Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?

[Birgitte_sb]

On Dec 30, 2012, at 3:40 AM, James Salsman  wrote:

>> The April fundraiser is on translated messages IIRC.
> 
> I'm sorry, I don't understand what this means. Where are plans for the
> April fundraiser being discussed?

It means multivariate testing in X languages is siginificantly more resource 
intensive than A/B testing in one language. Impractibly so for the fundraising 
team, IMHO. At least that is what I meant with that plus the following 
statement that you removed. The meaning required both to be read together.

You are subscribed to the same mailing list I am, yet you have been regularly 
asking people to dig out information that I myself am well aware of. And I do 
not get any information any place else than this list (except maybe wikitech-l 
which I am currently months and months behind on). Pay attention or search your 
own emails. 

You may not realize this, but your recent messages seem rather disingenuous. Do 
your own research. Reply individually to others with the full context intact. 
Actually address the points of the message you reply to straight on, instead of 
sending the thread on a tangent. Or else, accept that you will be judged 
insincere and do not be surprised when people largely stop responding to your 
emails. I am done myself, unless you alter your approach.

Birgitte SB

(who really hates when people over-snip)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] If I could talk to the wiki folks...

[Birgitte_sb]

On Dec 29, 2012, at 9:28 AM, Leinonen Teemu  wrote:

> On 29.12.2012, at 9.35, "birgitte...@yahoo.com"  wrote:
> 
>> I am not affiliated with Wiki Med. However as an American, "Health" to my 
>> ear means scammy quacky bullshit that wants to pretend it is medicine for 
>> the $$$.
> 
> OK. I am sure in the US the World *Health* Organization is also seen by many 
> as "scammy quacky bullshit that wants to pretend it is medicine for the $$$". 
> :-) 
> 
> In other places the WHO is the international organization that is concerned 
> with public *health*.
> 
> -Teemu
> 

Of course WHO, NIMH, HHS, etc aren't seen that way (not that they are often 
spelled out). Older established organizations that predate the rise in 
popularity of chiropractors, anti-vaccination, and non-traditional healing are 
seen however their history warrants. New organizations without a history are 
evaluated somewhat differently.  

I don't support the incorporation as "Wiki Med" myself.  I only thought to 
explain what roadblocks there might be to pushing the organization to rename as 
"Wiki Health" instead, since many here might not be familiar with the local 
connotations. Take it, snark over it, or leave it, but I imagine that I have a 
better idea of how this would be perceived in the US than you do.

Birgitte SB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] If I could talk to the wiki folks...

[Birgitte_sb]

I am not affiliated with Wiki Med. However as an American, "Health" to my ear 
means scammy quacky bullshit that wants to pretend it is medicine for the $$$.  
There are real reasons NY does not let an organization use the title "Medicine" 
without approval from the medical board. And all those reasons use the title 
"Health" or "Healing"  instead. I imagine the members of an organization like 
Wiki Med are more than normally aware of this and would be more than normally 
distressed to be associated with this. After all, the majority of Wikipedian 
medical editors seem dedicate a good portion of their time to keeping the 
scammy quacky bullshit out of the medical articles.

Birgitte SB

On Dec 29, 2012, at 8:20 AM, Leinonen Teemu  wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I think the thematic organizations are good for the movement. Could the 
> naming of the affiliated thematic organizations be primary based on the 
> Wikipedia Portal namespaces (from all the Wikipedia's in different languages)?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Portals
> 
> With this "logic" the Wiki Med could be "Wikimedia Health".
> 
> - Teemu
> 
> On 28.12.2012, at 19.29, "Ziko van Dijk" 
> mailto:vand...@wmnederland.nl>> wrote:
> 
> Dear James,
> 
> My sincere congratulations for this important step, and I am really
> very happy with a Wikimedia Medicine. But the name "Wiki Med
> Foundation" - I find the choice for that name just strange (I saw the
> discussion on Meta too late). "Wikimedia Health", by the way, would be
> as great as "Wikimedia Medicine". I understood that there problems in
> the State of New York to use "medicine" in the title. So, "Wiki
> Health" could have been an alternative until recognition from the
> AffCom.
> 
> Kind regards
> Ziko
> 
> 
> 2012/12/29 James Heilman mailto:jmh...@gmail.com>>:
> Yes so Wiki Med Foundation Inc incorporated Dec 19, 2012 and we had our
> first official board meeting Dec 26, 2012. We have had expressed interest
> from 57 people from more than a dozen countries with a large group of
> interested members from India. Our 9 board members are from 7 different
> countries.
> 
> Our first official event is being held January 7-11th at the University of
> California San Francisco in collaboration with Wikimedia Canada. We have
> been invited by the college of medicine to give a half dozen lectures on
> Wikipedia and Medicine and a few editing sessions where students and staff
> can try their hand at editing themselves. This is in preparation for an
> elective for 3rd and 4th year medical students which will resolve around
> contribution to Wikimedia projects hopefully to launch in the spring.
> 
> Of course we are a new corporation, however our membership is composed of
> people who have extensive experience within the Wikimedia movement. Once we
> have had a chance to prove ourselves over the next 6 month we will re
> approach the aff com / Wikimedia movement to determine if an official
> association is desired. Currently as stated by Bence we are not officially
> associated.
> 
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> 
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> ---
> Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
> dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter
> http://wmnederland.nl/
> 
> Wikimedia Nederland
> Postbus 167
> 3500 AD Utrecht
> ---
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?

[Birgitte_sb]

The April fundraiser is on translated messages IIRC. Your suggestion is not at 
all practical for the fundraising team to implement. 

Also it is terrible idea, which ignores the high costs of planning to hold 
deliberations in a few months which is designed to nullify the results of 
recently concluded deliberations. People have work to do in January, February, 
and March. No sane person can be expected to be put in a holding pattern for 
three months before an organizations STARTS to decide what internal projects 
will be supported. If you think there is a "talent retention" problem now, well 
if you had your way the current numbers would be blown out of the water by the 
coming stampede of departures.

BirgitteSB


On Dec 28, 2012, at 3:45 PM, James Salsman  wrote:

> How about for the April fundraiser, instead of setting a dollar value
> goal, we agree to use multivariate analysis instead of A/B testing to
> optimize the messaging from volunteer submissions in advance, then run
> the whole thing for a fixed time frame, say three weeks, and then use
> the actual amount raised to decide whether salaries should be
> competitive with area tech firms, whether Fellowships should be
> jettisoned, how much personell to put into the Education Program and
> engineering, and how much of a reserve to invest, preferably with low
> risk instruments which pay above the rate of inflation?
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

[Birgitte_sb]

On Aug 23, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Anthony  wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:49 PM,   wrote:
>> To reword what I said before the vast majority of X-ray images in existence 
>> are diagnostic
>> images. There is no reason at all to purposefully search out X-rays that 
>> might land in some
>> grey area.
> 
> One problem with that is that the X-ray images that you are most
> likely to find are the most likely to have been created with the
> intention of being distributed.
> 

I don't understand why "intention to distribute" would be relevant.


> On the other hand, if "probably no one will sue" is good enough for
> you, then you really don't need to ask the legal question in the first
> place.

That is not at all what I said, but you are quite good at striking down an 
argument which I did not make and do not support!

Since there is so little left of what I said, I will rephrase: Diagnostic 
images are not copyrighted and there are lots of interchangeable images that 
are equally not copyrighted. If one of these interchangeable images credits 
someone as a creator, and you are worried they "probably will sue", then use 
another interchangeable image. Unless, of course, one purposefully wishes to be 
a jerk about their understanding of copyright.  And while I am sure someone 
will, I wound prefer not to put any more effort in considering the situation. 
(So please don't misquote me on this issue!)

> 
>> Another rule of thumb: Most images, whatever they depict, are also 
>> *designed* to be pleasing
>> to human aesthetics.
> 
> I don't understand that.  What are you using the term "human
> aesthetics" to mean?

I meant when creating a common photo no consideration is given to composition 
of the infrared wavelengths. However, whether the photographer is very aware of 
it or not, aesthetic choices are being made as the overall composition is 
selected. It is really outside this topic, but I think the aesthetics which 
happen please/disturb us are often evolutionary. I tend to always be connecting 
things in my thinking, I didn't mean to have it spill over and muddy things 
here.  Don't read too much into and pretend I just wrote aesthetics.  I doubt 
any one but me would be reading that sentence and wondering whether non-humans 
would find most pictures to be pleasing. Sorry for confusing the issue.

> And even if you're truer about most, that still leaves a great number
> which were not.  Many images were in fact designed to be aesthetically
> displeasing.

I also wrote a sentence about copyrightable images being designed for 
"aesthetic effect". While I think the statement you quoted works as *a rule of 
thumb*, I purposefully did not limit the statement that followed to only 
*pleasing* aesthetic effects.


> 
> And many others were designed, like the X-ray image, to objectively
> depict reality.
> 
> _

Yes there are many such images.

These types of images are called utilitarian images. 

Which is what prompted me to write about how copyright hangs upon aesthetic 
choices. In hopes that it would help people understand why images lacking 
aesthetic choices also lack copyright. I was very aware there are many such 
images. I labeled my statement a rule of thumb not a universal rule. 

I know this all sounds like I am very annoyed.  I am really just slightly 
annoyed ;)

Look copyright is really tough. Really.  And most people, probably everyone to 
some degree, misunderstands copyright. I honestly am happy to see you smack 
down some of my statements, like you did about all the international agreements 
working as bi-lateral treaties. I learned that Berne is different today, and 
frankly I think that is awesome. I ran out of low hanging fruit wrt to 
copyright a long time ago. I really appreciate the opportunity this thread has 
offered me to gain a nuance to my understanding.  Seriously.  

But I don't appreciate the rhetorical twists that, instead of clarifying the 
discussion, muddy things by making our that a sentence or two that wrote 
support a position that I never took. Not that it bothers me personally. But it 
confuses the discussion immensely for people who may have been struggling to 
follow it in the beginning. A long time ago, when I knew *nothing* of 
copyright, this list is where I managed to gather most of the low hanging 
fruit. Eventually I had to search for understanding elsewhere, but I know 
people making copyright decisions in the wikis may be using this list as a tool 
for making those decisions. At one time, I was such a person.

So anyways . . . I know it's the internet and all . . . where men are compelled 
to put on displays of rhetorical prowess as though they were peacocks . . . but 
please  . . . for the children and all that . . . Can we try to avoid picking 
out the weakest snippets of writing for rhetorical displays and instead focus 
on the heart of the positions to explore the issue in way that allows us to 
both improve our understandings?

At least

[Wikimedia-l] Uncopyrightable works and cross-jurisdictional protections was Re: Copyright on Xrays

[Birgitte_sb]

On Aug 23, 2012, at 7:35 AM, Anthony  wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:20 AM,   wrote:
>> Snip
> 
 And even if it is only the US, other countries would not recognize 
 copyright on diagnostic
 images created in the US, which gives us at least the NASA situation.
>>> 
>>> Do you have a citation for this?  Also, is it where the image is
>>> created, or where it is first published, or something else?
>>> 
>> Copyright, internationally, is bilateral agreements. If it is not protected 
>> in the US, it cannot
>> demand bilateral protection elsewhere.  It would be based on the 
>> jurisdiction of creation.
>> Publication has had nothing to do with the creation of copyright since the 
>> 1970's as far as I
>> am aware.  Before 1976, in the US, place of publication was significant for 
>> determining
>> copyright protection because of the notice requirement. Now copyright is 
>> automatic at fixation.
> 
> Are you sure, or are you guessing?
> 
> What about all that "country of origin" stuff in the Berne Convention?
> That certainly suggests to me that the location of first publication
> matters.
> 

Publication shortens the copyright term that was enjoyed by the unpublished 
work. That is the only significance I am aware that the first publication has 
since the 1970's.

However, the Berne Convention is insane.  It is not set up as a bilateral 
treaty like I had thought. (Some of the other relevant agreement are.) It 
reads: 

> [the enjoyment and exercise of copyright] ... shall be independent of the 
> existence of protection in the country of origin of the work. Consequently, 
> apart from the provisions of this Convention, the extent of protection, as 
> well as the means of redress afforded to the author to protect his rights, 
> shall be governed exclusively by the laws of the country where protection is 
> claimed. — Berne Convention, article 5(2).


Here is an example of how insane that is.  In the US edicts of government are 
uncopyrightable. A few years ago Oregon "forgot" about this; they notices on 
their website and actually attempted to enforce copyright on the statues of 
Oregon. I am not sure how far this went in litigation before they were educated 
about copyright law. Now in the UK, edicts of government are copyrightable. The 
UK recently switched its license on the local statute from Crown Copyright to 
some new "Free Government" license. One way that Berne can be read is that if 
you had printed a copy of the Statues of Oregon from their website in Oregon; 
you were not infringing on copyright.  However if you had printed a copy of the 
Statues of Oregon from their website *in the UK*; you were infringing on the 
copyrights owned by the State of Oregon.  And if Oregon had sought to enforce 
these rights in the UK, they would have been able to.  

Now this is the really insane part. The US policy relies on common law, so 
there isn't a quotable  statue.  The summary is "such material as laws and 
governmental rules and decisions must be freely available to the public and 
made known as widely as possible; hence there must be no restriction on 
reproduction and dissemination of such documents." Now imagine the US federal 
government passed a law stating that "in order allow for the widest 
distribution possible, all edicts of government are to be protected by 
copyright for a term of 1 minute." If that were to happen then Oregon would no 
longer be able to enforce copyright on the Statutes of Oregon in the UK or any 
other Berne signatory that does not explicitly revoke the rule of the shorter 
term (one the "provisions of the Convention" that can invalidate the the quoted 
idea above).

Obviously, I just pulled all this together. And I am "just guessing", as you 
might say, about how it would actually play out. And while it is a crazy corner 
of international copyright, it is not an issue I am concerned with about the 
diagnostic images. I do not believe such images are copyrighted anywhere. Until 
someone cites some copyright law that is profoundly differently from generic US 
basis for what copyright is about, I am will remain confident that mere 
diagnostic images are universally without copyright protection.

Birgitte SB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

[Birgitte_sb]

On Aug 22, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Thomas Dalton  
>>> wrote:
 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Upperarm.jpg
>>> 
>>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arm.agr.jpg would probably be a
>>> better example.
>>> 
>>> There's a good chance that wouldn't be considered copyrightable under US 
>>> law.
>> 
>> Even if it is, I think an X-ray would be quite different. In taking a
>> photo of a subject's arm, the photographer must consider lighting,
>> angle to which the arm is turned, the proper camera settings, how to
>> find the exact arm that suits the purposes of the intended photo, etc.
> 
> Heh, I'd argue that the photo in question shows that the photographer
> obviously does *not* have to make these considerations.  Looks like a
> random arm in a random position against a plain white wall (hardly
> creative), with auto everything.
> 
>> I think there would be just enough creativity in that arm shot, but
>> it'd be close.
> 
> Yeah, I agree it'd be close.  I think it'd come down to the testimony
> of the photographer.  If he claimed "oh, I chose a hairy arm because
> X, and I opened my thumb because Y", maybe I'd buy it.  So if you're
> feeling particularly copyright-paranoid, it's best to get explicit
> permission.
> 
>> An X-ray, on the other hand, is made by a technician according to
>> documented procedures. The arm is turned to the proper angle to see
>> what the doctor wants to see, not to an angle that's aesthetically or
>> artistically pleasing.
> 
> I could be wrong, but I'm not sure there's a requirement for aesthetic
> or artistic purpose.  Non-fiction, software, legal contracts, etc.,
> all have been held to be copyrightable.

I think you are overestimating the very minimal amount of creativity that is 
required to here. The aesthetic choice between noting a pause as a period vs. a 
dash vs. a semi-colon has been upheld as copyrightable. There is aesthetics 
within non-fiction and legal documents, whether or not they are primary 
consideration.

> 
>> The image is taken according to standard and inflexible procedures.
>> The technician is not exercising a bit of
>> creativity in taking the image. In fact, the tech would likely get in
>> trouble if (s)he DID decide to "get creative" with it.
> 
> That, on the other hand, is a very important point.
> 
> On the other other hand, it's not true of all X-ray images.  It's
> certainly possible, for instance, to create an X-ray image with the
> explicit purpose of putting it in an encyclopedia, or a journal, or
> even a book of artwork.
> 
> Where it gets into grey area would be if the person created the X-ray
> image knowing that it would be used in a book, but that it would also
> be used for diagnostic purposes.
> 
> Either way, it's a question of fact what instructions were given to
> the X-ray tech, as well as whether or not the tech followed them.
> 

I disagree here, the intention of the creator has no more to do with copyright 
than effort expended. It all hangs on whether the work as executed contains 
some newly created creative expression of the information. Whether it resulted 
from purposeful or subconscious choices do not matter. 

> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Thomas Dalton  
> wrote:
>> On 22 August 2012 20:50, Anthony  wrote:
>>> It possibly has a very thin copyright.
>> 
>> Copyright doesn't have thickness. Either it is copyrightable or it isn't.
> 
> Incorrect.  In some works, some aspects are copyrighted, and some
> aspects are not.
> 
+1

Birgitte SB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

[Birgitte_sb]

On Aug 22, 2012, at 9:22 AM, Anthony  wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:14 AM,   wrote:
>> I really doubt non-artistic works are copyrighted as a general rule anywhere
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by "non-artistic", but if you mean "purely
> utilitarian", as that term is interpreted by the court, then this is a
> good point.
> 
> I was going to suggest UK, but a quick search suggests that you
> *can't* copyright purely "utilitarian" works in the UK.
> 
> (I wouldn't use the term "non-artistic" though.  There are plenty of
> works that are copyrighted in the US and all over that I wouldn't
> consider "art", and while an argument could be made that such works
> shouldn't be copyrightable, court precedent is clearly adverse to that
> argument.),  

I believe artistic/non-artistic is accurate for images. Technically it is 
artistic, literary, dramatic, or musical works. The rules can change a bit as 
you change mediums, so when we are talking about an image I am talking about 
copyright wrt to images.
 
> 
>> Now clearly being able to judge that X is a utilitarian work is the more 
>> normal problem with
>> this argument and why it is seldom used. Diagnostic images are one of the 
>> few clear-cut
>> situations.
> 
> How do you distinguish whether or not it is a "diagnostic image", and
> what makes it clear-cut?
> 
> Even using the term "utilitarian" rather than "artistic" I can still
> come up with a large number of examples of things which seem pretty
> "clear-cut" as "utilitarian" to me, but yet which receive copyright
> protection.  gzip, for instance.

I actually expanded on this at the end of my last email. If that doesn't 
clarify, ask again and explain what gzip is.
> 
>> And even if it is only the US, other countries would not recognize copyright 
>> on diagnostic
>> images created in the US, which gives us at least the NASA situation.
> 
> Do you have a citation for this?  Also, is it where the image is
> created, or where it is first published, or something else?
> 
Copyright, internationally, is bilateral agreements. If it is not protected in 
the US, it cannot demand bilateral protection elsewhere.  It would be based on 
the jurisdiction of creation.  Publication has had nothing to do with the 
creation of copyright since the 1970's as far as I am aware.  Before 1976, in 
the US, place of publication was significant for determining copyright 
protection because of the notice requirement. Now copyright is automatic at 
fixation.

Birgitte SB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

[Birgitte_sb]

On Aug 22, 2012, at 9:31 AM, Anthony  wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Anthony  wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:14 AM,   wrote:
>>> Now clearly being able to judge that X is a utilitarian work is the more 
>>> normal problem with
>>> this argument and why it is seldom used. Diagnostic images are one of the 
>>> few clear-cut
>>> situations.
>> 
>> How do you distinguish whether or not it is a "diagnostic image", and
>> what makes it clear-cut?
> 
> If you define "diagnostic image" as "an image created solely for the
> purpose of making a diagnosis", then I suppose you've got a clear-cut
> utilitarian work.  On the other hand, this wouldn't include an X-ray
> which was made by someone who knew the X-ray was going to be used in a
> medical book.
> 
> 

If any such images exist where the technician knew to aim for something more 
than a mere depiction, I would agree that things become more questionable. if 
the technician is actually credited by the textbook I personally would find a 
different image to use, because why bother about it? But just the fact that the 
technician knew something might it be used in a larger work (x-rays don't have 
preview), wouldn't flip the copyright switch all by itself. Presumably the 
textbook in question is for instructing someone on how to interpret a 
diagnostic image. Presumably an actual diagnostic image would be selected for 
inclusion in such a textbook.  Now if a technician, while working to create 
diagnostic images, aimed to create an image that might *also* be displayed in 
an art gallery, then I wouldn't include that image in my general conclusion. 
But the image has to stand on its own; either was never copyrightable wherever 
it might be used, or it has always been copyrighted since the moment it was 
created until the copyright is waived or expires.

To reword what I said before the vast majority of X-ray images in existence are 
diagnostic images. There is no reason at all to purposefully search out X-rays 
that might land in some grey area.  If something makes a particular X-ray 
really stand out from the vast majority, something about that makes an editor 
want to use *that* one instead picking another from the mountain on diagnostic 
images. I would suspect that in such a case the uncopyrightable conclusion 
would be less certain than it is for the vast majority. We are never going to 
be able to actually determine the copyright on every single image uploaded. 
Never. Not even with infinite resources. The unknowable category wrt copyright 
is significant. It is just tiny subset of all works existing, but not so tiny 
that you will fail to come across it now and again. If an image is borderline 
and easily substituted; please refrain from wasting the communities' time and 
energy on it.  Substitute it with an equivalent image with superior provenance. 

Rule of thumb (that I haven't thought about very long and may later disagree 
with): If a specific image truly is uncopyrightable as a utilitarian image, 
then it should be very easy to replace with another equivalent image. If a 
specific image doesn't seem to have any *possible* equivalents, it probably 
isn't a utilitarian image.

Another rule of thumb: Most images, whatever they depict, are also *designed* 
to be pleasing to human aesthetics. That is usually the part that creates the 
copyright, the choices that are made to produce a certain aesthetic. When an 
image is designed without any consideration for aesthetics at all (i.e. an arm 
is placed on a plane and arranged at a certain angle in order to best diagnose 
any possible damage to the elbow joint), then it is a very good candidate to be 
considered a utilitarian image. Consider any stock story with a comic and a 
tragic version, consider all the reinterpretations that have been done of 
Shakespeare's plays. The new derivative is copyrighted on the weight of the 
aesthetic choices. Not idea of boy meets girl. Copyright is about how something 
is expressed.  The harder it is to express the same information with different 
aesthetics, whether it is the phone numbers for businesses in a list or the 
soundness of a joint on an image, the harder it is to attach copyright to any 
particular expression of this information.

Birgitte SB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

[Birgitte_sb]

On Aug 22, 2012, at 8:02 AM, James Heilman  wrote:

> There are two things if the images are not copyrightable:
> 
> 1) If users add images from lets say a textbook. Will someone on commons
> simply delete them and thus it would be a waste of time.
> 
> 2) Do we exposure either ourselves or the WMF to legal problems. And if so
> is this important enough to warrant.
> 
> -

If they are not copyrightable, they will qualify a free content.  However, I 
would imagine we could obtain better quality images than those from textbooks. 
There may legal ramifications that have nothing to do with copyright, but 
(assuming all identifiable information is removed) I cannot think of any 
myself. Using images that are in anyway identifiable without permission of the 
person, is of course  bad in numerous ways.  Besides the various privacy laws, 
it would be in violation of the Nuremberg Code.  And any editors who may be 
connected, or wish to be connected in the future, to academic research will not 
want to be associated with such a thing even though it does exactly apply to 
Wikipedia.

Birgitte SB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

[Birgitte_sb]

On Aug 21, 2012, at 3:17 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:19 PM, geni  wrote:
>> On 21 August 2012 19:44,   wrote:
>> 
>>> Utilitarian work = uncopyrightable
>> 
>> 
>> Only under a fairly limited number of legal systems.
>> 
>> 

[[ciatation needed]]

I really doubt non-artistic works are copyrighted as a general rule anywhere (. 
. . but I have been wrong before).

Now clearly being able to judge that X is a utilitarian work is the more normal 
problem with this argument and why it is seldom used. Diagnostic images are one 
of the few clear-cut situations.

And even if it is only the US, other countries would not recognize copyright on 
diagnostic images created in the US, which gives us at least the NASA situation.

Birgitte SB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

[Birgitte_sb]

On Aug 20, 2012, at 6:08 AM, James Heilman  wrote:

> A question about copyright, who owns the copyright on Xrays and are they
> even copyrightable? I have uploaded a few of them and no one seems to know
> the answer. I guess the options would be:
> 
> 1) They are in the public domain
> https://open.umich.edu/wiki/Casebook#Radiograph_.28X-Ray.29 and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom#Works_eligible_for_protection
> 
> 2) The X ray tech who took the image
> 3) The person / institution who paid to have the image taken
> a) The HMO or patient if in the USA
> b) The government if in many parts of the world
> 4) The doctor who ordered the image
> 5) The doctor who read the image
> 6) The hospital / shareholders of the hospital who owns the equipment
> 7) All of the above / some of the above / none of the above
> 
> Would be good to have a legal position on this.
> -- 
> 

In most cases ( Covering the significant majority of all x-rays existing, but 
not ruling out the possibility of rare uses of X-ray photography as an artistic 
medium) .  . .

7 None of the above

Utilitarian work = uncopyrightable 

BirgitteSB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

[Birgitte_sb]

Seriously stop hijacking this thread. Let MZMcBride have a chance at some 
discussion on his question.

This below is just not cool. Have some respect for MZMcBride. He didn't write 
out his thoughts or concerns with idea that the first reply would turn it all 
into snip fodder. That seems beyond demoralizing to me.

I know I am as guilty of a tangent as anyone, but can't we all, at the very 
least, agree to let one another's sincere *questions* stand without being 
twisted beyond all recognition. We need to insist on there being some lines in 
respect for the other person's voice, or else we are all better off to just 
write a blogs. The only point to joining a mailing list is so you might hear 
what others wish to say. As a sort of pact. This mailing list, I like it as a 
mailing list; I think it sucks as a blog.

Birgitte SB

On Aug 2, 2012, at 7:45 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:11 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> 
>> What type of action was the SOPA blackout in January?
>> 
> 
> You mean, given the $500,000 Google donation Wikimedia received in November
> 2011, one month after the Italian Wikipedia's blackout, and two months
> before the English Wikipedia's SOPA blackout, and round about the time
> Wikimedia first made public statements denouncing SOPA?
> 
> Good question.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation

[Birgitte_sb]

On Jul 27, 2012, at 10:58 PM, Tilman Bayer  wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> the Wikimedia Foundation's 2012-13 Annual Plan has just been published at
> 
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf
> 
> accompanied by a Q&A:
> 
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Answers
> 
> The plan was approved by the Board of Trustees at its meeting in
> Washington, DC, at Wikimania, and previously outlined to the
> Foundation staff and interested community members at the monthly staff
> meeting on July 5, 2012. We were planning to publish the video
> recording of that meeting at this point, but encountered technical
> difficulties; the video will hopefully become available soon.

My biggest question mark over this plan is the GAC.  In some slides the GAC 
money is combined with fellowships, in some it is combined with FDC money, and 
in another slide the GAC money awarded to chapters is pulled out separately 
without ever commenting on whether all GAC awards were to chapters or if there 
were additional awards to other entities (awards to chapters is set to decrease 
40%).

It seems to me despite the WMF's stated confidence, that the FDC allocating 
money to WMF for the GAC is somewhat questionable. Given that the WMF has 
failed, so far, to show a capacity for properly administering the existing 
grants by providing a timely reviews. Although I can also see how the political 
nature of the situation wrt the FDC would tend to pull for the GAC money being 
approved no matter how competent or not the *SF* side of the program proves to 
be. And that whole aspect of the GAC program is probably a good part if the 
explanation of why there was not adequate support from SF to complete the 
reviews. The GAC program is just not commonly seen as being beneficial to SF, 
but as beneficial to the chapters and affiliates. And however much the WMF 
tries (and I think it is making large strides!) to re-adjust the institutional 
paradigm from SF to Movement, the resourcing is still telling. So when I said 
above that I thought outcome at FDC questionable, I mean that I haven't even 
slightest clue of what odds to place on the outcome. After considering both the 
principles of the FDC will and the context of the GAC, it ends up being a 
rather arbitrary choice to my mind. Which is a very unfortunate puzzle to pass 
like a hot potato to the rookie FDC.

So I am very curious how much money the WMF plans on distributing through the 
GAC, whether it is significantly different than last year.  And also if there 
has been a projection made for the number of grants in new fiscal year. And if 
so, whether the projection takes in to account that the number grants made in 
the past year overwhelmed WMF's capacity to manage its portion of the 
administration. 

And to give you what I am driving at, are these projections landing at numbers 
where the WMF could find alternate funding for the GAC program this year? Is 
possible to take a year and demonstrate that WMF has the will to resource this 
program into competence before placing it in the FDC pile? 

Birgitte SB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics

[Birgitte_sb]

On Jul 28, 2012, at 12:28 PM, Platonides  wrote:

> On 27/07/12 09:46, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>> An excellent list :) I'd like to add: you sneak in the stadium without
>> paying the ticket. IOC can do nothing.
>> 
>> Seriously, if IOC decides to go after someone, don't they first have to
>> prove that he bought the ticket? And how can they prove that?
> 
> What if someone else bought the ticket and then gifted it to you?
> 
> 
> 


2.2 By applying for, purchasing, holding or using a Ticket, a Ticket Holder 
agrees that he or she shall comply with these Terms and Conditions.

http://www.tickets.london2012.com/purchaseterms.html
Birgitte SB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics

[Birgitte_sb]

On Jul 27, 2012, at 9:12 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:

> *Assuming the recording was produced with consent of the performers.

I should have noted this only applies to live musical performances!

Birgitte SB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics

[Birgitte_sb]

On Jul 27, 2012, at 7:29 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:47 PM,   wrote:
>> On Jul 27, 2012, at 8:14 AM, Anthony  wrote:
>>> My advice is that the law isn't that simple, and that blanket
>>> statements of that type are quite often incorrect.
>> 
>> To the degree that we can advise people at all on copyright, it is safe to 
>> say that at the point someone clicked the
>> shutter they were the sole owner of any copyright.
> 
> Well, no, I disagree.  It is not at all "safe to say".
> 
> Would you also say that whoever presses "record" on a tape player is
> the sole owner of the copyright of the recording?
> 

The making of a recording is probably less likely than a photograph to create a 
copyright at all, but . . .

*Assuming the recording in question is contemporary.
*Assuming the recording is not itself an infringement. 
*Assuming the recording is not utilitarian.
*Assuming the recording contains a minimal amount of original expression.
*Assuming the recording was produced with consent of the performers.
*Assuming the recorder is not bound by a contract that specifies otherwise.

. . . Then, yes, any person who fixes an original work of authorship by 
pressing "record" on a tape-recorder will be granted the copyrights to the 
expression that they have recorded. This why black-box recordings 
(¡non-utilitarian non-infringing portions thereof!) of airline pilots in the US 
are in the public domain. The Federal Government (FAA) owns copyrights for 
arranging the recordings of these otherwise unfixed performances by the 
consenting pilots.

It can get even crazier than that; see Walter v. Lane.

Birgitte SB

Fair warning to those less familiar with this subject: Copyright is not 
Commonsense! 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics

[Birgitte_sb]

On Jul 27, 2012, at 8:14 AM, Anthony  wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:35 AM, Ray Saintonge  wrote:
>> I don't see that joint authorship enters into this at all. I think it's safe
>> to assume that the one holding the camera is the one making the creative
>> decisions about the photos.
> 
> Then continue to advise people that they are the sole owner of a
> photograph just because they clicked the shutter.
> 
> My advice is that the law isn't that simple, and that blanket
> statements of that type are quite often incorrect.
> 
> 

To the degree that we can advise people at all on copyright, it is safe to say 
that at the point someone clicked the shutter they were the sole owner of any 
copyright.  Considering just this moment in time, it is far, far more likely 
that there is no copyright created at all than that a joint authorship 
situation is created. However, many things can occur after this point in time 
which will result in a work with joint authorship. 

Birgitte SB


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics

[Birgitte_sb]

And here is the correct second link:

http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/03/photographs-are-not-derivative-works.html

On Jul 26, 2012, at 9:13 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:

> The first version sent too soon and was almost unreadable, sorry if you 
> struggled through it.  Here it is again with copy-editing.
> 
> 
> On Jul 26, 2012, at 9:06 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:51 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Ray Saintonge  wrote:
 Copyrights wouldn't apply because you own the copyrights in the pictures 
 you
 take.
>>> 
>>> Maybe.  You own the copyright fully if you are the sole contributor of
>>> the creative input which went into the picture.  If someone else also
>>> contributed, then you might own the copyright in the picture as a
>>> derivative work (extending only to your contributions), 
>> 
>> I hope you don' t mind my picking out this piece from your email and 
>> ignoring the rest.
> 
>> Simply photographing a copyrighted work does NOT create a photograph that is 
>> a derivative work. For a photo to become a derivative work you have to 
>> really go beyond timing, lighting, point and click.
>> 
>> This claim that photographs are derivative works came up just a few weeks 
>> ago in the trademark discussion.  I never directly addressed this issue 
>> during that discussion. While I felt certain there was some error in to the 
>> claim, I could not recall the reasoning behind the counter-point.  I just 
>> came across the in-depth discussion.  If anyone is interested the links 
>> follow, and don't forget to read the comments.  The comments are actually 
>> were it is all explained in lay terms with good examples instead of judicial 
>> terms.
>> 
>> http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.html
>> http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.html
>> 
>> Birgitte SB
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics

[Birgitte_sb]

The first version sent too soon and was almost unreadable, sorry if you 
struggled through it.  Here it is again with copy-editing.


On Jul 26, 2012, at 9:06 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:51 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Ray Saintonge  wrote:
>>> Copyrights wouldn't apply because you own the copyrights in the pictures you
>>> take.
>> 
>> Maybe.  You own the copyright fully if you are the sole contributor of
>> the creative input which went into the picture.  If someone else also
>> contributed, then you might own the copyright in the picture as a
>> derivative work (extending only to your contributions), 
> 
> I hope you don' t mind my picking out this piece from your email and ignoring 
> the rest.

> Simply photographing a copyrighted work does NOT create a photograph that is 
> a derivative work. For a photo to become a derivative work you have to really 
> go beyond timing, lighting, point and click.
> 
> This claim that photographs are derivative works came up just a few weeks ago 
> in the trademark discussion.  I never directly addressed this issue during 
> that discussion. While I felt certain there was some error in to the claim, I 
> could not recall the reasoning behind the counter-point.  I just came across 
> the in-depth discussion.  If anyone is interested the links follow, and don't 
> forget to read the comments.  The comments are actually were it is all 
> explained in lay terms with good examples instead of judicial terms.
> 
> http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.html
> http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.html
> 
> Birgitte SB
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics

[Birgitte_sb]

On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:51 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Ray Saintonge  wrote:
>> Copyrights wouldn't apply because you own the copyrights in the pictures you
>> take.
> 
> Maybe.  You own the copyright fully if you are the sole contributor of
> the creative input which went into the picture.  If someone else also
> contributed, then you might own the copyright in the picture as a
> derivative work (extending only to your contributions), 

I hope you don' t my picking out this piece from your email and ignoring the 
rest. Simply photographing a copyrighted work does NOT create a photograph that 
is a derivative works. For a photo to be a derivative work you have to really 
go beyond timing, lighting, point and click.

This claim of photographs as derivative works came up just a few weeks ago in 
the trademark discussion.  I never directly addressed this issue during that 
discussion While I felt certain at the time, there was some error in this 
claim. I could not recall the reasoning behind the counter-point.  I just came 
across the in-depth discussion.  If anyone is interested the links follow, and 
don't forget to read the comments.  The comments are actually were is explained 
in lay terms instead judicial terms.

http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.html
http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.html

Birgitte SB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics

[Birgitte_sb]

On Jul 26, 2012, at 4:23 AM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:

> kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sources for the restrictions:
> * http://www.tickets.london2012.com/purchaseterms.html
> * PDF: http://j.mp/london2012prohibited
>> 
>> I really can't figure out the difference between your example about
>> personality rights  and my previous, so I don't see why you're saying
>> that the above approch could not work, but IANAL.
>> 
>> As I said above I think this restrinction on commercial use of the
>> images imposed by IOC is not about copyright but is on a different
>> level and AFAICT is very similar to the case of personality rights to
>> some extent. So may you clarify?
>> 
> 
> There is a contractual arrangement between the IOC and the photographer as 
> specified in terms and conditions on the ticket. If some one makes photos 
> available commercially then they may be sued by the IOC under the terms of 
> that contract. The issue isn't about copyright but about the contractual 
> agreement and personal liability between the photographer and the IOC.
> 

This is a contract with the ticket fine print. But I don't see how that 
contract could actually bind the photographs. Certainly it prevents you, the 
contractually bound ticket holder, from using media you produced under this 
contract in a commercial manner.  However the IOC cannot possibly extend the 
contract beyond the ticket-holder. Nor force the ticket holder to police 
third-parties.  Let's run a few possibilities:

Ticket-holder (TH) places own-work photo on FaceBook.  It goes viral across the 
Internet and is eventually posters of the photo are found in the marketplace.  
IOC wishes to end poster sales.  Your position that this the contract must be 
effective against third parties would mean that if TH fails to hire a lawyer 
and vigorously enforce their copyrights; then they have broken the terms of the 
contract with IOC and are liable for damages. This is not how contracts work.  
If TH does not choose to enforce their copyrights then IOC can do nothing.

TH has a great photo, their sister owns a bookstore. TH informally licenses the 
photo to Sis to use in advertising.  The IOC does not even have the standing to 
discover if Sis has a license to use the photo or is instead infringing on the 
creator's copyright.  Only the copyright holder has standing contest the use of 
their work.  IOC can do nothing.

TH dies. Daughter inherits copyrights and sells photos taken at last month's 
Olympics. IOC can do nothing.

TH donates the full copyrights on all photos they created at the Games to a 
non-profit organization on the condition that their identity is not revealed. 
The non-profit, now copyright holder, licenses the entire collection CC-SA. IOC 
can do nothing.

The only reason the IOC was even able to make the empty threats it did about 
the Usain Bolt photo is that the photographer and licensing were all easily 
tracked down on Commons.  This issue (limits of contract law vs. copyright law) 
has been well hashed over in the past. The IOC cannot do what it seems to claim 
on this issue. I have actually dug around for the links to  past discussions of 
"contracts for access used in attempt to control copyright", but sadly no luck. 
(I did however find useful links on three other issues sitting at the back of 
my mind!) 

Really the IOC, whatever it wishes, cannot control the licensing, much less the 
actual usage, of photo taken at the Olympics. It has no right to do so, not 
under copyright, not under contract law.  It can in a very limited way exert 
control over individuals who voluntarily entered into binding contracts *with 
the IOC*. It cannot exert control over the photographs themselves nor any other 
individuals. The IOC has shown a willingness to harass and threaten people into 
a level of compliance that it has no right to demand. We can offer a shield 
from harassment to photographers, if any exist, who would like to offer their 
work to the common cultural landscape without being credited. Through 
pseudo-anonymity we can offer photographers a way to attribute their works to 
an account that cannot be identified today but can be repatriated tomorrow when 
the heat has cooled off. However, we probably should refrain from encouraging 
easily identified Flickr users to relicense their work in a way we now know 
will likely bring the IOC to their doorstep.

Birgitte SB



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

[Birgitte_sb]

On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:33 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Ray Saintonge  wrote:
> 
>> On 07/25/12 12:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> So there were how many years of faffing about before they hired *one guy*
>>> for this project? This is an organisation with a $20m annual budget, now
>>> acquiring umpteen paid chapter officials.
>>> 
>>> The "paid chapter officials" are employees of the chapters themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> The money comes from the same pot, as you know. The chapters are funded
> from the same donations as the Foundation.
> 
> 
> 
>> The best way to bring hostility against your own pet projects is by being
>> hostile towards the projects of others. What makes one project more
>> deserving than another.
> 
> 
> 
> Simplistically, chapters are marketing, while programmers and designers are
> product development. Marketing is important, but not more so than product
> development. To be fair, the Foundation is hiring product development
> staff, and it's not a choice of either/or.
> 
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings
> 

You must live in a very simplistic world, but I am afraid it does resemble 
reality very well. Here are how some various types of things and people are 
funded. Tool server=chapter. Developers= Mostly WMF but some chapter. Marketing 
professionals=WMF but no chapter I am aware of. Legal professionals=WMF and 
chapter.  Administration of fundraising campaign=WMF and chapters. You will not 
find any bright lines in reality.

Birgitte SB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Geolocalization improvement proposal

[Birgitte_sb]

On Jul 24, 2012, at 11:14 AM, Cristian Consonni  wrote:

> 2012/7/24  :
>> [...] So I definitely believe what it.WM wants to do, to connect people with 
>> local events, has real value. And that it has value for the individual 
>> people just as much as for it.WM.
> 
> strong +1.
> 
>> The main question is whether the benefit from being able to connect people 
>> with local events is worth the risk of collecting more personalized of their 
>> data than we are accustomed to handling.
> 
> I could be wrong but I don't think we would "handle more data" than
> what we are doing now. We are not going to use that data and as far as
> I know that data "dies" in the moment the system has output the
> message.

Maybe this is the area that needs more study. And I am probably the wrong 
person to try and even formulate technical questions, but is there a way to 
make use of this data without storing it? Without even knowing who recieved 
what personalized messages, unless, of course,they choose to respond?  There is 
still the "creep" factor, in that readers of the messages will not necessarily 
know that it was all handled blindly. However it should technically preserve 
the reader's privacy, if no person nor computer can recall what messages any 
person was presented with. And if an FAQ is well-linked, anyone who under the 
misperception that it was handled invasively can learn how serious we are about 
the subject.

If such a thing is even possible I suppoose it becomes a sort of philosophical 
question. If no one nor computer can know whether or not you recieved a 
personally targeted message is the targeting invasive of your privacy?

Birgitte SB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Geolocalization improvement proposal

[Birgitte_sb]

On Jul 23, 2012, at 12:48 PM, "Federico Leva (Nemo)"  wrote:

> birgitte...@yahoo.com, 23/07/2012 19:27:
>> On Jul 23, 2012, at 7:42 AM, "Federico Leva (Nemo)" wrote:
>> 
>>> birgitte...@yahoo.com, 23/07/2012 14:28:
 I am unaware of what the shortcomings of the current system are and where 
 any improvements would be felt. This makes it a bit hard to have a firm 
 opinion of the trade-offs involved with changing the system. So what 
 exactly are the problems people are having with the current geolocation 
 system?
>>> 
>>> As the page tries to prove, looks like the current system is completely 
>>> unreliable and therefore useless for most geonotices in Italy and probably 
>>> other places.
>> 
>> I think it would be useful to have a wider study of the accuracy of the 
>> current system. Privacy issues are always a concern.  I am not certain I 
>> could support gathering more exact information on users who are well-served 
>> by the current system. It would be more supportable, I think, if there were 
>> a way to turn on the browser-based system only for those who are in areas 
>> that are known to be poorly served by the current system. Or if you were to 
>> ask those who geolocate to known ambiguous areas to opt-in to browser-based 
>> geolocation. There is obviously a benefit for some people, but a cost to 
>> everyone if we were to switch wholesale. Further study to determine exactly 
>> how widespread and how significant the benefit would be is something that I 
>> think might be useful.
> 
> What if the new system happened e.g. to be needed for geonotices (to 
> distinguish regions within a country) but not fundraising (which so far cares 
> only about country, for currency/language/payment/legal purposes)?


I already was thinking it was as you said. I can't see why I would feel any 
different about using it for fundraising purposes, and I think we already use 
the separate browser data rather than geolocation to identify language. If 
anything I might be inclined to think a person would find it more desirable to 
know it.WM is hosting an event in their city, than to learn that their money is 
wanted in more targeted way. Not to put down fundraising, but I think people 
really like to know about local events. I certainly enjoy these notices. Maybe 
big city folk are too jaded to feel this way, but imagine that many other 
people must enjoy this too. I know whenever I see a local event mentioned on 
some big website, I always think of Judy Garland (if you have ever seen the 
movie "Meet Me in St. Louis") saying, "I can't believe it. Right here were we 
live - right here in St. Louis!" I don't get that magical feeling from 
fundraisers! So I definitely believe what it.WM wants to do, to connect people 
with local events, has real value. And that it has value for the individual 
people just as much as for it.WM.

The main question is whether the benefit from being able to connect people with 
local events is worth the risk of collecting more personalized of their data 
than we are accustomed to handling.  Maybe the benefit does win out for many 
people in Italy (I don't really understand enough about what degree of 
improvement you are anticipating to have a firm opinion). But it is certainly 
not worth the risk for people in areas that do not notice problems with the 
current system. This is why I am suggesting that the browser feature might only 
be limited to areas that are known to reach some pre-defined level of error 
under geolocation. Or else that it be made an opt-in feature (perhaps even 
advertised through the current geonotice in areas that are known to be a 
problem).  However I don't believe that gathering more browser data for 
everyone everywhere is a likely to be good overall solution.

Birgitte SB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Geolocalization improvement proposal

[Birgitte_sb]

Somehow this only replied to Nemo



Begin forwarded message:

> From: birgitte...@yahoo.com
> Date: July 23, 2012 12:27:56 PM CDT
> To: "Federico Leva (Nemo)" 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Geolocalization improvement proposal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 23, 2012, at 7:42 AM, "Federico Leva (Nemo)"  
> wrote:
> 
>> birgitte...@yahoo.com, 23/07/2012 14:28:
>>> I am unaware of what the shortcomings of the current system are and where 
>>> any improvements would be felt. This makes it a bit hard to have a firm 
>>> opinion of the trade-offs involved with changing the system. So what 
>>> exactly are the problems people are having with the current geolocation 
>>> system?
>> 
>> As the page tries to prove, looks like the current system is completely 
>> unreliable and therefore useless for most geonotices in Italy and probably 
>> other places.
> 
> I think it would be useful to have a wider study of the accuracy of the 
> current system. Privacy issues are always a concern.  I am not certain I 
> could support gathering more exact information on users who are well-served 
> by the current system. It would be more supportable, I think, if there were a 
> way to turn on the browser-based system only for those who are in areas that 
> are known to be poorly served by the current system. Or if you were to ask 
> those who geolocate to known ambiguous areas to opt-in to browser-based 
> geolocation. There is obviously a benefit for some people, but a cost to 
> everyone if we were to switch wholesale. Further study to determine exactly 
> how widespread and how significant the benefit would be is something that I 
> think might be useful.
> 
> Birgitte SB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Geolocalization improvement proposal

[Birgitte_sb]

On Jul 23, 2012, at 5:32 AM, Cristian Consonni  wrote:

> 2012/7/18 Cristian Consonni :
>> I know that the feature may be perceived as invasive so I would like
>> that as many people as possible share their opinion on this and I hope
>> that we can anyway start a discussion that will lead to an improved
>> geolocalization system, whichever we found appropriate.
> 
> I am sorry to insist on this issue but having received almost no
> answers in the past week I fear that I was not clear in my request.
> But I indeed have some questions, so I restate them here:
> * Using browser localization capabilities may be perceived as
> invasive. Would you like to use browser localization tool in
> Wikipedia? (yes/no, why?)
> * Do you think the trade-off between bothering user asking to send
> position information and potential benefits (more accurately localized
> messages) is worth?
> * Are you happy with the current system ?
> * Do you think a deeper study of the issue (i.e. a new survey,
> conducted on a broader sample and in a more scientifically precise
> way) would be useful or would help you make a more informed decision?
> * Have you any further proposal for the use of the system?
> 
> Thank you, please also use the discussion page of
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Geonotice#Open_questions_.28feedback_welcome.29
> for comments.
> 

I am unaware of what the shortcomings of the current system are and where any 
improvements would be felt. This makes it a bit hard to have a firm opinion of 
the trade-offs involved with changing the system. So what exactly are the 
problems people are having with the current geolocation system?

Birgitte SB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

[Birgitte_sb]

The most basic answer (someone form WMF can correct me if I am somehow misled 
here) is that the logos are not released under a free license because they are 
trademarks.

It seems very harsh, to someone who finds this answer good enough, when you ask 
again in the way you did. It a debatable point, not an obvious one. None of us 
who feel either way about this are missing the point, we simply do not agree 
about an issue that does not have a perfect solution. I would not be happy if 
they were released under a license that was misleading about the their true 
availability for reuse. You are not happy that they are in their a category 
apart that is disallowed for non-WMF owned trademarks. We can never both be 
happy. You think having all the labels brought into line throughout the project 
is more important than case-by-case usefulness. I think what works best for 
each case in practice is more important than whatever labels are applied. There 
is no way to satisfy both of our concerns equally. 

In this case, the practical concern won out over the idealistic one. Other 
situations have turned out otherwise, leaving me the one who is less happy. You 
mentioned, for one example, the freely-licensed images lacking personality 
releases which for practical purposes cannot be re-used but are categorized 
with the standard labels as though they for re-use. I respect that you have 
different priorities than I do and am happy for us both to explain our most 
important concerns. I truly believe it is important to always respectfully hear 
out other points of view, even when I do not necessarily expect that there is a 
perfect solution. I very much like to understand as well as possible, even when 
I expect to disagree. But, please, explain to me why, once the arguments have 
been heard, do idealists like yourself tend to find it appropriate to continue 
again and again around the same wheel? This I have trouble respecting. This I 
do not understand at all.

Birgitte SB

On Jul 8, 2012, at 2:06 PM, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 
 wrote:

> As well as free photos of people, there is only the release of copyright, and
> no release of personality rights; we can make a logo under a free license, 
> with
> the trademark rights guaranteed.
> 
> Again why is not free?
> 
> -- 
> Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
> rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com
> +55 11 7971-8884
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

[Birgitte_sb]

That reasoning seems to be begging the question a bit. That we should not make 
an exception so that there will be no exceptions. I suggested some pragmatic 
reasons why making an exception for these trademarks more successfully 
communicates the message for reuse than not doing so. And also how an 
unsuccessful communication on this point could be harmful. You do not seem to 
argue that any of my reasoning is inaccurate. Do you really find these 
practical difficulties to be less important than a perfect record of having no 
exceptions? What purpose do you see in refusing to make an exception where it 
seems to make practical sense?

Something that can't be used in any context can have no possible purpose for a 
copyright release. So far as I imagine it, such a release would lead to 
unnecessary confusion (debatable only to what degree) while offering no 
practical benefit. I am not at all bothered by the fact that maintaining 
copyrights on trademarks is inconsistent with the copyrights maintained on 
non-trademarks. I believe consistency to only be a worthwhile goal so long as 
it tends to promote clarity, which, in this particular case, it does not. I do 
not find that consistency is inherently desirable.

Birgitte SB

On Jul 3, 2012, at 8:03 PM, Tobias Oelgarte  
wrote:

> We have special templates for this case which prominently inform the user 
> that the image is free due to reason XYZ but can't be used in any context due 
> to additional trademark restrictions.
> 
> This concept does not only apply to logos or trademarks, but also for public 
> domain cases. Commons hosts images which are public domain in some countries 
> (needs to include US) but not in other countries due to different copyright 
> laws. The same way some language Wikis host content that is free after local 
> law but not after US law. Another case are personal rights. For example the 
> German "Recht am eigenen Bild" is very restrictive and does not allow any 
> usage of a free image from any person.
> 
> What i mean is: We already have such restrictions for various images in our 
> collection and the re-user has to be careful to comply with all laws aside 
> the copyright law. Releasing the Logos under a free license and including a 
> template which mentions the restrictions would be common practice. Hosting 
> images with no free license is actual exception.
> 
> Am 04.07.2012 02:16, schrieb birgitte...@yahoo.com:
>> I can't disagree with your understanding  of the different IP laws, however 
>> this not a very commonly understood nuance.  Many people, when seeing the 
>> logo listed as "free" regarding copyright, will assume they can use it the 
>> same as any other copyleft or PD image.  They will not necessarily 
>> understand that trademark protections will interfere with their actually 
>> being able to use the symbol as an image. People who mistakenly use the 
>> symbol, and receive the required lawyerly letter to stop this, will feel 
>> betrayed by the fact it was listed as "free" of copyright.  However strictly 
>> accurate the plan to treat the two areas of IP law separately might be, it 
>> cannot be executed very well. Those people, misled by their poor 
>> understanding of how these separate areas of laws achieve very similar 
>> results, will feel burned. Their goodwill will be lost. They may even become 
>> convinced they had been intentionally tricked with mixed messages.
>> 
>> It much more pragmatic to simply reserve the copyright on trademarks. To 
>> maintain a consistent message of "Do not use."
>> 
>> Birgitte SB
>> 
>> On Jul 3, 2012, at 6:06 PM, Tobias Oelgarte  
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> You will have to split between trademark laws and copyright laws. Both 
>>> concepts exist separately from each other. There are a lot of logos that 
>>> are not copyright protected. For example very simple text logos, depending 
>>> on country even more complex logos that don't reach the needed threshold of 
>>> originality or even works that are by now in public domain. Still this 
>>> logos and it's use is restricted due to trademark laws. So i don't see a 
>>> true reason why the Wikipedia logos should not be licensed freely, while 
>>> trademark laws still apply and we promote free content at the same time.
>>> 
>>> Am 04.07.2012 00:06, schrieb Ilario Valdelli:
 Again, the logo is a symbol, it's not an image.
 
 I don't agree with your concept because you can move the Commons content 
 in another website also commercial.
 
 So you should split content and repository. The content may be free, the 
 repository may be not free.
 
 Following your concept if a newspaper would use the Commons content, it 
 should release under free license his website, his logo, his content.
 
 
 
 On 03.07.2012 23:47, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
> I don't know how it is handled after US law, but if i consider German law 
> then logos and trademarks are often even in the public domain

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

[Birgitte_sb]

I can't disagree with your understanding  of the different IP laws, however 
this not a very commonly understood nuance.  Many people, when seeing the logo 
listed as "free" regarding copyright, will assume they can use it the same as 
any other copyleft or PD image.  They will not necessarily understand that 
trademark protections will interfere with their actually being able to use the 
symbol as an image. People who mistakenly use the symbol, and receive the 
required lawyerly letter to stop this, will feel betrayed by the fact it was 
listed as "free" of copyright.  However strictly accurate the plan to treat the 
two areas of IP law separately might be, it cannot be executed very well. Those 
people, misled by their poor understanding of how these separate areas of laws 
achieve very similar results, will feel burned. Their goodwill will be lost. 
They may even become convinced they had been intentionally tricked with mixed 
messages. 

It much more pragmatic to simply reserve the copyright on trademarks. To 
maintain a consistent message of "Do not use." 

Birgitte SB

On Jul 3, 2012, at 6:06 PM, Tobias Oelgarte  
wrote:

> You will have to split between trademark laws and copyright laws. Both 
> concepts exist separately from each other. There are a lot of logos that are 
> not copyright protected. For example very simple text logos, depending on 
> country even more complex logos that don't reach the needed threshold of 
> originality or even works that are by now in public domain. Still this logos 
> and it's use is restricted due to trademark laws. So i don't see a true 
> reason why the Wikipedia logos should not be licensed freely, while trademark 
> laws still apply and we promote free content at the same time.
> 
> Am 04.07.2012 00:06, schrieb Ilario Valdelli:
>> Again, the logo is a symbol, it's not an image.
>> 
>> I don't agree with your concept because you can move the Commons content in 
>> another website also commercial.
>> 
>> So you should split content and repository. The content may be free, the 
>> repository may be not free.
>> 
>> Following your concept if a newspaper would use the Commons content, it 
>> should release under free license his website, his logo, his content.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 03.07.2012 23:47, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
>>> I don't know how it is handled after US law, but if i consider German law 
>>> then logos and trademarks are often even in the public domain, but 
>>> protected as a trademark itself. But i also think that our logo is 
>>> something to protect while being free at the same time. If we go strictly 
>>> after the policies the logos aren't free and should be deleted (especially 
>>> with Commons in mind, because it is violation of the policies ;-) ). This 
>>> is somehow contradictory to the mission itself. So i can understand the 
>>> point that Rodrigo put up as well.
>>> 
>>> Am 03.07.2012 23:37, schrieb Ilario Valdelli:
 A mark is not a simple image.
 
 A mark it's a symbol.
 
 On 03.07.2012 23:32, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote:
> So in your view, free images can be harmful? So why would I release a
> picture?
> 
> And you're telling me is more important to believe in the logo, instead of
> checking the validity of what you are consuming? But we do not talk to our
> volunteers always check the sources and not to believe blindly in a single
> source?
> 
 
 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

[Birgitte_sb]

No  that is not a fair characterization. Risker explained that these things are 
handled by each project, not hide her true intentions toward your campaign, but 
because it ii the way things are.  And it is not at all particular to CU 
issues. What really "reeks of obfuscation" is using words and phrasing that 
requires native level English skills to campaign for a policy that you wish to 
impose on the Tosk Albanian, and all other, projects.

Self-governing communities work for the most part.  Which is more than can be 
said about the alternatives, and there are ghost wikis all over the Internet to 
prove the point.

BirgitteSB


On Jun 13, 2012, at 8:30 PM, John  wrote:

> Risker comment was basically "lets not set a global accountability and
> ability to get CU related logs of our self on a global level, instead take
> it to each project and fight it out there" to me that reeks of obfuscation.
> Realistically this should be a global policy, just like our privacy policy
> is. Why shouldnt users know when they have been checkusered and why?
> 
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation <
> pbeaude...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> 
>> I dunno, John, you almost had me convinced until that email. I saw in that
>> mail a reasonable comment from Risker based on long time precedent.
>> 
>> As you may know, there are a number of checks and balances in place.
>> First, the CUs watch each other. With a broad group, you can be assured
>> they don't all always agree and there is healthy debate and dialogue.
>> Second, enwp has an audit subcommittee that routinely audits the logs with
>> a fine toothed comb.  They are NOT all previous checkusers, to avoid the
>> sort of groupthink that appears to concern you. Then, the WMF has an
>> ombudsman commission, which also may audit with commission from the Board.
>> Those people take their role very seriously. And last, anyone with genuine
>> privacy concerns can contact the WMF:  me, Maggie, anyone in the legal or
>> community advocacy department.
>> 
>> Is it an iron clad assurance of no misbehavior?  Probably not, and we will
>> continue to get better at it: but I will say that in 3 years of being
>> pretty closely involved with that team, I'm impressed with how much they
>> err on the side of protection of privacy. I have a window into their world,
>> and they have my respect.
>> 
>> Best, PB
>> ---
>> Philippe Beaudette
>> Director, Community Advocacy
>> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: John 
>> Sender: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 21:17:09
>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
>> Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness
>> 
>> Yet another attempt from a checkuser to make monitoring their actions and
>> ensuring our privacy more difficult.
>> 
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Risker  wrote:
>> 
>>> Each project has its own standards and thresholds for when checkusers may
>>> be done, provided that they are within the limits of the privacy policy.
>>> These standards vary widely.  So, the correct place to discuss this is on
>>> each project.
>>> 
>>> Risker
>>> 
>>> On 13 June 2012 21:02, Thomas Dalton  wrote:
>>> 
 Why shouldn't spambots and vandals be notified? Just have the software
 automatically email anyone that is CUed. Then the threshold is simply
 whether you have an email address attached to your account or not.
 
 This seems like a good idea. People have a right to know what is being
>>> done
 with their data.
 On Jun 14, 2012 12:35 AM, "Risker"  wrote:
 
> On 13 June 2012 19:18, John  wrote:
> 
>> This is something that has been bugging me for a while. When a user
>>> has
>> been checkusered they should at least be notified of who preformed
>> it
 and
>> why it was preformed. I know this is not viable for every single CU
> action
>> as many are for anons. But for those users who have been around
>> for a
>> period, (say autoconfirmed) they should be notified when they are
>>> CU'ed
> and
>> any user should be able to request the CU logs pertaining to
>>> themselves
>> (who CU'ed them, when, and why) at will. I have seen CU's refuse to
> provide
>> information to the accused.
>> 
>> See the Rich Farmbrough ArbCom case where I suspect obvious
>> fishing,
> where
>> the CU'ed user was requesting information and the CU claimed it
>> would
 be
> a
>> violation of the privacy policy to release the
>> time/reason/performer
>>> of
> the
>> checkuser.
>> 
>> This screams of obfuscation and the hiding of information. I know
>> the
>> ombudsman committee exists as a check and balance, however before
> something
>> can be passed to them evidence of inappropriate action is needed.
>>> Ergo
>> Catch-22
>> 
>> I kn

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

[Birgitte_sb]

Here is the log, from my home wiki, as you requested:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ws:an#Checkuser_notification

As others have said this is a community dependent issue.  The wikis are 
self-governing and some govern with (largely) publicly transparent logs 
available (I am not a CU and honestly can't recall what the exception to 
logging might be at en.WS, but I think there is some provision for CU to make a 
judgement call) and some govern themselves by not making any logs available in 
public.  I believe there are probably even communities that are 100% 
transparent. I can't remember who it was that wouldn't allow their CUs to join 
the interchange CU private list, maybe one of the French wikis?

This, like most things, is an issue were you would need to develop community 
consensus to change how we are governing ourselves.  Since you do not say which 
wiki you are concerned with, it is safe to assume you mean to accuse en.WP of 
poor standards of practice wrt CU transparency.  You can only resolve this on 
en.WP, not here. However much you might or might not find agreement here on 
best practices, the mailing list doesn't govern en.WP.

BirgitteSB


On Jun 13, 2012, at 8:58 PM, John  wrote:

> I am not asking for checkuser results, rather the basic logs about
> when/why/who may have checkusered the account. I am not asking CUs to
> release IP/user-agent/other info, but to let users know that they are being
> CUed, by whom and why. and to be able to request that historical
> information from the CU logs
> 
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:54 PM, James Alexander wrote:
> 
>> To be honest the biggest problem is that releasing this information can
>> hurt quite a lot. It can give away the techniques the checkuser (or
>> checkusers, more then one working together is very common to make sure
>> they're right) used to draw the connections. This is especially true for
>> technical information where it can easily give away 'tell-tale' signs used
>> as part of the determination.
>> 
>> Almost every time I've ever seen the information demanded it was quite
>> clear (usually even with out any type of technical information) that the
>> user was guilty as charged and now they just wanted one of those two
>> things: A target (the CU) or the information (to find out where they went
>> wrong).
>> 
>> Yes, if a horrible checkuser was checking you you wouldn't know instantly
>> but that's why we have so many checks and balances. Giving all of this
>> information to everyone, especially automatically, would make it almost
>> infinitely harder for checkusers to do their job.
>> 
>> James
>> 
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:30 PM, John  wrote:
>> 
>>> Risker comment was basically "lets not set a global accountability and
>>> ability to get CU related logs of our self on a global level, instead
>> take
>>> it to each project and fight it out there" to me that reeks of
>> obfuscation.
>>> Realistically this should be a global policy, just like our privacy
>> policy
>>> is. Why shouldnt users know when they have been checkusered and why?
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia
>> Foundation <
>>> pbeaude...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>> 
 I dunno, John, you almost had me convinced until that email. I saw in
>>> that
 mail a reasonable comment from Risker based on long time precedent.
 
 As you may know, there are a number of checks and balances in place.
 First, the CUs watch each other. With a broad group, you can be assured
 they don't all always agree and there is healthy debate and dialogue.
 Second, enwp has an audit subcommittee that routinely audits the logs
>>> with
 a fine toothed comb.  They are NOT all previous checkusers, to avoid
>> the
 sort of groupthink that appears to concern you. Then, the WMF has an
 ombudsman commission, which also may audit with commission from the
>>> Board.
 Those people take their role very seriously. And last, anyone with
>>> genuine
 privacy concerns can contact the WMF:  me, Maggie, anyone in the legal
>> or
 community advocacy department.
 
 Is it an iron clad assurance of no misbehavior?  Probably not, and we
>>> will
 continue to get better at it: but I will say that in 3 years of being
 pretty closely involved with that team, I'm impressed with how much
>> they
 err on the side of protection of privacy. I have a window into their
>>> world,
 and they have my respect.
 
 Best, PB
 ---
 Philippe Beaudette
 Director, Community Advocacy
 Wikimedia Foundation, Inc
 
 
 Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
 
 -Original Message-
 From: John 
 Sender: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 21:17:09
 To: Wikimedia Mailing List
 Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness
 
 Yet another attempt from a checkuser to make monitor

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

[Birgitte_sb]

On Jun 2, 2012, at 5:06 AM, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> Moving towards full IPv6 support is part of our responsibility as a
> good Internet citizen, and this has been in the works for a long time.
> It's never been an option not to do this as IPv4 addresses are being
> exhausted.
> 
> 

This is the relavent point.  For what it is worth I, who am less inclined to 
follow technical discussions than other kinds, remember that there was enough 
talk about approaching IPv6 day last year to feel it was settled that WMF was 
unprepared to participate at that time would make it happen in 2012.  It was 
either here or on wikitech-l.

I am not sure how someone who has strong opinions on the subject would be left 
unable to follow this when I followed with no such interest.  Moe importantly, 
I don't understand what exactly the objectors see as a better option.  No one 
will fix the scripts until they are broken, it is just the nature of the beast. 
 It seems the whole point of IPv6 day is that no one is very confident about 
level of breakage of things with IPv6 and no one will be able to gain this 
confidence until a significant number of sites turn it on and there is not 
another choice on the matter. Objecting to turning on IPv6 because things will 
break does not seem to be very informed. This is the point. If anyone doesn't 
trust that WMF will only make a day of it if the breakage is unmanageable, then 
they've bigger issues than IPv6.  And even still, the sun will rise and we will 
have a few less IPv4 addresses everyday; there are much better battles to pick.

Birgitte SB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Updated Terms of Use

[Birgitte_sb]

On May 3, 2012, at 9:03 AM, Nathan  wrote:

> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) 
> wrote:
> 
>> birgitte...@yahoo.com, 03/05/2012 14:17:
>> 
>> Encouraging people outside the US to live as though they live inside it,
>>> is neither wise nor ethical.
>>> 
>> 
>> On the other hand, this is what happens (o could have happened) in other
>> parts of the Terms of use which apply to /users/ (not their contributions)
>> the USA laws where they're more restrictive. The whole section "Refraining
>> from Certain Activities" has this problem, which is very hard to avoid
>> given that nobody really knows what the "applicable law" is. There was a
>> lot of work on this part as well, I'm not able to judge the results.
>> Both problems originate from the decision to enforce via a private
>> contract the state laws (privatization of justice or statement of the
>> obvious? I don't know). The old ToU left everything implicit (or were
>> reticent, depending on how you see it).
>> 
>> Nemo
>> 
> 
> It only makes sense to be somewhat explicit about the laws that apply,
> since they apply regardless of their presence in the ToU.
> 

Not only does it make sense; but I also strongly believe that choosing 
ambiguity in order to preserve plausible deniability can never be the ethical 
choice.  

We all are aware that users of the wikis are placing themselves at risk by 
participating. That there risk in just reading.  This awareness is at the root 
of data retention, data sharing, and the privacy effects of new features being 
a perennial topic of conversation.  To purposefully choose to neglect to share 
this awareness with the full range of users reading the terms of use, an 
audience much larger than this mailing list, cannot be ethical. 

Perhaps some strong idealists would feel more comfortable if these unpleasant 
facts of reality were instead "made" implicit. If WMF's name were not signed in 
acknowledgement of these unpleasant realities. But I firmly believe that there 
is a much stronger obligation toward the flesh-and-blood users who are living 
in the world as it is, than toward any ideal of the perfect world that is not. 
But then again, I am no idealist.

Birgitte SB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Updated Terms of Use

[Birgitte_sb]

On May 3, 2012, at 7:17 AM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> 
> On May 1, 2012, at 1:38 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen  
> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Nathan  wrote:
>>> Richard, you removed some relevant language:
>>> 
>>> "Certain activities, whether legal or illegal, may be harmful to other
>>> users and violate our rules, and some activities may also subject you to
>>> liability. Therefore, for your own protection and for that of other users, 
>>> *you
>>> may not engage in such activities on our sites*. These activities include:
>>> [..] Using the services in a manner that is inconsistent with applicable
>>> law."
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I think that expecting the ToS to condone violations of laws that are in
>>> some way "anti-freedom" is unrealistic. It seems like it would be difficult
>>> to craft language to do that well.
>>> 
>>> ~Nathan
>> 
>> Would you like an opportunity to phrase that language in a sense that does
>> not suggest Wikimedia is in support of laws that are "anti-freedom"?
>> 
>> -- 
>> --
>> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
>> 
>> 
> 
> It seems to be that the point of this section is that WMF does not condone 
> users to use the sites in a fashion which breaks their local laws; therefore 
> WMF itself may not be procesuted for conspiracy nor will WMF be liable 
> civilly to users who were prosecuted locally and wish to recieve 
> compensation.  If the WMF did not disavow an intention to promote locally 
> illegal things (like Germans printing Swatika images found on Commons), they 
> would be open to liability that would result money going to lawyers.  Really 
> very, very few countries have a right to free speech as strong as the US, 
> including countries were WMF actually has significant assets.  China is not 
> the issue here. Encouraging people outside the US to live as though they live 
> inside it, is neither wise nor ethical.
> 
> 

Which is all slightly different from WMF actually making technically impossible 
to circumvent local anti-freedom laws. 

BirgitteSB


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Updated Terms of Use

[Birgitte_sb]

On May 1, 2012, at 1:38 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen  wrote:

> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Nathan  wrote:
>> Richard, you removed some relevant language:
>> 
>> "Certain activities, whether legal or illegal, may be harmful to other
>> users and violate our rules, and some activities may also subject you to
>> liability. Therefore, for your own protection and for that of other users, 
>> *you
>> may not engage in such activities on our sites*. These activities include:
>> [..] Using the services in a manner that is inconsistent with applicable
>> law."
>> 
>> 
>> I think that expecting the ToS to condone violations of laws that are in
>> some way "anti-freedom" is unrealistic. It seems like it would be difficult
>> to craft language to do that well.
>> 
>> ~Nathan
> 
> Would you like an opportunity to phrase that language in a sense that does
> not suggest Wikimedia is in support of laws that are "anti-freedom"?
> 
> -- 
> --
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
> 
> 

It seems to be that the point of this section is that WMF does not condone 
users to use the sites in a fashion which breaks their local laws; therefore 
WMF itself may not be procesuted for conspiracy nor will WMF be liable civilly 
to users who were prosecuted locally and wish to recieve compensation.  If the 
WMF did not disavow an intention to promote locally illegal things (like 
Germans printing Swatika images found on Commons), they would be open to 
liability that would result money going to lawyers.  Really very, very few 
countries have a right to free speech as strong as the US, including countries 
were WMF actually has significant assets.  China is not the issue here. 
Encouraging people outside the US to live as though they live inside it, is 
neither wise nor ethical.

BirgitteSB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Updated Terms of Use

[Birgitte_sb]

On Apr 27, 2012, at 12:49 AM, Andrew Garrett  wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 2:26 AM, Philippe Beaudette
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi everyone,
>> 
>> As you may be aware, Wikimedia has updated its Terms of Use.  This updated
>> version will become effective on May 25, 2012, and can be reviewed
>> here.[1]
>> A short overview of some of the changes is set out
>> here.
>> [2]
>> 
>> Best wishes,
>> Philippe
>> 
> 
> Terms of use are boring, and most of us are pretty jaded by how
> impenetrable, legalistic and, well, awful, most terms of use are on the
> internet.
> 
> I want to congratulate you and your department on NOT doing this. The new
> terms of use are written in clear English, well set out, and cover what
> seem to be the appropriate bases without being overly verbose and cautious.
> 
> Well done, Philippe, Geoff, and everyone else.
> 
> 

I am also impressed. It actually ends up being the best one piece introduction 
to what Wikimedia *is* that I have ever read.  A lot of thought and 
consideration were soundly invested in that document. Clarity on that level is 
HARD, but well worth the effort. I also am thinking that the staff have just 
set a rather high bar for the board. Imagine if all board resolutions were 
written with as just as much focus on clarity and as on circumspection. These 
terms of use show it is possible.

Birgitte SB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l