system an email from SatuSuro.[1] The > > editor in question, who stated that they ordinarily would not share > private > > communications but felt compelled to on this occasion, forwarded me the > > email, along with all headers. In this email SatuSuro made the > > following statement: > > > > "I am not 100% sure where you contextualise your comments from, but he > is a > > local, and I know his parents house quite well" > > > > Upon reading it, I was absolutely gobsmacked. Firstly, the comment was > > wildly out of place in the context of the email, and secondly, this is > how > > the email ended. > > > > One will note that he states that he doesn't say that he knows me nor > knows > > my family, but that he knows my parents' house quite well. This obviously > > made me quite squeamish, because it's not my home that he states he knows > > well, but the home of my parents. > > > > I have never met SatuSuro (T.H.) in real life, and have had no reason nor > > great desire to meet him. So he is not known to me on a personal level in > > any way, shape or form. > > > > With this in mind, I sent an email to my folks asking them if they knew > > T.H. or if they recognised him from his photo.[2] I told them that the > guy > > had stated "I know his parents house quite well". > > > > They were concerned. My old lady, especially so, who looked at his > comment > > the same way I did. I won't divulge what sort of search terms I found in > > her Google search history, even after I showed them the email which was > > sent by T.H.. Both my old man and old lady confirmed that they do not > know > > T.H. by name nor by photo, and have no idea how he could know their house > > well. > > > > I informed them that if they should see him near their home that they > > should contact the police. My folks, who are enjoying their retirement > and > > have their four young grandkids at their house every other day, also took > > the grandkids aside and showed them T.H.'s photo and said that if they > see > > this man that they should tell them or their parents straight away - a > much > > needed lesson in "stranger danger" I guess. > > > > It doesn't stop there, but I was informed the other day at a family get > > together, that they had shelled out a fair amount of money for multiple > > infrared cameras which are situated around their residence (in the open > and > > hidden), recording equipment, added security monitoring and installation. > > > > This is so not cool. Absolutely not cool. One may expect to deal with > > creepy stalker cunts as a result of participating in sites such as 4chan > (I > > dunno, never participated, but it has that rep perhaps), but one should > > absolutely not expect to have to deal with such things from their > > participation in Wikimedia projects. And especially not from someone who > is > > a member of a WM Chapter (WMAU) and the recipient of a scholarship from > the > > WMF to travel to Wikimania next week.[3] > > > > There is no reason at all that would have required T.H. to attempt to > stalk > > me in real life, and there is absolutely zero reason or excuse for him to > > be stalking, not my home, but the home of my parents, which has resulted > in > > them upgrading security, as great cost, to their castle. > > > > A message to SatuSuro -- stop stalking the home of my parents you creepy > > fuck. > > > > Russavia > > > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SatuSuro > > [2] > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SatuSuro_at_Wikimania_2013.jpg > > [3] > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:TPS/Wikimania_scholars#2014_WMF_Scholarship_Recipients > > (#83) > > ___ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: htt
Re: [Wikimedia-l] SatuSuro, stop stalking the home of my parents
This e-mail strikes me as a major overreaction based on the information presented, especially since there is no indication that Russavia ever contacted the person he is accusing and asked him what was meant by the comment. In any event, the posting is wildly inappropriate for a public mailing list. Newyorkbrad On 8/2/14, Russavia wrote: > In mid-July I was advised by an editor that on 5 July 2014 they had > received via the Wikimedia mailing system an email from SatuSuro.[1] The > editor in question, who stated that they ordinarily would not share private > communications but felt compelled to on this occasion, forwarded me the > email, along with all headers. In this email SatuSuro made the > following statement: > > "I am not 100% sure where you contextualise your comments from, but he is a > local, and I know his parents house quite well" > > Upon reading it, I was absolutely gobsmacked. Firstly, the comment was > wildly out of place in the context of the email, and secondly, this is how > the email ended. > > One will note that he states that he doesn't say that he knows me nor knows > my family, but that he knows my parents' house quite well. This obviously > made me quite squeamish, because it's not my home that he states he knows > well, but the home of my parents. > > I have never met SatuSuro (T.H.) in real life, and have had no reason nor > great desire to meet him. So he is not known to me on a personal level in > any way, shape or form. > > With this in mind, I sent an email to my folks asking them if they knew > T.H. or if they recognised him from his photo.[2] I told them that the guy > had stated "I know his parents house quite well". > > They were concerned. My old lady, especially so, who looked at his comment > the same way I did. I won't divulge what sort of search terms I found in > her Google search history, even after I showed them the email which was > sent by T.H.. Both my old man and old lady confirmed that they do not know > T.H. by name nor by photo, and have no idea how he could know their house > well. > > I informed them that if they should see him near their home that they > should contact the police. My folks, who are enjoying their retirement and > have their four young grandkids at their house every other day, also took > the grandkids aside and showed them T.H.'s photo and said that if they see > this man that they should tell them or their parents straight away - a much > needed lesson in "stranger danger" I guess. > > It doesn't stop there, but I was informed the other day at a family get > together, that they had shelled out a fair amount of money for multiple > infrared cameras which are situated around their residence (in the open and > hidden), recording equipment, added security monitoring and installation. > > This is so not cool. Absolutely not cool. One may expect to deal with > creepy stalker cunts as a result of participating in sites such as 4chan (I > dunno, never participated, but it has that rep perhaps), but one should > absolutely not expect to have to deal with such things from their > participation in Wikimedia projects. And especially not from someone who is > a member of a WM Chapter (WMAU) and the recipient of a scholarship from the > WMF to travel to Wikimania next week.[3] > > There is no reason at all that would have required T.H. to attempt to stalk > me in real life, and there is absolutely zero reason or excuse for him to > be stalking, not my home, but the home of my parents, which has resulted in > them upgrading security, as great cost, to their castle. > > A message to SatuSuro -- stop stalking the home of my parents you creepy > fuck. > > Russavia > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SatuSuro > [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SatuSuro_at_Wikimania_2013.jpg > [3] > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:TPS/Wikimania_scholars#2014_WMF_Scholarship_Recipients > (#83) > ___ > 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] $20 donation to WMF for vandalism edit from US House of Representatives
The activity you describe is obviously unacceptable. However, the amount of time and effort that out associated with tracking down and returning a particular $20 contribution would not be worth it. Newyorkbrad On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Russavia wrote: > On 23 July John Resig tweeted a challenge,[1] > > "I will donate $20 to a charity if someone can land an edit to > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilians or > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory) … in > @congressedits" > > Sure enough, someone took up Resig's challenge with this edit.[2] > Keeping with his challenge, Resig announced that $20 had been donated > to the WMF for the edit.[3] > > The IP used for the edit, sure enough, resolves to the US House of > Representative.[4] > > To make matters a little worse, the US House of Representatives IP has > taken to vandalising the Russian Wikipedia article for the Russian > national anthem,[5] replacing sheet music for the anthem with the > sheet music for Putin -- khuilo (Putin is a dickhead).[6] > > Question to the masses, should the WMF refund the $20 donation made to it? > > Russavia > > [1] http://www.webcitation.org/6RTt5jM9U > [2] https://twitter.com/congressedits/status/492027099499462657 > [3] http://www.webcitation.org/6RTtO0JMP > [4] http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/143.231.249.138 > [5] > https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%93%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BD_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B8&diff=64532570&oldid=63573625 > [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putin_khuilo! > > ___ > 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] Offwiki
Given that the purpose of the new site is discussion toward the improvement of Wikipedia/Wikimedia, I don't see a problem in principle with a post mentioning the existence of the new site. Repeated promotional e-mails would be out of line, but I trust that will not be an issue. Newyorkbrad On 7/9/14, Fæ wrote: > What do users of this list feel about it being used to discuss issues, > or attract more members, to non-Wikimedia websites? > > Checking the definition at > <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l> it's > ambiguous as really almost anything that mentions Wikimedia could be > in scope. I'm slightly concerned that if the 'offwiki' website is free > to use this list membership to attract greater participation by > Wikimedians, then to be fair and equitable, the same courtesy should > be allowed to any other website or forum which may be expected to have > a number of Wikimedians as participants. Obvious examples are > wikia.org, wikipediocracy.com and facebook.com. > > Fae > > On 10/07/2014, Newyorkbrad wrote: >> Wil, thank you for the announcement of your site. Although things >> there were in a bit of a chaotic state the last time I looked at it >> and there are clearly some bugs to be worked out, we will see whether >> it can ultimately emerge as a fruitful discussion forum. >> >> With regard to potential impersonation user registrations, including >> users registering in the names of "prominent Wikipedians," or for that >> matter of prominent Wikipedia critics, it is essential that you take >> steps to verify the identity of registrants using such usernames. >> Existing criticism sites such as Wikipediocracy and previously >> Wikipedia Review have consistently checked such registrations before >> allowing postings, and it is good practice that they do so, to avoid >> potential negative impacts not only on the persons potentially >> impersonated but on the reputations of their sites as well. (There are >> other issues as to which those sites do not epitomize good practice in >> my view, but this one they get right.) Similarly, I assume that such >> checks are performed on Wikimedia mailing lists such as this one. >> There is every reason that offwiki can do so as well and I hope you >> intend to. >> >> Regards, >> Newyorkbrad >> >> On 7/9/14, Wil Sinclair wrote: >>> Hi all, I've started a new wiki called Offwiki: http://offwiki.org. >>> Our community discusses potential changes to Wikipedia and its >>> Wikimedia sister projects that aren't easily discussed in forums like >>> this mailing list. We also try new ideas that we hope will be adopted >>> on-wiki- both social and technical in nature. >>> >>> But that's not the primary reason I'm writing all of you. I've noticed >>> that many prominent Wikipedians have created accounts to avoid >>> impostors claiming their very public usernames for themselves. My >>> apologies, but Wikimedia doesn't run an OpenID server, and there's >>> really no other way for me to confirm identities before a user has >>> created a username. The problem is technical, and AFAIK there is >>> nothing I can do about it. >>> >>> So, if you're concerned about your username being phished out, then >>> consider creating an account at http://offwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page. >>> Maybe you'll even stick around for a few minutes to see what we've >>> been up to. :) >>> >>> Thanks. >>> ,Wil >>> >>> ___ >>> 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> > > > -- > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae > Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote. > > ___ > 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] Offwiki
Wil, thank you for the announcement of your site. Although things there were in a bit of a chaotic state the last time I looked at it and there are clearly some bugs to be worked out, we will see whether it can ultimately emerge as a fruitful discussion forum. With regard to potential impersonation user registrations, including users registering in the names of "prominent Wikipedians," or for that matter of prominent Wikipedia critics, it is essential that you take steps to verify the identity of registrants using such usernames. Existing criticism sites such as Wikipediocracy and previously Wikipedia Review have consistently checked such registrations before allowing postings, and it is good practice that they do so, to avoid potential negative impacts not only on the persons potentially impersonated but on the reputations of their sites as well. (There are other issues as to which those sites do not epitomize good practice in my view, but this one they get right.) Similarly, I assume that such checks are performed on Wikimedia mailing lists such as this one. There is every reason that offwiki can do so as well and I hope you intend to. Regards, Newyorkbrad On 7/9/14, Wil Sinclair wrote: > Hi all, I've started a new wiki called Offwiki: http://offwiki.org. > Our community discusses potential changes to Wikipedia and its > Wikimedia sister projects that aren't easily discussed in forums like > this mailing list. We also try new ideas that we hope will be adopted > on-wiki- both social and technical in nature. > > But that's not the primary reason I'm writing all of you. I've noticed > that many prominent Wikipedians have created accounts to avoid > impostors claiming their very public usernames for themselves. My > apologies, but Wikimedia doesn't run an OpenID server, and there's > really no other way for me to confirm identities before a user has > created a username. The problem is technical, and AFAIK there is > nothing I can do about it. > > So, if you're concerned about your username being phished out, then > consider creating an account at http://offwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page. > Maybe you'll even stick around for a few minutes to see what we've > been up to. :) > > Thanks. > ,Wil > > ___ > 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] Court decision in Jones v. Dirty World Recording Entertainment LLC
It's certainly a very troubling outcome given the facts of the case, which I was reporting rather than endorsing. The appeals court relied partly on the breadth of the statute enacted by Congress, and partly on the difficulty of drawing lines reflecting which types of conduct by a site-owner would or would not be protected if the statute were construed more narrowly. The court's decision, and particularly the key portions of it quoted on the Volokh blog, are reasonably accessible to non-lawyers, so everyone interested can certainly review them rather than rely on my summary. Incidentally, another appeals court decision issued today may also be of interest. Here is Judge Posner writing for the Seventh Circuit on the copyright status of Sherlock Holmes pastiches: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2014/D06-16/C:14-1128:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1363624:S:0 Newyorkbrad On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:17 PM, edward wrote: > On 16/06/2014 21:07, Newyorkbrad wrote: > >> In its decision, the Sixth Circuit takes a broad view of Section 230 and >> holds that Section 230 protection is not lost even where the website >> operator solicited contributors to post unsourced and uncorroborated >> "dirt" >> about anyone they pleased, and even where the website operator selected >> which contributions would be published. >> > Isn't that rather a bad thing? What was the rationale behind its view? > > ___ > 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] Court decision in Jones v. Dirty World Recording Entertainment LLC
(Cross-posted from my En-wiki talkpage)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Sixth_Circuit>
has issued its decision today in *Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment
Recordings LLC*. This is a well-known dispute involving application of Section
230 of the Communications Decency Act
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act>
in the context of a website ("www.TheDirty.com") whose goals and contents
are deplorable. The court's decision can be found here
<http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0125p-06.pdf>. A blog post
(Eugene Volokh) summarizing the decision can be found here
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/16/thedirty-com-not-liable-for-defamatory-posts-on-the-site>
.
In its decision, the Sixth Circuit takes a broad view of Section 230 and
holds that Section 230 protection is not lost even where the website
operator solicited contributors to post unsourced and uncorroborated "dirt"
about anyone they pleased, and even where the website operator selected
which contributions would be published.
The protection of Section 230 enables websites such as Wikipedia to operate
without fear that the Foundation will be subject to suit anytime someone,
such as a BLP subject, disagrees with the content of an article. It is a
truism that Freedom of Speech under the First Amendment and statues like
Section 230 protects speech we do not care for as well as speech whose
value we appreciate.
That being said, the decision is a reminder that those of us who care about
how Wikipedia treats the subject of BLP articles must remain vigilant in
keeping such articles free of defamatory, unsourced negative, unduly
weighted, and privacy-invading content, as well as in using good judgment
regarding which living persons should be the subject of articles at all. At
least in the United States, for better or worse, the law will do little to
protect the people we write about in our encyclopedia. Treating them fairly
and responsible is therefore, all the more clearly, our collective,
non-delegable editorial responsibility.
Newyorkbrad
___
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] Why Wil's actions in multiple forums are a matter of significant concern
Nothing useful is likely to come of this thread. Newyorkbrad On 6/15/14, edward wrote: > On 15/06/2014 22:32, Pete Forsyth wrote: > >>A couple days ago, a regular, anonymous WO participant -- who has > benefited from many friendly exchanges with Wil -- had the following to > say about a longtime Wikipedian (who's not active on Wikipediocracy, to > my knowledge) using their full given name: "[name elided], you're a > cunt...You are the worst kind of coward" and then insults this person's > physical appearance. Some forum participants objected to this > comment,[8] and suggested it might be removed, but to date it hasn't > been. Wil responded with light, good-natured scolding.[9] > << > > Oh come on, this 'longtime Wikipedian' (Kevin Gorman) was the one who > told Sinclair to 'back the fuck off'. I can understand Sinclair's > reaction, in those circumstances. > > > ___ > 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] Wikiconference USA in the media
("man statements" --> "many statements")
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
> Russavia, your post confirms my rule of thumb that any post containing the
> word "butthurt" is unworthy of serious attention.
>
> I was not present at the conference while the newspaper reporter was (or
> at least not in the same place), so I have no personal knowledge about
> man statements in her article. I do, at a minimum, share some of the
> broader criticisms of its emphasis and its tone.
>
> When I pointed out that I was concerned by your suggestion that someone
> might create a "revenge BLP," people responded that you were obviously
> joking. It now appears that you were quite serious, and in fact that you
> actually raised the prospect with the reporter (albeit trying to play down
> the potential impact). I will add that I don't see for what purpose you
> were interacting with the reporter at all, at least on the specific subject
> of the New York Wikiconference, which you were thousands of miles from.
> Given your prior "outreach" activities, ranging from Pricasso to the
> Encyclopedia Britannica, I find your motivations to be suspect.
>
> As for the broader topic of revenge editing, it is certainly a serious
> issue, as we were all reminded by last year's Qworty fiasco. That is
> precisely why I asked you not to say something that could be read as
> promoting it. It is less clear whether the specific example you cite is an
> example of within-wiki revenge editing, or the broader issue of people who
> bring privacy-seeking lawsuits losing their privacy as a result (compare
> "Streisand effect"; see also
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP_examples_for_discussion#Example_3:_The_Target_Becomes_the_Plaintiff
> (adapted from a real case); and see also
> http://openjurist.org/8/f3d/1222/haynes-v-alfred-a-knopf-incorporated
> (7th Cir. 1995, Posner, J.), discussed in my BLP talk linked on my En
> userpage).
>
> Newyorkbrad
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Russavia
> wrote:
>
>> Ira,
>>
>> Don't lecture me about what is and isn't acceptable.
>>
>> Sure, you're a member of WMNYC and you are, of course, really butthurt
>> over the fact that basically the only report on the conference in the
>> media has painted a picture you would have preferred not to be
>> painted, but don't take that out on me -- this is one painting I hold
>> no responsibility for.
>>
>> If you want reports that paint a glowing picture of the Cult of
>> Wikipediology, hire a publicist, don't let the media in, and certainly
>> don't let the media talk to people who, by all accounts, shouldn't be
>> doing so due to incompetence -- not everyone is capable of dealing
>> with media.
>>
>> What is interesting is that immediately after you posted this, you
>> raced over to en.wp and posted what you did. But you should have
>> stopped and thought about how ridiculous this could make you look, and
>> it will make you look in the future.
>>
>> Firstly, Risker stated that the reporter set up Rutherford, Rutherford
>> said that the reporter lied, Isarra said that the reporter basically
>> created a tense situationhell Siko even stated on Gendergap that
>> New York Magazine still sucks.
>>
>> Ira, you push the line that BLP applies on all WMF projects; you do
>> realise that this list is hosted on WMF servers, and therefore both
>> Risker and Rutherford have engaged in gross BLP violating accusations.
>> But you stayed silent on thathow quaint...how Scientologist
>> Wikipediologist-like.
>>
>> It's disturbing that Rutherford stated that there were discussions
>> about how to deal with her report, because all of the comments
>> Wikipediologists so far on this list leads me to think that they would
>> likely deal with it the same way Wikipediologists deal with others who
>> dare to stray from or mock the Wikipediology doctrine -- that being
>> attack, attack, attack! And this is something you excel at Ira.
>>
>> For the record Ira, I have been in touch with the reporter a few
>> times, and she has told me, that like the Avicii interview, she
>> recorded the entire conversation and she stands by her report. So will
>> New York Magazine when they review her recorded conversation, if
>> Wikipediologists wanted to make her report an issue. What you may not
>> have seen about the Avicii report is that the reporter was vindicated
>> in the end, simply because the conversation was recorded. I also told
>> her that she would p
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media
Russavia, your post confirms my rule of thumb that any post containing the word "butthurt" is unworthy of serious attention. I was not present at the conference while the newspaper reporter was (or at least not in the same place), so I have no personal knowledge about man statements in her article. I do, at a minimum, share some of the broader criticisms of its emphasis and its tone. When I pointed out that I was concerned by your suggestion that someone might create a "revenge BLP," people responded that you were obviously joking. It now appears that you were quite serious, and in fact that you actually raised the prospect with the reporter (albeit trying to play down the potential impact). I will add that I don't see for what purpose you were interacting with the reporter at all, at least on the specific subject of the New York Wikiconference, which you were thousands of miles from. Given your prior "outreach" activities, ranging from Pricasso to the Encyclopedia Britannica, I find your motivations to be suspect. As for the broader topic of revenge editing, it is certainly a serious issue, as we were all reminded by last year's Qworty fiasco. That is precisely why I asked you not to say something that could be read as promoting it. It is less clear whether the specific example you cite is an example of within-wiki revenge editing, or the broader issue of people who bring privacy-seeking lawsuits losing their privacy as a result (compare "Streisand effect"; see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP_examples_for_discussion#Example_3:_The_Target_Becomes_the_Plaintiff (adapted from a real case); and see also http://openjurist.org/8/f3d/1222/haynes-v-alfred-a-knopf-incorporated (7th Cir. 1995, Posner, J.), discussed in my BLP talk linked on my En userpage). Newyorkbrad On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Russavia wrote: > Ira, > > Don't lecture me about what is and isn't acceptable. > > Sure, you're a member of WMNYC and you are, of course, really butthurt > over the fact that basically the only report on the conference in the > media has painted a picture you would have preferred not to be > painted, but don't take that out on me -- this is one painting I hold > no responsibility for. > > If you want reports that paint a glowing picture of the Cult of > Wikipediology, hire a publicist, don't let the media in, and certainly > don't let the media talk to people who, by all accounts, shouldn't be > doing so due to incompetence -- not everyone is capable of dealing > with media. > > What is interesting is that immediately after you posted this, you > raced over to en.wp and posted what you did. But you should have > stopped and thought about how ridiculous this could make you look, and > it will make you look in the future. > > Firstly, Risker stated that the reporter set up Rutherford, Rutherford > said that the reporter lied, Isarra said that the reporter basically > created a tense situationhell Siko even stated on Gendergap that > New York Magazine still sucks. > > Ira, you push the line that BLP applies on all WMF projects; you do > realise that this list is hosted on WMF servers, and therefore both > Risker and Rutherford have engaged in gross BLP violating accusations. > But you stayed silent on thathow quaint...how Scientologist > Wikipediologist-like. > > It's disturbing that Rutherford stated that there were discussions > about how to deal with her report, because all of the comments > Wikipediologists so far on this list leads me to think that they would > likely deal with it the same way Wikipediologists deal with others who > dare to stray from or mock the Wikipediology doctrine -- that being > attack, attack, attack! And this is something you excel at Ira. > > For the record Ira, I have been in touch with the reporter a few > times, and she has told me, that like the Avicii interview, she > recorded the entire conversation and she stands by her report. So will > New York Magazine when they review her recorded conversation, if > Wikipediologists wanted to make her report an issue. What you may not > have seen about the Avicii report is that the reporter was vindicated > in the end, simply because the conversation was recorded. I also told > her that she would probably be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, > and that she has no need to be worried if one were created -- people > generally do edit in an NPOV way. She has faith in that system. > > Now on your other comments, and it's one which Pete Forsyth touched on > --- Wikipediologists do have a history of creating articles when they > have been slighted. > > Take Theodore Katsanevas,[1] for example. Prior to the news of him > suing a Greek Wikipe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media
Russavia, despite the smilie, your last comment suggests that someone would create a biography of a living person in retaliation for the fact that she wrote unflatteringly and made errors in a piece about the Wikiconference. BLPs must never be created or edited as a form of retaliation against the article subject or misused in connection with an off-wiki dispute, nor may any suggestion of doing so be made at any time.. It is also undesirable to provide ammunition for the (sometimes, unfortunately, accurate) perception that being the subject of a Wikipedia article is something that people should fear, nor that we would, even jokingly, threaten to do create a BLP as a form of what came last year to be called "revenge editing." Please don't make this sort of comment again. Thanks, Newyorkbrad/IBM On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Russavia wrote: > > There is the option of contacting her directly, or the chief editor of > the magazine, for further comment/clarification. Or the Wikipedia way > -- create a totally neutral on-project biography. ;) > > Cheers, > > Russavia > ___ 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] Child Protection and Harassment Policy
Wil: Please take this particular aspect of the discussion offline without further postings about it. There are entirely legitimate reasons for my request and for the expressions of concern from others that have come through in the past couple of hours. This request is not an attempt to stifle any form of Wikipedia/Wikimedia criticism nor your becoming more familiar with the projects and their communities. Newyorkbrad/IBM On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Wil Sinclair wrote: > What??? > > What talk page are you talking about? How in the world am I making an > unsafe environment? > > Those are some *very* serious charges. I'm really just stunned. > > *No wonder people are afraid to post here!* > > ,Wil > > > > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Risker wrote: > > On 28 May 2014 21:37, Molly White > wrote: > > > >> > Harassment: Has harassment been addressed in a comprehensive way on > >> > all sites, including all of the WP site? As an example, Wikipedia has > >> > had a problem with low and declining female participation for years, > >> > and the WMF has often stated that it would like to address it. Are > >> > women actively encouraged to participate on Wikipedia by the WMF or > >> > other organizations? If we're not doing everything to protect women > >> > and all other Wikipedians, is it morally or ethically correct to > >> > perform outreach to potentially vulnerable groups? I'd especially like > >> > to hear about this from a female perspective. > >> > >> A great start would be to hold this conversation in a safe space where > >> people can discuss without fear of reprisal. I do not mean to say that > >> wikimedia-l, nor any other public Wikimedia mailing list or page, is an > >> inherently unsafe place to hold this discussion—that's not the case at > all. > >> But trying to hold this discussion after all the drama that you have > been > >> passing through this list in the past few days makes this a scary place > for > >> myself and others to post. > >> > >> You have ensured that this list has Wikipediocracy's rapt attention. > >> Although I don't doubt the folks over there pay some attention to the > >> regular goings-on of this list, the threads that you have been > motivating > >> and interacting with mean that every comment to this list is being > >> scrutinized, and anyone they dislike is being torn apart. You have also > >> shown that you have been interacting with and, at least to some degree, > >> sympathizing with at least one person who, I feel, is dangerous. > >> > >> You have created a space where comments are being picked apart by a > group > >> of > >> people eager to find or fabricate any flaw. My revision-deletion of an > >> extremely violent and threatening edit was construed not as a standard > >> admin > >> action but as some sort of "clean-up" after someone whom they feel I am > >> desperate to protect or cover up. You have drawn the attention of a > >> dangerous user, who had not had contact with me for quite some time > until > >> now. You have the attention of at least one, likely more, of the people > who > >> created the racist, sexist, and threatening attack/doxxing pages > mentioning > >> me at EncyclopediaDramatica. > >> > >> So you'll have to excuse me when I'm somewhat unwilling to give my more > >> in-depth "female perspective" here and now. > >> > >> Yours, > >> Molly (GorillaWarfare) > >> > >> > > > > I'm going to second what Molly says here, Wil. I'm a woman who has held > > positions that have attracted abuse and harassment (directed both at me > > and my family) throughout the movement for years, and the first time I > have > > ever felt unsafe on this mailing list was today. > > > > You knew that the subject you were raising here had already caused a > > Wikimedia staffer to take the (very unusual) step of advising his ED that > > s/he felt unsafe because of your actions, not to mention the post that > was > > left on a talk page. Let me tell you, Wil, 85-90% of women would never > > edit Wikipedia again if that post had been left on their talk page. And > > yet, you could not leave it alone. It was all about you, and how you > were > > done wrong by, and how you didn't like how someone who has a long history > > of making violently and sexually graphic abusive posts on English >
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
I've participated from time to time in Wikipediocracy and its predecessor Wikipedia Review, and I've kept an eye on discussions there even when I haven't been participating. At times I've gained useful insights and information from things posted on those sites. In particular, they have been a set of strong voices advocating over the years for greater attention to the well-being of BLP subjects. To be clear, there are valid reasons for people to be upset by some things that take place on those sites. A few contributors there have a tendency to take things badly out of context (not least about myself), to exaggerate problems that do exist, and to take even valid points to their illogical extremes. The sites often do not abide by the Wikimedia norm that allows editors to remain anonymous or pseudonymous, which disturbs those of us who think there are valid and important reasons for this norm and sanctions for breaching it. The tone of discourse can be grating and nasty and at times seems to be deteriorating, which is not to suggest that it was ever the Algonquin Round Table to begin with (nor, to be fair, is WP:ANI.) There is a troublesome tendency to focus unduly on a few individuals' personalities and private lives (the subforum devoted to mocking Jimmy Wales is particularly unimpressive and ought to be discontinued). The wholesale publication of hacked or leaked correspondence from an internal mailing list on WR a couple of years ago was certainly a low point. As a general statement, the threads focused on article quality and on policy issues are more substantive and more useful than those focused on particular individuals. I can't say whether it's a good idea or not for Wil to participate on Wikipediocracy, but I don't agree with those who've opined it reflects badly on him to do so, and I certainly don't agree with those who suggest it reflects badly on Lila. I do suggest to Wil that a critic site should not become one's *main* source of input on Wikipedia or Wikimedia, and that assertions there need to be cross-checked rather than simply accepted. But I suspect that Wil understands that already. Newyorkbrad On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Wil Sinclair wrote: > > So perhaps you can understand why you emerging from WO with questions > > about "child protection" rang all sort of alarm bells. You didn't look > > like you were genuinely curious but as though you were simply aping one > > of their calls for war. Coming from most anyone else, it'd have been > > dismissed as simple trolling - but you are *not* anyone else. > > I'm also a father with a long history of stepping up to bat on issues > that affect my own children. > > Moreover, speculating on each other's motives doesn't seem to bring > insight to these important issues. Instead, we all start talking about > what may or may not be going on in each other's heads. > > Maybe we can improve the signal-to-noise ratio here by focusing more > on what's being said rather than who is saying it. > > Thanks. > ,Wil > > ___ > 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] Wikipedia and Universities
Is there one place, perhaps on Meta, where a Wikipedian/Wikimedian could find a summary/briefing on the various different programs that exist? Newyorkbrad On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Leigh Thelmadatter wrote: > I think this speaks to how little is known and how poorly education > projects have been promoted, especially outside the US and Canada. There is > even the assumption on the part of many that this is the purview of > chapters. > > The Education Program has just convened an Education Cooperative with > representatives from education projects in various parts of the world. > Article in the Education newsletter (yes there is one) is here > http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/Newsletter/March_2014/Education_Cooperative_Kickoff_Meeting_in_Prague > > > > > > Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 11:23:10 +0100 > > From: fae...@gmail.com > > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia and Universities > > > > If Universities or GLAMs want to talk about our best practices for > > running open knowledge projects that include Wikimedia projects, they > > ought to be asking some of the many people who have successfully > > delivered these projects. > > > > Tip: ** Always recommend they visit https://outreach.wikimedia.org ** > > plenty of contacts and useful case studies are maintained there, both > > for GLAMs and education. > > > > 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> > ___ 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 Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use
When we were discussing an update to the COI/paid editing page on English Wikipedia a few months ago, I posted a set of hypothetical (but not all that hypothetical) situations to help guide the discussion. I've copied and updated that question set and posted it to the talkpage of the meta discussion, in the hopes that it might be useful there too in ensuring that any proposal addresses real situations that arise in a sensible way. Link: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment#Hypothetical_.28but_not_all_that_hypothetical.29_examples_for_discussion Regards, Newyorkbrad On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks wrote: > I've thought a lot about the issues around conflict of interest, paid > editing, and paid advocacy (by the way, those are all overlapping but > different concepts). My writing (and > disclosure)<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic/FAQ> was > brought up on this list last time the issue came up as a model of good > behavior. I always advocate transparency and disclosure of affiliation when > edits are done as part of work duties, and only making edits that serve > Wikimedia's own mission, not just self-interest. > > Having said that, this proposal seems awful. It appears to outlaw mistakes. > All failures to disclose affiliation are "deceptive" according to the > language, regardless of whether it is done in good faith or bad. I would > never have interpreted the current TOU's language to mean that omission is > the same thing as misrepresentation in all cases. That includes edits from > newbies, or those editing under the assumption presumption that Wikimedia > grants users unconditional privacy. I think about every GLAM professional > or academic ever who makes their first tentative edit, and maybe just adds > a link or uploads a historical image. Or maybe they made a valid, but > self-interested comment on a talk page (like "Actually, the library has 4 > branches, not 3"). Now, they don't just face the problem of getting > reverted/warned if they've done something wrong; they have violated the > site's terms of use as well. And will be subject to "applicable law"(!) As > if there aren't enough potential stumbling blocks for contributors with > subject matter expertise or from underserved communities. I see this being > invoked more often in toxic ways than constructive ones, since more nuanced > community policies are already in place on major projects. > > You said on the talk page in response to someone's concern about those > types of desirable contributions that "In fact, Wikipedians in Residence > usually explain their affiliation on their user page (consistent with this > provision), and exemplify some of the best practices for transparency and > disclosure." I'm you view us so favorably, but I think it's important to > point out that good Wikipedians are not born that way. And they probably > didn't learn their good practices from the terms of use. > > And I'm not sure how to make it better. What value does this even serve the > movement? I can't understand from the background information why there is > the need to resolve the problem of conflict of interest through a > Wikimedia-wide terms of use change, especially such a rigid one, when local > policies are already in place. (Or, if they are not in place, perhaps it > has more to do with the fact that not all Wikimedia projects even face the > same problems of neutrality as Wikipedia.) I don't question that conflicts > of interest are a valid concern, and I am sure this proposal was probably > written with more clear-cut cases of profit motives in mind, but it seems > more like an overreach than any kind of solution. > > Dominic > > (Note, I wasn't paid to make this mailing list post.) > > > On 19 February 2014 17:06, Stephen LaPorte wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > We are asking for community input on a proposed amendment to the > Wikimedia > > Terms of Use regarding undisclosed paid editing. The amendment is > currently > > available in English, German, Spanish, French, Italian, and Japanese, and > > we welcome further translations and discussion in any language. > > > > For your review, you may find the proposed amendment and background > > information here: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment > > > > Please join the discussion on the talk page: > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment > > > > Thank you for sharing your thoughts and comments. > > > > -- > > Stephen LaP
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Wikimediauk-l] WMUK slide scanner
I'm surprised not to see any replies to this particular thread. It seems to me to be a "no-brainer" (to use a nonce-word that I hate) that imaging equipment for local wiki organizations in a position to make good use of it to upload free content for the projects should be a high priority for funding at whatever level. In the next funding cycle, maybe someone should propose a pilot program of allocating $10,000 and making ten $1,000 micro-grants for this purpose, with the application process to include discussion of what or whose free content would be made available to the projects if the equipment were provided. Newyorkbrad On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 3:04 PM, David Gerard wrote: > A message I just sent in a wikimediauk-l thread about photographic > negative scanners, which I thought might be of general interest to > Wikimedia organisations. > > tl;dr: an archival-quality negative scanner has potential to be a > white elephant* (a donation that is actually a liability), but could > be a useful thing that an organisation could use to make very good > friends with GLAMs and individuals. > > > - d. > > > * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_elephant > > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: David Gerard > Date: 15 February 2014 20:00 > Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] WMUK slide scanner > To: UK Wikimedia mailing list > > > On 15 February 2014 19:52, geni wrote: > > On 15 February 2014 15:23, David Gerard wrote: > >> On 15 February 2014 15:09, Andy Mabbett > wrote: > > >> > Change of plan: Thank you, but I've been offered the use of one of > >> > these: > >> > http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/scanner/scoolscan_4000/ > >> > by a friend who lives locally. > > >> Oh you lucky bugger. That's the level of archival-quality > >> piece of kit we could do with for WMUK. Though it would have to live > >> in the office. > > > A nikon product at the WMUK office? Is that wise: > > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Canon_EOS_DSLR_family_(selection).jpg > > > :-) > > Seriously, though: if you want archival quality, the way to go is a > CoolScan. Not only would we be able to scan negatives ourselves > (though it'd be tied to the office, rather than being a loanable > item), we'd be able to make very good friends indeed with GLAMs that > have random piles of unscanned negatives. > > It'd be nice if someone with a few hundred quid bought a CoolScan, > scanned their collection, then donated the kit to WMUK when done with > it. > > The way it usually goes is: someone buys a CoolScan on eBay, scans > their negative collection, sells it to the next person. WMUK would be > a suitable end point for such a chain. > > The main catch is for it to be *someone else's* problem to make sure a > decade-old piece of kit is in usable condition not to be a white > elephant - donating something that turns into a liability is helpy > rather than helpful. CoolScan IV/4000 use FireWire, V/5000 on use USB > ... software and supported OS is an interesting question as well ... > III/3000 and earlier do archival-quality scanning, but often have > weird hardware requirements. I think the I and II needed their own ISA > card. This is the sort of white elephant *not* to inflict on a small > charity. > > If I had ~£500 to spare I would happily be that person. I'm not though :-) > > I'll borrow the Ion (a rather less fragile piece of kit, so > borrowable), but if I had access to a CoolScan I'd happily do 'em > again. > > > - d. > > ___ > 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] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons
I have no role or participation on Commons, but from my work on English WP I'm aware of the very real copyright status of "free as a practical matter although someone could theoretically make a disputed technical argument otherwise." One solution, where there is a good-faith argument the image is free and no rights-holder claiming otherwise, would be a disclaimer. Perhaps something along the lines of "It is believed this image is in the public domain [or, the status of this image depends on resolution of an open legal issue, or whatever] and therefore eligible for inclusion on Wikimedia Commons and for re-use. However, it is possible that the free status of this image could be disputed because [brief explanation of reason]. Potential re-users should therefore proceed cautiously." I hasten to add that this would be appropriate only where the impediment to freedom is seen as mostly theoretical, not to screw over legitimate claims by rightsholders or by people with privacy interests implicated by the image. Newyorkbrad On Monday, December 30, 2013, geni wrote: > On 30 December 2013 11:26, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > >> Hoi Tomasz, >> >> You have a really strong opinion. When you read this thread, you will >> notice that it is not appreciated by many and seen as disruptive. Can you >> appreciate it in this way? >> >> You argument about re-users is valid when you turn around the argument as >> well; as long as we do NOT have a take down notice re-users are better >> served by the continuation of the presence of images. >> Thanks, >> GerardM >> >> > No because then reusers also get hit which a bunch of takedown notices (or > lawsuits) which is decidedly disruptive for them. > > > -- > geni > ___ > 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] Office hours for VisualEditor
Are you saying that our extensive discussion of the meaning of counts
for naught?
Newyorkbrad
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Michael Snow wrote:
> On 10/30/2013 8:39 AM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
>
>> On 10/30/2013 11:20 AM, Risker wrote:
>>
>>> Just to clarify, since UTC is a confusing time for most of us
>>>
>> {{cn}}
>>
>> I've heard that said very often (that 00:00 is somehow confusing to many
>> people), but I've yet to actually see someone being actually confused by
>> it.
>>
>> There is exactly one minute labeled 00:00 in every day, and that is
>> unambiguously the first of the day.
>>
> It ought to be straightforward, yes, since in numeric sequences 00:00
> clearly comes before other possible time values, and therefore is not
> nearly as confusing as, say, 12:00 (is noon AM and midnight PM, or is it
> the other way around?). However, it is definitely possible to overthink
> things, and as this conversation demonstrates, of all the faults of which
> our community is capable, overthinking things is one of the easiest for us
> to fall into.
>
> --Michael Snow
>
>
> __**_
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org
> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**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] Office hours for VisualEditor
In an arbitration committee election a couple of years ago, I definitely recall confusion about whether a deadline of on a given date meant that the deadline expired as of the beginning of that date or the end of that date. Time designations are human conventions, not laws of nature, and should be as clearly expressed as possible. Anyone who disagrees with me is free to state his or her opinion until today. Newyorkbrad On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: > On 10/30/2013 11:45 AM, Newyorkbrad wrote: > > It's simple enough to use 0001 instead of . > > It is, but if there /are/ in fact a large number of people being > confused by it, then treating 00:00 as though it had special status by > avoiding it will only *add* to that confusion rather than clarify the > matter. > > -- Marc > > > ___ > 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] Office hours for VisualEditor
It's simple enough to use 0001 instead of 0000.
Newyorkbrad
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Nathan wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Marc A. Pelletier >wrote:
>
> > On 10/30/2013 11:20 AM, Risker wrote:
> > > Just to clarify, since UTC is a confusing time for most of us
> >
> > {{cn}}
> >
> > I've heard that said very often (that 00:00 is somehow confusing to many
> > people), but I've yet to actually see someone being actually confused by
> > it.
> >
> > There is exactly one minute labeled 00:00 in every day, and that is
> > unambiguously the first of the day. It makes as much sense to be
> > hesitant about it as it does wondering whether Jan 1 is part of the
> > previous year or not*.
> >
> > -- Marc
> >
> > * Hint: It's not.
> >
> >
> Just a shot in the dark, but maybe Risker asked because she's confused. So,
> now you have at last seen someone confused by it! Congrats, and may all
> your future demands for citations supporting the personal reactions of
> other people be met so easily ;)
> ___
> 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] New access to non-public information policy, re-ID requirements and data retention
Although I personally didn't consider identifying to be onerous, I've never thought the entire identification requirement and process were necessary, since nothing is ever done with the identification data. Can anyone think of a situation that would have been handled differently if the proposed policy had been in place at the relevant time? (I myself can think of one and only one, but am curious if there are others.) Newyorkbrad On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: > On 10/21/2013 08:13 PM, MZMcBride wrote: > > On a typical site, paid staff would deal with problematic users. > > The obvious, and perhaps a bit trite, answer would be that we are most > certainly not a typical site by any meaning of the term. :-) > > Seriously, however, I can understand why some current holders of rights > might have reservations about a policy that tightens greatly how private > information is handled and how much vetting is done on who does the > handling; but that tightening does very much need to take place. > > It's not clear to me what those people who have signed the petition > think they can accomplish; those new rules (perhaps altered through > feedback) will need to be installed eventually, but nobody is obliged to > abide them if they do not feel comfortable doing so; being a steward, > oversighter or checkuser is not something one is forced into doing. If > they prefer not to proceed with the new system, they don't actually need > to resign. > > As a volunteer, I'd *much* rather those functions be held by active > members of the community than by staff; and as long as there remains > sufficient volunteers to do the job, then this is what should happen. > (We'd probably get more people willing to step forward if we stopped - > collectively - heaping so much crap on the heads of functionaries; but > that's a different issue). > > -- Coren / Marc > > > ___ > 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] Forgery and Wikiality
(cross-posted from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Newyorkbrad/Newyorkbradblog#Forgery_and_Wikiality
)
FORGERY AND WIKIALITY
We've all read about people manipulating their, or their friends' (or worse
their enemies') biographies on Wikipedia. We also all heard about people
molding Wikipedia to fit the world as they wish it were, rather than the
world as it is—what Stephen
Colbert<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Colbert>,
in exaggerated form, calls "Wikipediality."
Alex Wilkinson <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Wilkinson> reported an
interesting example of this phenomenon in his article "The Giveaway" in
last week's *New Yorker <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yorker>*. (A
link to the *New Yorker* article is
here<http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/26/130826fa_fact_wilkinson>—
full text for
*New Yorker* subscribers, the first two paragraphs for others. I recommend
it.)
The article is about a 58-year-old man named Mark Landis. Mr. Landis lives
in Laurel, Mississippi <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurel,_Mississippi>.
For a time during his childhood, he attended St. Mary's Town and Country
School <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Mary%27s_Town_and_Country_School>in
London <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London>.
According to the article, dozens of times over past 25 years, Mr. Landis
has walked into a museum and donated what he described as a valuable but
previously unknown artwork. He describes the pieces as the work of a
reknowned artist, though not one of the very best known artists (Paul
Signac<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Signac>,
Stanislas Lépine <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislas_L%C3%A9pine>, Hans
von Aachen <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Aachen>, Alfred Jacob
Miller <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Jacob_Miller> are examples).
And every time, it turns out that Mr. Landis created the artwork himself,
and used classic art forgers' techniques to make the piece appear older
than it was.
This sort of art forgery raises well-known questions ("is this work of art
the less meaningful or beautiful because it was created by Shlabotnik
rather than Renoir?"). But certainly the museum world sees quite a
difference between the work of a great or near-great artist and even the
most faithful re-creation or simulation of one, and does not appreciate his
contributions. Since Landis never requested or accepted any payment for his
donations, and apparently never even took a tax deduction for them, he
hasn't been charged with any crimes. Wilkinson discusses Landis's
motivations, but he workings of his mind remain unclear. What is clear is
that Landis wants very much to be thought of as an art dealer, and as a
philanthropist.
The relevance to Wikipedia? We have an article about this individual, Mark
A. Landis <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_A._Landis>, which details his
history of art forgeries—but Wilkinson's *New Yorker* article doesn't
mention that article. What it does mention is this:
*One of the things [Landis] likes to do is check the Wikipedia article for
Laurel, where he was described as a notable resident, and the one for St.
Mary's, where he was an art dealer and a philanthropist. Late in 2010, he
saw that the listing under Laurel had been altered, "to something
derogatory," he said*
And Wilkinson's article concludes:
*After lunch ... Landis was in good spirits. I'd seen him happier only
once, a few days before, when we checked the Wikipedia page for St. Mary's.
He hadn't looked for some time. He almost winced as he scrolled down the
page. Then his face broke into a grin. "Hey, I'm still there," he said.
"Art dealer and philanthrophist."**He turned the computer toward me so that
I could read the entry, then he leaned over to be sure his printer was on
so he could make a copy. "Otherwise, somebody might say something bad about
me and change it," he said. "And then I won't be an art dealer and a
philanthropist any more."*
Food for thought
Newyorkbrad
___
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] Info: Election for WCA Chairperson
Although I'm pretty much a complete outsider to this process, and so my opinion may be discounted accordingly, this schedule for voting may be a little bit too expedited to be optimal. I'm especially concerned that only one week is allotted between the close of nominations and the close of voting. To the extent that a given member might wish to decide his or her vote through consultation with his or her chapter -- through internal discussion and consensus or a vote of the chapter board members or all the chapter's members, on a mailing list or at a chapter meeting -- I'm not sure one week is a long enough period in which all chapters can do so. I understand there are reasons to want to move ahead expeditiously with this election, so I'm not calling for delay for the sake of delay; on the other hand, allowing a bit more time might be in order. Regards, Newyorkbrad On Sunday, February 24, 2013, Fae wrote: > Hi, > > The schedule of election for the Chapters Association Council Chair > has been announced at > < http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_Association/Elections/2013_Chair > > > The schedule is: > Nominations open midnight (UTC) on Monday 25 February 2013. > Nominations close midnight on Monday 4 March 2013 and voting is opened. > Voting closes midnight Monday 11 March 2013. > > Note that all 21 Council members will be eligible to vote, including > those that stand for election. In a heavily contested election, > expecting nominated candidates to refrain from voting would not be > workable. > > Thanks, > Fae > -- > Ashley Van Haeften (Fae) fae...@gmail.com > Chapters Association Council Chair http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WCA > Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/mfae > > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] This is an encyclopedia
CECI N'EST PAS UNE ENCYCLOPEDIE. Newyorkbrad On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 4:41 PM, ENWP Pine wrote: > Tom, > > I too like that work of Catherine. I have it on my userpage also. > > Pine > > - > > Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:41:26 -0200 > From: Everton Zanella Alvarenga > To: Wikimedia Mailing List , Mailing > list do Cap?tulo brasileiro da Wikimedia. > > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] This is an encyclopedia > Message-ID: > < > caexlhe_d2mylt5bhj75mogaqe24yjkgcqcqrgod9ox_y1sx...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > THIS > > IS AN > ENCYCLOPEDIA > > One gateway to the wide garden > of knowledge, where lies > The deep rock of our past, > in which we must delve > the well of our future, > The clear water we must leave untainted > for those who come after us, > The fertile earth, in which > truth may grow in bright places, > tended by many hands, > And the broad fall of sunshine, > warming our first steps toward knowing > how much we do not know. > > > *Catherine Munro* > > > inspired by *This is a printing > office< > http://infoshare1.princeton.edu/rbsc2/ga/unseenhands/labels/wardePrintOffice.html > > > *, > by Beatrice Warde <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatrice_Warde> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CatherineMunro > > > Just discovered from a wikipedian friend from Kenya. > > Tom > > -- > Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom) > "A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable, but more useful > than a life spent doing nothing." > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Under block threat on fr.wp because of request on meta
I have no knowledge of the dispute on French Wikipedia, but I've just read
the thread on Meta, and frankly I agree that your making and insisting on
your request seems to have been inappropriate. We had a similar situation
recently involving English Wikipedia -- in which an editor went to Meta to
request that one of our checkusers have his rights remove because his
appointment was supposedly invalid, but he had never raised his concern on
English first and it turned out to be meritless -- and we did not take
kindly to that action at all.
As a matter of common sense, it seems more than reasonable that if a wiki
is transitioning from one method of appointing CUs to another, this doesn't
mean that all CUs appointed under the old method are invalid. The
conclusion would be that French should be left with no CUs at all for an
indefinite period, which if French WP is subject to anything remotely
appoaching the level of spamming and disruption that hits English
sometimes, is unlikely to be a viable option.
The more intriguing question to me, as an editor who has been a member of
the English WP ArbCom for five years, is why French has decided to no
longer have an ArbCom. Or is it just that there is disagreement about
the membership or method of picking the ArbCom? (The Meta discussion is
not completely clear.)
Newyorkbrad
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Teofilo wrote:
> A group of French admins is threatening me of what they call a "block
> with consequences" in the case I would perform any "similar move", a
> move similar with what I did which they interpret as "disrupting
> Wikipedia to illustrate a point" (1).
>
> As the wording is totally vague ("similar move") this deprives me of
> the right to express myself on community matters. My freedom of speech
> on community matters is being denied.
>
> What I did, was a request to stewards on meta to remove access for all
> current French Checkusers as a consequence of the French Wikipedia
> switching from the "wiki with arbcom" to the "wiki without arbcom"
> status (2).
>
> So I am under threat, because I tried to enforce the checkuser policy,
> which provides different access procedures according to whether the
> wiki is with or without arbcom (3).
>
> Would it be possible to provide some kind of protection to users
> making requests on meta in reference to WMF policies ?
>
> Would it be possible to have some kind of "meta-arbcom" that would be
> a supreme court responsible for guaranteeing a set of fundamental
> principles, such as freedom of speech ?
>
> References:
>
> (1)
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discussion_utilisateur%3ATeofilo&diff=84877524&oldid=84615519
> (2)
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&oldid=4347135#per_CheckUser_policy.23Checkuser_access.2C_all_current_checkusers_on_fr.Wikipedia.org_.28wiki_without_an_Arbitration_Committee.29
> (3) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_policy#Access_to_CheckUser
>
> See also:
>
>
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Prise_de_d%C3%A9cision/Checkuser
> [The community vote in 2005 where checkusers where agreed by only a
> very short majority (52.4%)]
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Real identifies when dealing with copyright issues
One possible approach would be to contact the author directly. Newyorkbrad On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:43 PM, James Heilman wrote: > Someone has posted a question about WP:OUTING. We are currently dealing > with a copyright issue ( a textbook has copied liberally from Wikipedia > without proper attribution and the author claiming the work as their own ). > Before we inform the publisher however we need to make sure that the author > of the book is not a Wikipedia editor who wrote the original content and > than released it under a different license. In this instance this was not > the case. > > However is the simply fact of attempting to verify that an author is not a > Wikipedian considered WP:OUTING? Not attempting to verify it before > informing the publisher and amazon however would be unethical as we may > harm someones career and need to make sure we are correct. Other peoples > thoughts? > > -- > James Heilman > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian > > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine > www.opentextbookofmedicine.com > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please can someone put 50p in the meter
I think WSC was trying to log onto Wikipedia Review by mistake. :) Newyorkbrad On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote: > They're up for me... > ___ > Philippe Beaudette > Director, Community Advocacy > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. > > 415-839-6885, x 6643 > > phili...@wikimedia.org > > > On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 8:44 AM, WereSpielChequers > wrote: > > Does anyone know why Wikipedia and Commons have both gone down? > > > > WSC > > > > Writing from a slightly modified editing workshop in London > > ___ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] speedydeletion.wika.com lauched
Although I can understand the appeal of this concept, I am concerned that a deleted-articles wiki or site will perpetuate the publicity given to pages that are properly deleted from Wikipedia because they contain offensive personal attacks, harassment, cyberbullying, defamation, and BLP violations. These are not always flagged in the deletion grounds, especially in speedy situations (e.g. if a harassing or defamatory article does not assert the subject's notability, it will often be deleted on that ground without its being tagged as an attack page, etc.). This issue strikes me as extremely serious. How do you plan to address it? Newyorkbrad On 6/10/12, Mike Dupont wrote: > Hi, > I have launched speedydeletion.wika.com , it is updated every 30 minutes > with the proposed deletions and speedy deletion articles (not notable and > hoaxes, not others). > it is running on the en.wikipedia.org. the sources for the script are all > on git hub and are a merger of pywikipediabot and the wikiteam codebases. > hope you enjoy it, > thanks, > mike > -- > James Michael DuPont > Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org > Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org > Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
