Re: [Wikimedia-l] June 4 1800 Maggie Dennis office hour (with a twist)

2020-05-30 Thread Newyorkbrad
Every time I see the title of this thread, I momentarily wonder why this
event is being held 220 years ago.

Newyorkbrad/IBM

On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 5:37 AM Rajeeb Dutta  wrote:

> Thank you, Maggie for the kind update, I am looking forward to it.
>
> Best Regards,
> Rajeeb Dutta.
> (U: Marajozkee)
> (Sent from my iPhone pardon the brevity)
>
> > On 30-May-2020, at 2:53 PM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the link, Ciell, I easily get confused about time zones.
> > I am looking forward to attend on June 4th, if it is possible for me.
> > Kind regards
> > Ziko
> >
> >> Am Fr., 29. Mai 2020 um 20:20 Uhr schrieb Ciell Wikipedia <
> >> ciell.wikipe...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> This will be very interesting, thank you Maggie.
> >> (To check your local time for this office hour: click here
> >> <
> >>
> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Maggie+Dennis+office+hour+%28with+a+twist%29=20200604T18=1440=1
> >>> )
> >>
> >>
> >> Vriendelijke groet,
> >> Ciell
> >>
> >>
> >> Op do 28 mei 2020 om 14:03 schreef Maggie Dennis  >:
> >>
> >>> Hello, all.
> >>>
> >>> With the Board’s recent statement, this seems like a good time to
> launch
> >>> the quarterly office hours I’ve been wanting to create for people who
> >> want
> >>> to talk to me about issues involving “community resilience and
> >>> sustainability,” including the work of Trust & Safety, whom I oversee.
> >>> (after months of wanting to do this I’ve come to realize that I will
> >> always
> >>> be "too busy" to feel like it's the perfect time for this. So I’m going
> >> to
> >>> do it now anyway!)
> >>>
> >>> There’ve been requests to make office hours more personal, so I will
> >> host a
> >>> Zoom hangout where people can join me, but I'll also take questions
> from
> >>> Telegram and IRC.[1] I know that finding an hour that works for
> everybody
> >>> is not going to happen, and I know from past office hours I’ve been
> >>> involved in that I may get far more questions than I can answer (or,
> >>> contrarily, nothing at all :)). Nevertheless, I will do my best to
> answer
> >>> questions posed to me in that hour by Wikimedians in good standing (not
> >>> Foundation or community banned) and to follow up in writing with any I
> >>> don’t have time for over the next few days or week or so, time
> allowing.
> >> I
> >>> might aggregate similar questions into a kind of FAQ. We’ll publish
> >> notes,
> >>> anonymizing those who’ve asked questions, after.
> >>>
> >>> I do, however, have the following caveats:
> >>>
> >>>   -
> >>>
> >>>   I can’t and won’t discuss specific Trust & Safety cases. Instead, I
> >> can
> >>>   discuss Trust & Safety protocols and practices and approaches as well
> >> as
> >>>   some of the mistakes we’ve made, some of the things I’m proud of, and
> >>> some
> >>>   of the things we’re hoping to do.
> >>>   -
> >>>
> >>>   I will not respond to comments or questions that are disrespectful to
> >>>   me, to my colleagues, or to anyone in our communities. I can talk
> >>> civilly
> >>>   about our work even if you disagree with me or I disagree with you. I
> >>> won’t
> >>>   compromise on this.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I’m not sure if I will stick with Zoom as the way I do office hours
> >>> forever, but I am responding to some requests for spoken interaction
> >> while
> >>> also trying to provide text options for those who prefer. I admit to
> >> being
> >>> a little camera shy myself, so this is a challenge for me! If I
> embarrass
> >>> myself too badly, I may retreat to the safety of text in future.
> >>>
> >>> I was hoping to have the Zoom link already, but while that’s being
> >>> expedited by our office technology team, I don’t have it yet. I wanted
> to
> >>> give interested people notice as soon as I knew the time. I’ll follow
> up
> >>> with links again at least two hours in advance.
> >>>
> >>> The meeting will be on June 4th at 1800 UTC.
> >>>
> >>> I hope to see you there.
> >>>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Face recognition

2020-01-19 Thread Newyorkbrad
This whole subject raises interesting and important legal and ethical
issues, but are there any direct implications at this time for
Wikipedia/Wikimedia projects?

Newyorkbrad/IBM



On Sunday, January 19, 2020, Ryan Merkley  wrote:

> I don't believe it implies that. As with many things legal, the answer re:
> derivatives is likely "it depends".
>
> R.
>
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 10:30 PM Benjamin Ikuta 
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Thanks for that.
> >
> > Pardon me if I've missed something, but that seems to imply, but not
> > directly state, that AI training is a derivative work; could you clarify
> > that?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jan 18, 2020, at 2:58 PM, Ryan Merkley 
> wrote:
> >
> > > [My comments are my own, and don’t reflect or suggest any official
> > position from WMF]
> > >
> > > The NBC story linked below come out about a year ago. Around the same
> > time, when I was CEO at Creative Commons, we published a statement and
> > updated FAQs that attempted to respond to questions being asked about
> > permitted uses and attribution related to the licenses.
> > >
> > > CC’s statement (March 2019) is here:
> > https://creativecommons.org/2019/03/13/statement-on-
> shared-images-in-facial-recognition-ai/
> > <
> > https://creativecommons.org/2019/03/13/statement-on-
> shared-images-in-facial-recognition-ai/
> > >
> > > The FAQs are here:
> > https://creativecommons.org/faq/#artificial-intelligence-and-cc-licenses
> <
> > https://creativecommons.org/faq/#artificial-intelligence-and-cc-licenses
> >
> > >
> > > r.
> > >
> > > _
> > >
> > > Ryan Merkley (he/him)
> > > Chief of Staff, Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/
> >
> > >
> > > rmerk...@wikimedia.org <mailto:rmerk...@wikimedia.org>
> > > @ryanmerkley <https://twitter.com/ryanmerkley>
> > > +1 416 802 0662
> > >
> > >> On Jan 18, 2020, at 2:14 PM, John Erling Blad 
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> There are several reports of face recognition going mainstream, often
> > >> in less than optimum circumstances, and often violating copyright and
> > >> licenses
> > >>
> > >>
> > https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/18/technology/clearview-
> privacy-facial-recognition.html
> > >>
> > https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/facial-recognition-s-
> dirty-little-secret-millions-online-photos-scraped-n981921
> > >> https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/01/diversity-in-faces/
> > >>
> > >> In my opinion building a model for face recognition is a derived work,
> > >> and as such must credit the photographers. That pose a real problem
> > >> when the photographers counts in the millions and billions. Even a 1px
> > >> fine print would be troublesome!
> > >>
> > >> What is the official stance on this? Is it a copyright infringement or
> > >> not, does the license(s) cover the case or not?
> > >>
> > >> John Erling Blad
> > >> /jeblad
> > >>
> > >> ___
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation supports legal challenge to new travel-related executive order

2017-03-15 Thread Newyorkbrad
Also of interest for those following these cases, today a majority of
the Ninth Circuit voted against an en banc rehearing regarding the
stay order in the State of Washington case.  The order and concurring
and dissenting opinions can be found at
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/03/15/17-35105%20en%20banc.pdf

Newyorkbrad/IBM


On 3/15/17, Michelle Paulson <mpaul...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I’m writing with a brief update; this afternoon, Judge Derrick K. Watson
> granted the temporary restraining order [1], blocking the executive order
> from enforcement nationwide. We are pleased with this result, and look
> forward to the next stages of the case, when the court will examine the
> order and its effects more thoroughly. We have updated the Foundation blog
> to reflect the hearing’s outcome [2].
>
> Best,
>
> Michelle Paulson
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13780#Hawaii
> [2]
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/03/15/amicus-brief-us-travel-restrictions/
>
> ==
> Michelle Paulson
> Interim General Counsel
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 149 New Montgomery Street, 6th Floor
> San Francisco, CA 94105
> mpaul...@wikimedia.org
> 415.839.6885 ext. 6608 (Office)
> 415.882.0495 (Fax)
>
> *NOTICE: This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
> have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
> mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation and for legal/ethical
> reasons, I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
> members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more
> on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.*
>
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Michelle Paulson <mpaul...@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Yesterday, the Wikimedia Foundation joined more than 50 other
>> organizations, including Electronic Arts, Pinterest, and Zendesk, in
>> signing an amicus brief[1] that was filed in State of Hawaii v. Trump,[2]
>> a challenge to the new immigration-related executive order issued in the
>> United States.[3] This order was issued following legal challenges to a
>> previous executive order that instituted restrictions on immigration and
>> travel based upon national origin.[4]
>>
>> The amicus brief was filed in support of an application for a temporary
>> restraining order,[5] which would prevent the executive order from going
>> into effect until legal challenges to its substance can be heard by a
>> court. It details how the order’s provisions would harm the operations of
>> the signatories, including the Wikimedia Foundation. As an organization
>> that collaborates across borders daily, with staff, contractors, and
>> members of the Wikimedia communities, these restrictions will hamper the
>> Foundation’s ability to work effectively in pursuit of our mission to make
>> free knowledge globally available.
>>
>> The Wikimedia Foundation continuously monitors events around the world
>> that may impact the Foundation’s ability to support the projects and
>> communities. When that capacity is threatened, as in the case of these
>> travel restrictions, we will take action to protect the future of the
>> projects, our mission, and our team's ability to serve both. This is not
>> about political ideology, it is about preservation. More about today’s
>> filing is available on the Wikimedia blog.[6]
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Michelle Paulson
>>
>> [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:Tech_Amici_
>> Curiae_Brief,_Hawaii_v._Trump,_3.14.17.pdf
>>
>> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13780#Hawaii
>>
>> [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13780
>>
>> [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769
>>
>> [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injunction
>>
>> [6] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/03/15/amicus-brief-us-
>> travel-restrictions/
>>
>> ==
>> Michelle Paulson
>> Interim General Counsel
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> 149 New Montgomery Street, 6th Floor
>> San Francisco, CA 94105
>> mpaul...@wikimedia.org
>> 415.839.6885 ext. 6608 <(415)%20839-6885> (Office)
>> 415.882.0495 <(415)%20882-0495> (Fax)
>>
>> *NOTICE: This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
>> have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
>> mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation and for legal/ethical
>> reasons, I cannot give legal advice to, or 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] MediaWiki project

2017-02-06 Thread Newyorkbrad
I suspect that this was posted not by OhNoItsJamie but by an imposter.

Newyorkbrad



On 2/6/17, OhNoitsJamie 1 <ohnoitsjami...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have been long interested in starting my own MediaWiki project, but the
> issue is that I cannot maintain server infrastructure myself. Also, most of
> the MediaWiki hosting services listed do not meet my requirements.
> Therefore, I was wondering if the WMF would consider starting a new project
> that I could be founder of. I'm open to a variety of topics, please let me
> know what you would prefer.
>
> Thank you for your time,
> Jamie
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Keeping historical documents related to Wikimedia

2017-01-11 Thread Newyorkbrad
If it is decided not to host these materials on a wiki, whether for
copyright or any other reasons, then someone (either in the Office or
a volunteer) should be designated to retain a copy privately.  That
way, he or she will be able to upload it later if the copyright status
or policy changes in the future, or to make it available offline for
research use or consultation by historians or other researchers who
could make good use of it.

Newyorkbrad/IBM

On 1/11/17, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you for bringing this up, Yann. Some relevant context is that Meta
> Wiki users considered permitting such files on Meta Wiki a year and a half
> ago, and decided not to. The electorate was not very big (14 votes, total),
> but it was carefully considered, with compelling arguments made on both
> sides.[1]
>
> In my opinion, the best outcome would be that Meta Wiki should have an
> Exemption Doctrine Policy (the board's name for a project's local policy
> that would permit copyrighted files under specific circumstances)[2] I
> think the Meta Wiki decision should be revisited and considered in more
> depth, with more participation, and probably reversed (with some careful
> work on defining the proper circumstances for an exemption).
>
> But of course, that's not an easy task. I have no ready answer, but am
> interested to see what ideas others have.
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Babel=prev=13362698#General_discussion_on_allowing_or_rejecting_fair_use_at_Meta
> [2] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Yann Forget <yan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to get more opinions about what to do with files such as
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Education_and_WGIG.pdf
>>
>> This is a draft from a United Nations conference which mentions Wikipedia
>> (the first and only AFAIK), and as such, an important historical document.
>>
>> It doesn't have a formal license, but there is no real copyright issue.
>>
>> Where and how should we keep such files?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Yann Forget
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

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

2016-12-20 Thread Newyorkbrad
I think it might be useful to focus on how any of the proposed changes
to the law would affect Wikipedia/Wikimedia specifically, apart from
the broader philosophical discussion.  Is there a good link for
exactly what changes to the safe harbor laws are being considered, as
opposed to the more general statement that there's a discussion of
scaling them back?

Thanks,
Newyorkbrad/IBM

On 12/20/16, Lilburne <lilbu...@tygers-of-wrath.net> wrote:
> The DMCA and safe harbours is certainly why Google makes so much and
> pays so little from YT. So much copyright violating material gets
> uploaded there they just sit back and say "If you want it taken down you
> either play whack-a-mole or you allow us to run ads next to it and pay
> you a fraction of what you'd get elsewhere and if you don't like the
> deal well we'll run ads against anyway, and BTW you need to license all
> your stuff for use on our paid service again at a fraction of that you'd
> get elsewhere." IOW Google use safe-harbour  and the DMCA as a form of
> protection racket.
>
> This isn't one user it is several 100 million of them.
>
> Google also know that most independent creators cannot afford to
> instigate a federal copyright case against some John Doe. WMF also knows
> that, which is why they still hold those stolen Macaque photos and
> taunted the photographer in London. The proposed copyright small claims
> court may fix some of those issues. Nevertheless contrary to fantasy
> most creators aren't looking to use copyright as a lottery ticket, they
> simply want the violations to stop, and that when a site is informed
> that X is not licensed, that X isn't republished on that same site again.
>
> This is 2016 and digital finger printing for images, music, and film is
> established technology. Major websites should no longer be able to hide
> behind a DMCA whack-a-Mole. So safe-harbour in the first instance, but
> once informed keep the stuff off the site, or lose the safe harbour.
>
> On 19/12/2016 21:37, Todd Allen wrote:
>> What you posted there regards contract terms between the artist and
>> Youtube. That's between them to fight out. If they don't like
>> Youtube's terms, they can take their stuff elsewhere.
>>
>> DMCA safe harbor has nothing to do with contracts. It means that, if
>> you run an interactive web site (essentially, anything where users are
>> allowed to post stuff), you can't be held liable if one of your users
>> posts copyrighted material. The user still can be, but you, as the
>> site operator, cannot.
>>
>> In exchange, you must provide a way that a copyright holder can
>> contact you, using a standard method, and tell you that they've found
>> material that infringes their copyright. You must then take that
>> material down (within a certain period, I think ten days) and provide
>> notice to the user that you've done so. The user can then either file
>> a "counter notice" if they believe the material is not infringing,
>> which you'd send back to the copyright holder if they choose to do so,
>> or drop it, in which case the material stays gone. If a counter notice
>> is filed, the copyright holder can at that time either take the matter
>> up in court directly with the user, or drop it. If they don't file in
>> court after a counter notice, you can automatically reinstate the
>> material after a certain period of time. If the DMCA notice was
>> malicious or fraudulent, the safe harbor provision also establishes
>> liability against the person or entity who filed it. But as long as
>> you file those procedures, you, as the site operator, are immune from
>> liability for either the material being present to start with or for
>> it being taken down.
>>
>> Without that protection, no one in their right mind would operate an
>> interactive web site, at least not in the US. It protects everything
>> from classic car hobbyist forums operated by a few people at their own
>> cost, to sites like Youtube and Facebook. None of those would be
>> possible without it. Or, at the very least, they would have to be
>> operated from countries which are, shall we say, much more lax on
>> copyright enforcement. That's bad for everyone, including the
>> copyright holders--they no longer would have an effective method of
>> getting infringements taken down.
>>
>> Since Wikimedia is DMCA-compliant, that means that, say, AP or Getty
>> can't sue Wikimedia if a user uploads a bunch of their images to
>> Commons. They would have to find and sue that user. And of course,
>> they could file DMCA requests to have their stuff removed. But since
>> WMF is much easier to find and has much dee

Re: [Wikimedia-l] On Trump supporters (was: Our problem with India)

2016-06-28 Thread Newyorkbrad
I suggest that we just drop the Trump tangent from the discussion, as
it is a distraction.

Newyorkbrad

On 6/28/16, Milos Rancic <mill...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Moving this issue out of the thread about India, as it doesn't belong to it.
>
> It seems that my explanation of explanation was not quite useful. Just
> the last paragraph was a satire and I've got complaint that
> satirically playing with the racist stereotypes could seem racist.
> That was the target of the explanation of explanation.
>
> However, your question that it's still not clear to you why I am
> talking about Trump supporters is much more important.
>
> If we tend to be an inclusive movement, we should do our best to
> include people from as much of society as we are able to do.
>
> The first and the most obvious problem in Wikimedia community was
> striking lack of women. And, for a long time we have the programs
> which promote inclusion of women in our movement.
>
> Then we have the issue of minorities. Depending on the country, those
> processes started sooner or later.
>
> However, as we articulated Wikimedia movement as a progressive one, we
> are slowly but surely losing large portions of our societies.
>
> The metaphor for that portion is "a Trump voter", but those people
> exist in every society. They do not vote for Trump; they could be even
> a progressive force in their society; but, as with Trump supporter,
> they've been ostracized from the dominant part of the society as less
> worthy.
>
> I've said those parts of the societies are our new underrepresented
> groups. In United States it's about middle class people scared of
> those who are socially in worse (immigrants) and better position
> (among others, us) than themselves, voting for Trump. In Austria, it's
> about working class people scared of those in worse and better
> position than themselves, voting for FPO. And so on.
>
> And if you are asking me why we should take care about their
> incorporation, I will tell you that I was getting quite similar
> questions when I raised the problem of lack of participation of women
> in Wikimedia movement. It's the wider social role of our movement.
>
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Peter Southwood
> <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> Still not clear. Why?
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
>> Behalf Of Milos Rancic
>> Sent: Tuesday, 28 June 2016 1:28 PM
>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Our problem with India
>>
>> On Jun 28, 2016 09:58, "Milos Rancic" <mill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> (Hint for American
>>> Wikimedians: Trump supporters are your next target for positive
>>> discrimination.)
>>
>> It seems I have to clarify this sentence.
>>
>> I didn't say Trump, I didn't say Cruz, I didn't say Cruz supporters, I
>> said Trump supporters.
>>
>> I have in mind very specific population, genuinely scared by the
>> privileged Mexican illegal immigrants, working lazy for the American
>> agricultural industry for $5/h or less and supported by Bay Area hipsters
>> and Jewish lobby.
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>> -
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2016.0.7640 / Virus Database: 4613/12507 - Release Date: 06/28/16
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> Milos
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community Tech survey on watchlist use

2016-05-26 Thread Newyorkbrad
"Talkpage watcher" would do fine.

Newyorkbrad/IBM

On 5/26/16, David Goodman <dgge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> talk-page stalker is not necessarily an unfriendly term. It's meant as an
> explanation for why the person saw the question, and posted there. But
> perhaps we could find a better term for this, as stalker does have
> unfortunate connotations.
>
>
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Trillium Corsage <trillium2...@yandex.com>
> wrote:
>
>> My English Wikipedia talkpage is watchlisted by a surprising number of
>> users that I have no cooperative or friendly editing relationship with.
>> Some of them refer to themselves as "talkpage stalkers." Might it be
>> possible for a user to prohibit such persons from watchlisting him or her?
>> If it's not possible to selectively prohibit, how about an on/off switch,
>> i.e. *no-one* may watchlist an editor's individual talkpage.
>>
>> Trillium Corsage
>>
>> 21.05.2016, 02:20, "Johan Jönsson" :
>> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:06 AM, Danny Horn <dh...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> >>  Hi everyone,
>> >>
>> >>  WMF's Community Tech team is starting to work on a Cross-wiki
>> watchlist,
>> >>  one of the top 10 wishes in the Community Wishlist Survey that we
>> conducted
>> >>  at the end of last year. [1]
>> >>
>> >>  We're running a survey on how people use their watchlists, to help
>> inform
>> >>  our work.
>> >
>> > Hi everyone,
>> >
>> > A couple of months ago, the Community Tech team ran a survey to gather
>> > information on how Wikimedians use their watchlists. You can see the
>> > results here:
>> >
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Tech/Cross-wiki_watchlist#Survey_results
>> >
>> > If you're interested, there are also some very early and rough
>> > wireframes available on the project page:
>> >
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Tech/Cross-wiki_watchlist#Current_work.2C_for_discussion
>> >
>> > //Johan Jönsson
>> > --
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
>
> --
> David Goodman
>
> DGG at the enWP
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A quick note about the future

2016-02-29 Thread Newyorkbrad
Although there may be aspects of the Doc James situation that
legitimately must, or at least should, stay private, I am sure more
can be revealed than has been to date.

Let me see if I can help with one aspect of the issue.  One stated
reason that information has not been forthcoming, has been that
revealing it could be a violation of Doc James's own privacy or his
expectations of confidentiality.

I expect that if asked point-blank, Dr. Heilman would agree to waive
any confidentiality interest that he personally might have in keeping
any aspect of the matter confidential or undisclosed.  So I hereby ask
him if he is able and willing to do that..

(My apologies if this has been done before and I missed it.)

Doc James' agreeing that nothing needs to be kept confidential for HIS
sake will not cut the entire Gordian knot that has kept this situation
unclear for months -- but perhaps it will be helpful at least to some
extent.

Newyorkbrad/IBM


On 2/29/16, Amir E. Aharoni <amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
> Nathan, as pretty much always, is correct.
>
> Everybody is tired of this mystery.
>
> I'm not blaming anybody - it's part of the unfortunate atmosphere of
> unnecessary secrecy, which plagued us for way too long. That's what creates
> the accusations and the wild rumors in all sides. We all have to fix it in
> ourselves.
>
> Simply telling everybody's stories fully and openly is the only right thing
> now.
> בתאריך 29 בפבר׳ 2016 15:53,‏ "Nathan" <nawr...@gmail.com> כתב:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Jimmy Wales <jimmywa...@wikia-inc.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > One of the things that someone asked me privately to discuss is what I
>> > think of the possibility of James running for the board again.
>> >
>> > First, I have no opinion about whether or not he will be eligible at the
>> > next election.  That's a matter for people other than me to decide.  I
>> > don't know.
>> >
>> > Second, if he is eligible, and if he runs, and if he wins, then I will
>> > support his joining the board.  Because I've been willing to be vocal
>> > about what I view as his failures, people have sometimes gotten the
>> > mistaken impression that this is primarily a personal conflict between
>> > him and me.  That's not true.  Before the board vote to remove him, I
>> > told him that I would vote with the majority - because it is my feeling
>> > that on matters of trust, if he was unable to command the trust of at
>> > least the majority of other trustees, his position would be untenable.
>> >
>> > Third, it may interest you all to know that I did not and would not have
>> > instigated the meeting in which he was removed from the board.  Indeed,
>> > I missed an online board meeting where things happened apparently that
>> > brought this to a head, and in the final meeting with James, I mainly
>> > inquired "What brought this up now?" as I thought things were settling
>> > down.
>> >
>> > Fourth, having said all of that, I remain very disappointed in James and
>> > the way he has spun this without coming forward with the community about
>> > what happened.  He claimed reasons for his dismissal that everyone else
>> > on the board agrees unanimously are not the reasons.  I haven't seen him
>> > acknowledge that he was wrong about that, and I haven't seen him own up
>> > to the things that actually upset people.
>> >
>> > There are many narratives being spun by people who weren't there, who
>> > have made all kinds of assumption that aren't true.
>> >
>>
>> There is a simple and easy way to rectify this: you and the other members
>> of the board can honestly and fully describe the circumstances that led
>> you
>> to eject Heilman from the board.  I've seen lots of indirect and
>> non-specific claims from both sides; I wish you would all stop making
>> vague
>> assertions and just tell us what happened. I'm sure you can come up with
>> lots of reasons why you Simply Cannot Do That, but if that's the case then
>> maybe stop talking about it altogether.
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems

2016-02-21 Thread Newyorkbrad
I too am one of those people who is not to be found on Facebook.  I
only have room in my life for one online timesink ... and I already
have Wikipedia :)

Newyorkbrad

On 2/21/16, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As has already been explained on this list, many people do not have access
> to Facebook.  If this is something germane and useful to a lot of people on
> this list, perhaps it would be appropriate to ask Jonathan to post it here.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 21 February 2016 at 18:34, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> For those not following, I recommend the discussion in response to
>> Jonathan
>> Cardy's comment here:
>>
>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/permalink/960989863948845/
>>
>> Anthony Cole
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

2016-01-11 Thread Newyorkbrad
It would be great if we could have Arrnon's input and perspective on
the events that have caused the concern raised in this thread.
However, it's been stated that major shareholder litigation involving
the issue is still pending.  If that is so, it is very unlikely that
he's going to be able to make any public statement about the subject.

Newyorkbrad/IBM


On 1/10/16, Craig Franklin <cfrank...@halonetwork.net> wrote:
> I don't disagree that we need an explanation not only of his actions, but
> also on how he was selected without this being disclosed to existing
> trustees, but even at a show trial it's usually considered necessary to
> allow the accused to say a few words in their own defense.  I'll be
> reserving my judgement until I hear his side of the story (or he declines
> to provide one).
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
> On 10 January 2016 at 03:51, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ... and the court papers, and the smoking gun documents, and ...
>>
>> This is the sort of thing that needs some serious explaining. Assume
>> good faith, but we're starting from some pretty *startling*
>> circumstances and evidence here.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> On 9 January 2016 at 09:19, Craig Franklin <cfrank...@halonetwork.net>
>> wrote:
>> > Chris,
>> >
>> > Thanks for saying that.  I'd also add that while the situation with
>> Arrnon
>> > looks damning on the face of it, I'm a little disappointed that people
>> are
>> > breaking out the pitchforks based purely on media reports, before he has
>> a
>> > chance to present his own side of the story and before Dariusz and the
>> > others can properly look into the matter.  I also think that some of the
>> > more 'excitable' commentary on this list in the past couple of weeks is
>> > more likely to push the trustees away than get us the explanations we
>> > want.  Yes, what is happening is deeply concerning, but lets not all
>> > lose
>> > our heads.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Craig
>> >
>> > On 9 January 2016 at 19:06, Chris Keating <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> > I suspect they need a few days, based on past experiences. To dig
>> >> > into
>> >> the
>> >> > matter, and prepare an answer
>> >>
>> >> Quite, and thanks for saying that Lodewijk.
>> >>
>> >> In my view, the WMF board's top priority has to be the issues about
>> >> strategy, leadership and staff morale that are being made public now.
>> It is
>> >> in everyone's interests that these issues get sorted out and some key
>> parts
>> >> of the solution have to happen in private.
>> >>
>> >> I am sure that the Board have invested a huge amount of time and energy
>> in
>> >> these issues already. Unless you have been on the board of an
>> organisation
>> >> that's gone through a serious problem it's difficult to appreciate the
>> >> pressure this creates. I have, and I would urge everyone to take a deep
>> >> breath and  think before emailing. It's worth repeating that Board
>> members
>> >> are all volunteers with jobs and families and what's more are trying to
>> >> coordinate between three different continents.
>> >>
>> >> In particular hundred-email threads on this list where everyone
>> speculates
>> >> and demands answers to their particular questions  (and some people
>> >> downright stir the shit) are less than helpful - a board member who
>> spends
>> >> 5 hours a week on WMF business could easily spend that just reading all
>> the
>> >> emails
>> >>
>> >> Dariusz has said the Board is looking into the situation with Arnnon,
>> which
>> >> they were clearly not aware of - that is what needs to happen and yet
>> more
>> >> emails on this list won't mean that happens any more quickly.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >>
>> >> Chris Keating
>> >> ___
>> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>> >>
>> > ___

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Conflict of Interest Policy

2016-01-11 Thread Newyorkbrad
As a "non-technical" Wikimedian, I too would welcome a discussion,
starting with the basics, of what the project formerly known as the
"Knowledge Engine" is, or might become, and the pros and cons of the
WMF focusing major resources on it.

(Perhaps best to put have that discussion in a new thread, though?)

Regards,
Newyorkbrad/IBM

On 1/11/16, Chris Keating <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok - I would be really surprised if WMF have discussed Google in their
> executive sessions either - given the difficulties around staff and
> strategy they probably haven't had five minutes to mention Google, even if
> they wanted to. So the most economical hypothesis is that the reason Denny
> hasn't recused himself is because the subject hasn't come up.
>
> I would agree that board members should step aside from discussions about
> anything that will have a commercial impact on their employers, though I
> don't quite understand how Wikidata affects Google's bottom line and so
> can't work out how this might be a conflict - can anyone explain this? Or
> indeed what the "Knowledge Engine" actually is?
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris
> On 11 Jan 2016 03:17, "Anthony Cole" <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Chris, there have been no resolutions since Denny assumed his seat that
>> impact Denny's employer, as best as I can tell, unless there is an
>> existing
>> direct relationship between Google and one or both of the new trustees,
>> and
>> no one's provided evidence of that. I hope Denny will recuse from any
>> decision-making that might impact his employer, not just those decisions
>> that directly address his employer.
>>
>> I would be concerned if he were involved in *discussions* on topics that
>> impact Google, not just topics where Google is named. By this I mean, but
>> not only, anything touching on the Knowledge Engine and WikiData, and I'm
>> not just referring to discussions related to a resolution. The executive
>> session of each board meeting is secret.
>>
>> On Monday, January 11, 2016, Chris Keating <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > > I am concerned that Denny may not have been recusing from discussions
>> and
>> > > decisions affecting Google. This strikes me as exceptional, and that
>> the
>> > > board doesn't find it so troubles me, and hints that you may all have
>> > > something to gain from independent advice.
>> >
>> >
>> > Out of interest, do you know of a single decision made by the WMF board
>> > regarding Google while Denny has been on the Board?
>> >
>> > All their resolutions are public, and the members voting in favour and
>> > against and absent or recused from each decision are listed. So if the
>> WMF
>> > has been discussing WMF's relationship with Google and Denny hasn't
>> recused
>> > himself this should be apparent.
>> >
>> > I have not checked the list of resolutions myself but I suspect that the
>> > WMF board rarely, if ever, considers anything to do with any major tech
>> > companies.
>> >
>> > Chris
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
>> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Anthony Cole
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

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

2015-12-29 Thread Newyorkbrad
I don't think it's been mentioned on this list that Jimmy Wales (one
of the board members) commented about this matter today on his En-WP
talkpage.  Since I assume many people on this list don't follow that
page, I have copied his comment below:

"Hi everyone.  I couldn't possibly agree more that this should have
been announced with a full and clear and transparent and NPOV
explanation.  Why didn't that happen?  Because James chose to post
about it before we even concluded the meeting and before we had even
begun to discuss what an announcement should say.  WMF legal has asked
the board to refrain from further comment until they've reviewed what
can be said - this is analogous in some ways to personnel issues.
Ideally, you would have heard about this a couple of days from now
when a mutual statement by James and the board had been agreed. For
now, please be patient.  Accuracy is critically important here, and to
have 9 board members posting their own first impressions would be more
likely to give rise to confusions. -- Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:35, 29
December 2015 (UTC)"

I'm not endorsing Jimbo's comment -- or the reverse -- as I frankly
find this whole situation strange and unfortunate.  However, it seems
relevant and I thought people in this discussion might want to be
aware of it..

I also agree that the information about the two new board members
should be circulated promptly.

Newyorkbrad/IBM

On 12/29/15, Steinsplitter Wiki <steinsplitter-w...@live.com> wrote:
> The removal is not transparent at all.
>
> Apart from that James was community elected. A democracy words different.
>
> Very disappointing.
>
>> From: rupert.thur...@gmail.com
>> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 16:51:14 +0100
>> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:00 PM, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
>> > issue here. This is hardly unusual. Regarding the removal itself, at
>> > least
>> > in the United States, it's fairly common for members of a body to be
>> > able
>> > to remove/expel one of their own. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of
>> > Trustees bylaws explicitly allow for removal of a member, with or
>> > without
>> > cause. Unlike in older Board resolutions, there's a clear public
>> > accounting of how each of the Board members voted (as opposed to simple
>> > numeric totals). James posted that he will work with Patricio to provide
>>
>> like others on this thread i think the WMF bylaws are broken in this
>> respect. not legally broken, but morally. i'd love to vote for a
>> trustee, and i'd love to reverse my decision in case a sufficient
>> party is not happy. if in this case james does not want to have a
>> public discussion he is free to resign. if the board thinks it cannot
>> work with james anymore, and is able to remove him without him beeing
>> ok with it, without public discussion, then i do not find it
>> transparent.
>>
>> best,
>> rupert
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>   
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] harald bischoff advertising to make images for the wikimedia foundation and then suing users

2015-07-20 Thread Newyorkbrad
I would have a serious problem with someone litigating, or threatening to
litigate, over an instance of technical non-compliance with the license
terms; much less so if the (alleged) infringer persisted in republishing
without requested attribution information after warnings.

Has anyone directly contacted Mr. Bischoff and asked him what he is doing
and why?

Regards,
Newyorkbrad


On Monday, July 20, 2015, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) 
bjor...@wikimedia.org
 wrote:
 snip

 Since when has that ever been a thing? With respect to licenses such as
CC,
 we follow the same rules as anyone else.


 Not really.  Commons actually recommends that an explicit credit line
 accompany CC BY images, which is something that Wikipedia doesn't do in
 articles.  See below.


 If the description here is accurate, it sounds to me like this harald
 bischoff should be blocked and possibly have his files deleted as
 incorrectly licensed (since he apparently doesn't accept the usual
 interpretation of CC BY), unless he publicly renounces the behavior of
 suing reusers. But I'll leave that to Commons and dewiki to work out.


 Commons' own guidance to reusers [1][2][3] recommends including an
explicit
 credit line alongside CC BY images, e.g.

 You must attribute the work to the author(s), and when re-using the work
 or distributing it, you must mention the license terms or a link to
 them...
 [R]eusers must attribute the work by providing a credit line

 And recommends credit lines of the form:  John Doe / CC-BY-SA-3.0, with
 an included link to the license.

 As I understand it, Harald sent a demand letter to a reuser who failed to
 mention his name and the license.  In other words, he demanded
compensation
 from a reuser who failed to do precisely the things that Commons actually
 says that CC BY image reusers are supposed to do.  While I agree that
 Harald's actions are not friendly, it is also hard for me to get behind
the
 notion of punishing someone for demanding that reusers due the things that
 Commons actually recommends that they do.  His behavior is either A) a
 mean-spirited attempt to extract money from unexpecting people by fighting
 against the spirit of the license, or B) a vigorous defense of his rights
 under the license.  And I'm not really sure which.  Suppose,
 hypothetically, that Harald actually sued someone (as opposed to just
 sending demand letters) and the courts actually agreed that the 3.0
license
 requires that reusers provide a credit line (not an impossible outcome).
 Would that change how we viewed his behavior?

 CC BY 4.0 explicitly says that a link to a page with attribution and
 license terms is sufficient, but prior to 4.0 it isn't clear whether such
a
 link actually compiles with the license.  There has been enough recurring
 doubt over the issue that CC decided to explicitly address the linking
 issue in the 4.0 version.  Wikipedia behaves as if merely linking to an
 attribution page is always okay, but Commons' advice to reusers seems to
be
 written with the perspective that it might not be.  (I don't know the
 history of the Commons pages, so I'm not really sure of the community's
 thinking here.)

 I do think there is something of a problem that Wikipedia models a
behavior
 (i.e. linking) that is different from what Commons recommends (i.e. credit
 lines).

 -Robert Rohde

 [1]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia
 [2]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia/licenses
 [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Credit_line
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thousands of images on Wikipedia and Commons in danger, action needed

2015-06-22 Thread Newyorkbrad
Just out of curiosity, if this legislation were to pass in Europe, and
(for example) an American tourist took a photograph of a covered
building in Europe and posted it when he or she arrived back in the
U.S., would it be deleted on the ground that the image was non-free at
the site, or kept on the ground that it was free where it was posted?

Newyorkbrad

On 6/22/15, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 22 June 2015 at 13:17, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
 Yes I agree an example of what Wikipedia would look like if this
 regulation passed is an excellent idea. Could we base it on the geo
 tags?

 Geotags on their own would be haphazard apart from certain types of
 Wikipedia articles, such as those for notable buildings in Europe,
 designed in the mid 20th century onwards. It is possible to put some
 SQL queries together like this, but the resulting lists or statistics
 would only ever be a small slice of relevant articles that could be
 affected.

 A simple analysis for Commons can be found at
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:F%C3%A6#number_of_files_under_FOP.3F
 which gives a sense of size, along with relevant Freedom of Panorama
 (FoP) categories. However, as noted there, keep in mind that it is
 probable that *most* public domain photographs that in some way rely
 on European FoP provisions are not categorized in a way that we can
 current track relevance to FoP, so statistics are going to remain less
 useful than educated guesstimates.

 Fae
 --
 fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

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

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Mexican case law on Wikipedia reliability

2015-06-17 Thread Newyorkbrad
For some links to US cases citing Wikipedia, and discussing whether
and when to cite Wikipedia, see my essay

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Final_exam_for_wikilawyers#Question_2

For a short article on a Chilean case, see

http://www.greenbag.org/v11n2/v11n2_hendrick.pdf

Regards,
Newyorkbrad


On 6/17/15, Paolo B. tito...@gmail.com wrote:
 The Philippines' Supreme Court has, on some occasions, cited Wikipedia
 articles in their decisions to provide supplementary background
 information. Here's one example---and one that was written as early as 2005!

 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jan2005/155282.htm

 (the citation is on Footnote #34, near the bottom of that page)

 More examples can be found here:
 https://www.google.com.ph/search?q=site%3Asc.judiciary.gov.ph+wikipediaoq=site%3Asc.judiciary.gov.ph+wikipediaaqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.16344j0j7sourceid=chromees_sm=93ie=UTF-8

 There are probably more that doesn't show up on the Google search link
 above. This is because the Supreme Court has published the more recent
 decisions as PDF files. Since some of the decisions are scanned PDFs rather
 than true PDFs, some recent Wikipedia citations might not have been indexed
 (yet).


 Regards from Manila,
 Paolo


 On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote:

 Szymon Grabarczuk (Tar Lócesilion) - made a study how many times Wikipedia
 was cited in Polish courts, by browsing public database of courts'
 decissions:

 https://depot.ceon.pl/handle/123456789/2232

 He counted (till 2012) 223 such cases :-)

 Some uses of Wikipedia by the courts are quite controversial. I mean - it
 may happed that someone edit or even write an article in order to use it
 as
 an argument in the court. I personally would not liked to be judged based
 on Wikipedia entires :-)




 2015-06-17 10:49 GMT+02:00 Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com:

  To the best of my knowledge, the US Supreme Court has yet to cite
  Wikipedia, but US Federal appeals courts have done so. Also, a state
  supreme court cited Wikipedia prominently in a decision about insurance
  coverage:
 
 
 http://abbottlawfirm.com/blog/2012/08/16/utah-supreme-court-cites-wikipedia-in-published-decision/
 
  Pine
  On Jun 16, 2015 5:35 PM, Salvador A salvador1...@gmail.com wrote:
 
   Hi folks!
  
   This month one mexican federal court generated an interesting case law
   related to use of Wikipedia as source of knowledge on trials,
   specially
  in
   law resolutions. The tribunal that solved this was the Tribunal
 Federal
  de
   Justicia Fiscal y Administrativa. This court is not the supreme court
 of
   Mexico but is the most important tribunal after that one in all the
  matter
   related to tax and administrative law and its precedents are binding
 for
   all mexican administrative authorities and al the judges on
  administrative
   and fiscal law.
  
   The case law is the number VII-J-SS-191 and you can read it in the
   next
   link:
  
   (only in Spanish)
  
   http://sctj.tfjfa.gob.mx/SCJI/assembly/detalleTesis?idTesis=41716
  
   The title is at the same time a brief of the content of the precedent,
  and
   it can be translated in this way:
  
   *Wikipedia.- The information that is obtained from this website can
  help
   to elucidate some controversial matter, thence the courtrooms of this
   tribunal may use it when ruling.*
  
   Inside the text the court makes a fair clarication: *It must not be
 the
   only source of knowledge in which the resolutions are based on [...]
 the
   judges must care about gathering diversity of sources of information
 such
   as specialized books, encyclopedia, including the electronic ones,
 [...]
   and others*.
  
   Maybe is just a curiosity, but for me is ilustrative of the good
  reputation
   that our work is getting even in some closed circles as the law
 practice.
   At least in Mexico is not common to see a court quoting Wikipedia, but
   maybe this first precedent might change the things.
  
   Do you know other similar case laws?
  
   Regards!
  
   [1]
  
  
 
 https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribunal_Federal_de_Justicia_Fiscal_y_Administrativa
   --
   *Salvador Alcántar*
   *@salvador_alc*
   ___
   Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
   https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
   Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
   Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
   mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 



 --
 Tomek Polimerek Ganicz
 http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
 http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
 http

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Regarding knowledge

2015-04-07 Thread Newyorkbrad
On related points concerning the accuracy level and overall usefulness
of Wikipedia as compared with other resources, people may be
interested in my posting here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Newyorkbrad/Newyorkbradblog#A_reference_librarian_reviews_Wikipedia

and the second half of my book review here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-07-30/Book_review

Regards,
Newyorkbrad/IBM

On 4/7/15, Anthony Cole ahcole...@gmail.com wrote:
 It's an encyclopedia, Marc. The world's encyclopedia. People should be able
 to trust it. You and the rest of the WMF need to get that through your
 heads or you'll wake up one morning soon and find Wikipedia on page 2 of
 Google and you out of a job. This is the most important issue facing
 Wikipedia. Denial isn't helping.

 Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole


 On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:04 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:

 On 15-04-07 12:51 PM, Anthony Cole wrote:
  Wikipedia
  should not be trusted for anything - least of all health matters .

 That's a perfectly true, but perfectly vacuous assertion.  Wikipedia
 should be trusted exactly as much as any other single source may be
 trusted, for exactly the same reason.  Striving to find the most
 reliable sources is fraught with pitfalls whether you attempt do to it
 yourself or rely on the collective efforts of Wikipedia editors to do so.

 Wikipedia is a giant collection of summaries and overview of topics, and
 it never pretendend to be anything else.  If you *end* your reasearch
 there for anything of importance, then you commit as sin no graver (nor
 lighter) than picking any other random book on the topic and ending your
 research there.

 -- Marc


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

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

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing: The Wikipedia Prize!

2015-03-30 Thread Newyorkbrad
I agree with the others who have opined that this should not happen.

Newyorkbrad

On 3/29/15, Brian reflect...@gmail.com wrote:
 I'm sure many of you recall the Netflix Prize
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix_Prize. This is that, for Wikipedia!

 Although the initial goal of the Netflix Prize was to design a
 collaborative filtering algorithm, it became notorious when the data was
 used to de-anonymize Netflix users. Researchers proved that given just a
 user's movie ratings on one site, you can plug those ratings into another
 site, such as the IMDB. You can then take that information, and with some
 Google searches and optionally a bit of cash (for websites that sell user
 information, including, in some cases, their SSN) figure out who they are.
 You could even drive up to their house and take a selfie with them, or
 follow them to work and meet their boss and tell them about their views on
 the topics they were editing.

 Here, we'll cut straight to the privacy chase. Using just the full history
 dump of the English Wikipedia, excluding edits from any logged-in users,
 identify five people. You must confirm their identities with them, and
 privately prove to me that you've done this. I will then nominate you as
 the winner and send you one million Satoshis (the smallest unit of Bitcoin,
 times 1 million), in addition to updating this thread.

 I suspect this challenge will be very easy for anyone who is determined.
 Indeed, even if MediaWiki no longer displayed IP addresses, there would
 still be enough information to identify people. Completely getting rid of
 the edit history would largely solve the problem. In the mean time, this
 Prize will serve as a reminder that when Wikipedia says Your IP address
 will be publicly visible if you make any edits. what they mean is, People
 will probably be able to figure out where you live and embarrass you.

 An extra million Satoshis for each NSA employee that you identify. A full
 bitcoin if you take a selfie with them.

 Let the games begin!

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

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cryonics

2014-10-15 Thread Newyorkbrad
Here's a compromise between those who want to discuss cryonics and those
who think it's weirdly off-topic:  We'll freeze this thread.

Newyorkbrad/IBM

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

 Hmmm. James and Liam just put a smile on my face, and honestly, if
 we're going to have off-topic discussions here, I prefer these over
 intra-community flame wars any day.

 James, it may not be appreciated- or appropriate, actually- on
 wikimedia-l, but I would love it if you put an op-ed making your case
 for gender-inclusive cryonics solutions on my user talk page for the
 Wasted Times.

 ,Wil

 On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org
 wrote:
  This does it to me. Dear list moderators, could you please pretty please
  consider putting James on moderation indefinitely? This behaviour has
 gone
  on long enough, and clearly resulted in a net negative contribution to
 the
  movement.
 
  Thanks.
 
  Lodewijk
 
  2014-10-15 13:03 GMT+02:00 Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com:
 
  Ok, everyone can go home now. The competition for most abstract
 suggestion
  on Wikimedia-L is now closed. As much as I would love for us to discuss
  our own personal preferences in 'supercooling vitrification freezer'
  manufacturers...
  Perhaps if the WMF purchased their own cryogenics system for the
  aforementioned company and instead it in the office cleaning cupboard,
  staff coud keep the after-work drinks chilled in there too?
  In the mean time, as a personal challenge, see if you can include the
  phrase gender-inclusive cryonics solution in a casual conversation
  without anyone noticing.
 
  On Wednesday, 15 October 2014, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
   It has come to my attention that certain companies in the Foundation's
   employment peer group have been offering ova cryonics as a family
  planning
   benefit:
  
  
  
 
 http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/10/14/apple-and-facebooks-newest-perk-freezing-your-eggs/
  
   I recommend that the Foundation explore gender-inclusive cryonics
   solutions. I understand that supercooling vitrification freezers such
 as
   those manufactured by ABI, Ltd. of Chiba, Japan called CASfresh or
 Cells
   Alive System may be of some interest.
  
   Best regards,
   James Salsman
   ___
   Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
   https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
   Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
   Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 ,
   mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
   ?subject=unsubscribe
 
 
 
  --
  wittylama.com
  Peace, love  metadata
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] SatuSuro, stop stalking the home of my parents

2014-08-03 Thread Newyorkbrad
Actually, those would not be appropriate ways of handling the (alleged)
situation either.

Newyorkbrad


On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Dennis Pierri dennis6...@gmail.com wrote:

 You can go to SatuSuro's talk page and say this personally to him or
 vandalize it or whatever your heart desires, but please keep personal
 things personal, this is about wikimedia projects, not about your personal
 life.

 On 02/08/2014, at 21:56, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:

  In mid-July I was advised by an editor that on 5 July 2014 they had
  received via the Wikimedia mailing system an email from SatuSuro.[1] The
  editor in question, who stated that they ordinarily would not share
 private
  communications but felt compelled to on this occasion, forwarded me the
  email, along with all headers. In this email SatuSuro made the
  following statement:
 
  I am not 100% sure where you contextualise your comments from, but he
 is a
  local, and I know his parents house quite well
 
  Upon reading it, I was absolutely gobsmacked. Firstly, the comment was
  wildly out of place in the context of the email, and secondly, this is
 how
  the email ended.
 
  One will note that he states that he doesn't say that he knows me nor
 knows
  my family, but that he knows my parents' house quite well. This obviously
  made me quite squeamish, because it's not my home that he states he knows
  well, but the home of my parents.
 
  I have never met SatuSuro (T.H.) in real life, and have had no reason nor
  great desire to meet him. So he is not known to me on a personal level in
  any way, shape or form.
 
  With this in mind, I sent an email to my folks asking them if they knew
  T.H. or if they recognised him from his photo.[2] I told them that the
 guy
  had stated I know his parents house quite well.
 
  They were concerned. My old lady, especially so, who looked at his
 comment
  the same way I did. I won't divulge what sort of search terms I found in
  her Google search history, even after I showed them the email which was
  sent by T.H.. Both my old man and old lady confirmed that they do not
 know
  T.H. by name nor by photo, and have no idea how he could know their house
  well.
 
  I informed them that if they should see him near their home that they
  should contact the police. My folks, who are enjoying their retirement
 and
  have their four young grandkids at their house every other day, also took
  the grandkids aside and showed them T.H.'s photo and said that if they
 see
  this man that they should tell them or their parents straight away - a
 much
  needed lesson in stranger danger I guess.
 
  It doesn't stop there, but I was informed the other day at a family get
  together, that they had shelled out a fair amount of money for multiple
  infrared cameras which are situated around their residence (in the open
 and
  hidden), recording equipment, added security monitoring and installation.
 
  This is so not cool. Absolutely not cool. One may expect to deal with
  creepy stalker cunts as a result of participating in sites such as 4chan
 (I
  dunno, never participated, but it has that rep perhaps), but one should
  absolutely not expect to have to deal with such things from their
  participation in Wikimedia projects. And especially not from someone who
 is
  a member of a WM Chapter (WMAU) and the recipient of a scholarship from
 the
  WMF to travel to Wikimania next week.[3]
 
  There is no reason at all that would have required T.H. to attempt to
 stalk
  me in real life, and there is absolutely zero reason or excuse for him to
  be stalking, not my home, but the home of my parents, which has resulted
 in
  them upgrading security, as great cost, to their castle.
 
  A message to SatuSuro -- stop stalking the home of my parents you creepy
  fuck.
 
  Russavia
 
  [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SatuSuro
  [2]
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SatuSuro_at_Wikimania_2013.jpg
  [3]
 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:TPS/Wikimania_scholars#2014_WMF_Scholarship_Recipients
  (#83)
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] SatuSuro, stop stalking the home of my parents

2014-08-02 Thread Newyorkbrad
This e-mail strikes me as a major overreaction based on the
information presented, especially since there is no indication that
Russavia ever contacted the person he is accusing and asked him what
was meant by the comment. In any event, the posting is wildly
inappropriate for a public mailing list.

Newyorkbrad

On 8/2/14, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
 In mid-July I was advised by an editor that on 5 July 2014 they had
 received via the Wikimedia mailing system an email from SatuSuro.[1] The
 editor in question, who stated that they ordinarily would not share private
 communications but felt compelled to on this occasion, forwarded me the
 email, along with all headers. In this email SatuSuro made the
 following statement:

 I am not 100% sure where you contextualise your comments from, but he is a
 local, and I know his parents house quite well

 Upon reading it, I was absolutely gobsmacked. Firstly, the comment was
 wildly out of place in the context of the email, and secondly, this is how
 the email ended.

 One will note that he states that he doesn't say that he knows me nor knows
 my family, but that he knows my parents' house quite well. This obviously
 made me quite squeamish, because it's not my home that he states he knows
 well, but the home of my parents.

 I have never met SatuSuro (T.H.) in real life, and have had no reason nor
 great desire to meet him. So he is not known to me on a personal level in
 any way, shape or form.

 With this in mind, I sent an email to my folks asking them if they knew
 T.H. or if they recognised him from his photo.[2] I told them that the guy
 had stated I know his parents house quite well.

 They were concerned. My old lady, especially so, who looked at his comment
 the same way I did. I won't divulge what sort of search terms I found in
 her Google search history, even after I showed them the email which was
 sent by T.H.. Both my old man and old lady confirmed that they do not know
 T.H. by name nor by photo, and have no idea how he could know their house
 well.

 I informed them that if they should see him near their home that they
 should contact the police. My folks, who are enjoying their retirement and
 have their four young grandkids at their house every other day, also took
 the grandkids aside and showed them T.H.'s photo and said that if they see
 this man that they should tell them or their parents straight away - a much
 needed lesson in stranger danger I guess.

 It doesn't stop there, but I was informed the other day at a family get
 together, that they had shelled out a fair amount of money for multiple
 infrared cameras which are situated around their residence (in the open and
 hidden), recording equipment, added security monitoring and installation.

 This is so not cool. Absolutely not cool. One may expect to deal with
 creepy stalker cunts as a result of participating in sites such as 4chan (I
 dunno, never participated, but it has that rep perhaps), but one should
 absolutely not expect to have to deal with such things from their
 participation in Wikimedia projects. And especially not from someone who is
 a member of a WM Chapter (WMAU) and the recipient of a scholarship from the
 WMF to travel to Wikimania next week.[3]

 There is no reason at all that would have required T.H. to attempt to stalk
 me in real life, and there is absolutely zero reason or excuse for him to
 be stalking, not my home, but the home of my parents, which has resulted in
 them upgrading security, as great cost, to their castle.

 A message to SatuSuro -- stop stalking the home of my parents you creepy
 fuck.

 Russavia

 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SatuSuro
 [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SatuSuro_at_Wikimania_2013.jpg
 [3]
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:TPS/Wikimania_scholars#2014_WMF_Scholarship_Recipients
  (#83)
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] $20 donation to WMF for vandalism edit from US House of Representatives

2014-07-31 Thread Newyorkbrad
The activity you describe is obviously unacceptable.  However, the amount
of time and effort that out associated with tracking down and returning a
particular $20 contribution would not be worth it.

Newyorkbrad


On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com
wrote:

 On 23 July John Resig tweeted a challenge,[1]

 I will donate $20 to a charity if someone can land an edit to
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilians  or
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory) … in
 @congressedits

 Sure enough, someone took up Resig's challenge with this edit.[2]
 Keeping with his challenge, Resig announced that $20 had been donated
 to the WMF for the edit.[3]

 The IP used for the edit, sure enough, resolves to the US House of
 Representative.[4]

 To make matters a little worse, the US House of Representatives IP has
 taken to vandalising the Russian Wikipedia article for the Russian
 national anthem,[5] replacing sheet music for the anthem with the
 sheet music for Putin -- khuilo (Putin is a dickhead).[6]

 Question to the masses, should the WMF refund the $20 donation made to it?

 Russavia

 [1] http://www.webcitation.org/6RTt5jM9U
 [2] https://twitter.com/congressedits/status/492027099499462657
 [3] http://www.webcitation.org/6RTtO0JMP
 [4] http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/143.231.249.138
 [5]
 https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%93%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BD_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B8diff=64532570oldid=63573625
 [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putin_khuilo!

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Offwiki

2014-07-09 Thread Newyorkbrad
Wil, thank you for the announcement of your site. Although things
there were in a bit of a chaotic state the last time I looked at it
and there are clearly some bugs to be worked out, we will see whether
it can ultimately emerge as a fruitful discussion forum.

With regard to potential impersonation user registrations, including
users registering in the names of prominent Wikipedians, or for that
matter of prominent Wikipedia critics, it is essential that you take
steps to verify the identity of registrants using such usernames.
Existing criticism sites such as Wikipediocracy and previously
Wikipedia Review have consistently checked such registrations before
allowing postings, and it is good practice that they do so, to avoid
potential negative impacts not only on the persons potentially
impersonated but on the reputations of their sites as well. (There are
other issues as to which those sites do not epitomize good practice in
my view, but this one they get right.) Similarly, I assume that such
checks are performed on Wikimedia mailing lists such as this one.
There is every reason that offwiki can do so as well and I hope you
intend to.

Regards,
Newyorkbrad

On 7/9/14, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
 Hi all, I've started a new wiki called Offwiki: http://offwiki.org.
 Our community discusses potential changes to Wikipedia and its
 Wikimedia sister projects that aren't easily discussed in forums like
 this mailing list. We also try new ideas that we hope will be adopted
 on-wiki- both social and technical in nature.

 But that's not the primary reason I'm writing all of you. I've noticed
 that many prominent Wikipedians have created accounts to avoid
 impostors claiming their very public usernames for themselves. My
 apologies, but Wikimedia doesn't run an OpenID server, and there's
 really no other way for me to confirm identities before a user has
 created a username. The problem is technical, and AFAIK there is
 nothing I can do about it.

 So, if you're concerned about your username being phished out, then
 consider creating an account at http://offwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page.
 Maybe you'll even stick around for a few minutes to see what we've
 been up to. :)

 Thanks.
 ,Wil

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

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Offwiki

2014-07-09 Thread Newyorkbrad
Given that the purpose of the new site is discussion toward the
improvement of Wikipedia/Wikimedia, I don't see a problem in principle
with a post mentioning the existence of the new site. Repeated
promotional e-mails would be out of line, but I trust that will not be
an issue.

Newyorkbrad

On 7/9/14, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
 What do users of this list feel about it being used to discuss issues,
 or attract more members, to non-Wikimedia websites?

 Checking the definition at
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l it's
 ambiguous as really almost anything that mentions Wikimedia could be
 in scope. I'm slightly concerned that if the 'offwiki' website is free
 to use this list membership to attract greater participation by
 Wikimedians, then to be fair and equitable, the same courtesy should
 be allowed to any other website or forum which may be expected to have
 a number of Wikimedians as participants. Obvious examples are
 wikia.org, wikipediocracy.com and facebook.com.

 Fae

 On 10/07/2014, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote:
 Wil, thank you for the announcement of your site. Although things
 there were in a bit of a chaotic state the last time I looked at it
 and there are clearly some bugs to be worked out, we will see whether
 it can ultimately emerge as a fruitful discussion forum.

 With regard to potential impersonation user registrations, including
 users registering in the names of prominent Wikipedians, or for that
 matter of prominent Wikipedia critics, it is essential that you take
 steps to verify the identity of registrants using such usernames.
 Existing criticism sites such as Wikipediocracy and previously
 Wikipedia Review have consistently checked such registrations before
 allowing postings, and it is good practice that they do so, to avoid
 potential negative impacts not only on the persons potentially
 impersonated but on the reputations of their sites as well. (There are
 other issues as to which those sites do not epitomize good practice in
 my view, but this one they get right.) Similarly, I assume that such
 checks are performed on Wikimedia mailing lists such as this one.
 There is every reason that offwiki can do so as well and I hope you
 intend to.

 Regards,
 Newyorkbrad

 On 7/9/14, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
 Hi all, I've started a new wiki called Offwiki: http://offwiki.org.
 Our community discusses potential changes to Wikipedia and its
 Wikimedia sister projects that aren't easily discussed in forums like
 this mailing list. We also try new ideas that we hope will be adopted
 on-wiki- both social and technical in nature.

 But that's not the primary reason I'm writing all of you. I've noticed
 that many prominent Wikipedians have created accounts to avoid
 impostors claiming their very public usernames for themselves. My
 apologies, but Wikimedia doesn't run an OpenID server, and there's
 really no other way for me to confirm identities before a user has
 created a username. The problem is technical, and AFAIK there is
 nothing I can do about it.

 So, if you're concerned about your username being phished out, then
 consider creating an account at http://offwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page.
 Maybe you'll even stick around for a few minutes to see what we've
 been up to. :)

 Thanks.
 ,Wil

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

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


 --
 fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
 Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

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

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

[Wikimedia-l] Court decision in Jones v. Dirty World Recording Entertainment LLC

2014-06-16 Thread Newyorkbrad
(Cross-posted from my En-wiki talkpage)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Sixth_Circuit
has issued its decision today in *Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment
Recordings LLC*.  This is a well-known dispute involving application of Section
230 of the Communications Decency Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act
in the context of a website (www.TheDirty.com) whose goals and contents
are deplorable.  The court's decision can be found here
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0125p-06.pdf.  A blog post
(Eugene Volokh) summarizing the decision can be found here
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/16/thedirty-com-not-liable-for-defamatory-posts-on-the-site
.

In its decision, the Sixth Circuit takes a broad view of Section 230 and
holds that Section 230 protection is not lost even where the website
operator solicited contributors to post unsourced and uncorroborated dirt
about anyone they pleased, and even where the website operator selected
which contributions would be published.

The protection of Section 230 enables websites such as Wikipedia to operate
without fear that the Foundation will be subject to suit anytime someone,
such as a BLP subject, disagrees with the content of an article. It is a
truism that Freedom of Speech under the First Amendment and statues like
Section 230 protects speech we do not care for as well as speech whose
value we appreciate.

That being said, the decision is a reminder that those of us who care about
how Wikipedia treats the subject of BLP articles must remain vigilant in
keeping such articles free of defamatory, unsourced negative, unduly
weighted, and privacy-invading content, as well as in using good judgment
regarding which living persons should be the subject of articles at all. At
least in the United States, for better or worse, the law will do little to
protect the people we write about in our encyclopedia. Treating them fairly
and responsible is therefore, all the more clearly, our collective,
non-delegable editorial responsibility.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Court decision in Jones v. Dirty World Recording Entertainment LLC

2014-06-16 Thread Newyorkbrad
It's certainly a very troubling outcome given the facts of the case, which
I was reporting rather than endorsing.  The appeals court relied partly on
the breadth of the statute enacted by Congress, and partly on the
difficulty of drawing lines reflecting which types of conduct by a
site-owner would or would not be protected if the statute were construed
more narrowly.

The court's decision, and particularly the key portions of it quoted on the
Volokh blog, are reasonably accessible to non-lawyers, so everyone
interested can certainly review them rather than rely on my summary.

Incidentally, another appeals court decision issued today may also be of
interest.  Here is Judge Posner writing for the Seventh Circuit on the
copyright status of Sherlock Holmes pastiches:
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=DisplayPath=Y2014/D06-16/C:14-1128:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1363624:S:0

Newyorkbrad




On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:17 PM, edward edw...@logicmuseum.com wrote:

 On 16/06/2014 21:07, Newyorkbrad wrote:

 In its decision, the Sixth Circuit takes a broad view of Section 230 and
 holds that Section 230 protection is not lost even where the website
 operator solicited contributors to post unsourced and uncorroborated
 dirt
 about anyone they pleased, and even where the website operator selected
 which contributions would be published.

 Isn't that rather a bad thing? What was the rationale behind its view?

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why Wil's actions in multiple forums are a matter of significant concern

2014-06-15 Thread Newyorkbrad
Nothing useful is likely to come of this thread.

Newyorkbrad

On 6/15/14, edward edw...@logicmuseum.com wrote:
 On 15/06/2014 22:32, Pete Forsyth wrote:
  A couple days ago, a regular, anonymous WO participant -- who has
 benefited from many friendly exchanges with Wil -- had the following to
 say about a longtime Wikipedian (who's not active on Wikipediocracy, to
 my knowledge) using their full given name: [name elided], you're a
 cunt...You are the worst kind of coward and then insults this person's
 physical appearance. Some forum participants objected to this
 comment,[8] and suggested it might be removed, but to date it hasn't
 been. Wil responded with light, good-natured scolding.[9]
 

 Oh come on, this 'longtime Wikipedian' (Kevin Gorman) was the one who
 told Sinclair to 'back the fuck off'.  I can understand Sinclair's
 reaction, in those circumstances.


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

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media

2014-06-13 Thread Newyorkbrad
Russavia, your post confirms my rule of thumb that any post containing the
word butthurt is unworthy of serious attention.

I was not present at the conference while the newspaper reporter was (or at
least not in the same place), so I have no personal knowledge about
man statements in her article.  I do, at a minimum, share some of the
broader criticisms of its emphasis and its tone.

When I pointed out that I was concerned by your suggestion that someone
might create a revenge BLP, people responded that you were obviously
joking.  It now appears that you were quite serious, and in fact that you
actually raised the prospect with the reporter (albeit trying to play down
the potential impact).  I will add that I don't see for what purpose you
were interacting with the reporter at all, at least on the specific subject
of the New York Wikiconference, which you were thousands of miles from.
Given your prior outreach activities, ranging from Pricasso to the
Encyclopedia Britannica, I find your motivations to be suspect.

As for the broader topic of revenge editing, it is certainly a serious
issue, as we were all reminded by last year's Qworty fiasco.  That is
precisely why I asked you not to say something that could be read as
promoting it.  It is less clear whether the specific example you cite is an
example of within-wiki revenge editing, or the broader issue of people who
bring privacy-seeking lawsuits losing their privacy as a result (compare
Streisand effect; see also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP_examples_for_discussion#Example_3:_The_Target_Becomes_the_Plaintiff
(adapted from a real case); and see also
http://openjurist.org/8/f3d/1222/haynes-v-alfred-a-knopf-incorporated
 (7th Cir. 1995, Posner, J.), discussed in my BLP talk linked on my En
userpage).

Newyorkbrad


On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Ira,

 Don't lecture me about what is and isn't acceptable.

 Sure, you're a member of WMNYC and you are, of course, really butthurt
 over the fact that basically the only report on the conference in the
 media has painted a picture you would have preferred not to be
 painted, but don't take that out on me -- this is one painting I hold
 no responsibility for.

 If you want reports that paint a glowing picture of the Cult of
 Wikipediology, hire a publicist, don't let the media in, and certainly
 don't let the media talk to people who, by all accounts, shouldn't be
 doing so due to incompetence -- not everyone is capable of dealing
 with media.

 What is interesting is that immediately after you posted this, you
 raced over to en.wp and posted what you did. But you should have
 stopped and thought about how ridiculous this could make you look, and
 it will make you look in the future.

 Firstly, Risker stated that the reporter set up Rutherford, Rutherford
 said that the reporter lied, Isarra said that the reporter basically
 created a tense situationhell Siko even stated on Gendergap that
 New York Magazine still sucks.

 Ira, you push the line that BLP applies on all WMF projects; you do
 realise that this list is hosted on WMF servers, and therefore both
 Risker and Rutherford have engaged in gross BLP violating accusations.
 But you stayed silent on thathow quaint...how sScientologist/s
 Wikipediologist-like.

 It's disturbing that Rutherford stated that there were discussions
 about how to deal with her report, because all of the comments
 Wikipediologists so far on this list leads me to think that they would
 likely deal with it the same way Wikipediologists deal with others who
 dare to stray from or mock the Wikipediology doctrine -- that being
 attack, attack, attack! And this is something you excel at Ira.

 For the record Ira, I have been in touch with the reporter a few
 times, and she has told me, that like the Avicii interview, she
 recorded the entire conversation and she stands by her report. So will
 New York Magazine when they review her recorded conversation, if
 Wikipediologists wanted to make her report an issue. What you may not
 have seen about the Avicii report is that the reporter was vindicated
 in the end, simply because the conversation was recorded. I also told
 her that she would probably be notable enough for a Wikipedia article,
 and that she has no need to be worried if one were created -- people
 generally do edit in an NPOV way. She has faith in that system.

 Now on your other comments, and it's one which Pete Forsyth touched on
 --- Wikipediologists do have a history of creating articles when they
 have been slighted.

 Take Theodore Katsanevas,[1] for example. Prior to the news of him
 suing a Greek Wikipedia editor, he had a bio article on one project,
 Greek Wikipedia.[2] He now has an article on 18 projects.[3] It's the
 same thing with Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station,[4] which now
 has articles on 33 projects.[5] On the flipside, Pine Gap,[6] has an
 article on only 7 projects.[7] Interesting

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media

2014-06-13 Thread Newyorkbrad
(man statements -- many statements)


On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote:

 Russavia, your post confirms my rule of thumb that any post containing the
 word butthurt is unworthy of serious attention.

 I was not present at the conference while the newspaper reporter was (or
 at least not in the same place), so I have no personal knowledge about
 man statements in her article.  I do, at a minimum, share some of the
 broader criticisms of its emphasis and its tone.

 When I pointed out that I was concerned by your suggestion that someone
 might create a revenge BLP, people responded that you were obviously
 joking.  It now appears that you were quite serious, and in fact that you
 actually raised the prospect with the reporter (albeit trying to play down
 the potential impact).  I will add that I don't see for what purpose you
 were interacting with the reporter at all, at least on the specific subject
 of the New York Wikiconference, which you were thousands of miles from.
 Given your prior outreach activities, ranging from Pricasso to the
 Encyclopedia Britannica, I find your motivations to be suspect.

 As for the broader topic of revenge editing, it is certainly a serious
 issue, as we were all reminded by last year's Qworty fiasco.  That is
 precisely why I asked you not to say something that could be read as
 promoting it.  It is less clear whether the specific example you cite is an
 example of within-wiki revenge editing, or the broader issue of people who
 bring privacy-seeking lawsuits losing their privacy as a result (compare
 Streisand effect; see also
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP_examples_for_discussion#Example_3:_The_Target_Becomes_the_Plaintiff
 (adapted from a real case); and see also
 http://openjurist.org/8/f3d/1222/haynes-v-alfred-a-knopf-incorporated
  (7th Cir. 1995, Posner, J.), discussed in my BLP talk linked on my En
 userpage).

 Newyorkbrad


 On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Ira,

 Don't lecture me about what is and isn't acceptable.

 Sure, you're a member of WMNYC and you are, of course, really butthurt
 over the fact that basically the only report on the conference in the
 media has painted a picture you would have preferred not to be
 painted, but don't take that out on me -- this is one painting I hold
 no responsibility for.

 If you want reports that paint a glowing picture of the Cult of
 Wikipediology, hire a publicist, don't let the media in, and certainly
 don't let the media talk to people who, by all accounts, shouldn't be
 doing so due to incompetence -- not everyone is capable of dealing
 with media.

 What is interesting is that immediately after you posted this, you
 raced over to en.wp and posted what you did. But you should have
 stopped and thought about how ridiculous this could make you look, and
 it will make you look in the future.

 Firstly, Risker stated that the reporter set up Rutherford, Rutherford
 said that the reporter lied, Isarra said that the reporter basically
 created a tense situationhell Siko even stated on Gendergap that
 New York Magazine still sucks.

 Ira, you push the line that BLP applies on all WMF projects; you do
 realise that this list is hosted on WMF servers, and therefore both
 Risker and Rutherford have engaged in gross BLP violating accusations.
 But you stayed silent on thathow quaint...how sScientologist/s
 Wikipediologist-like.

 It's disturbing that Rutherford stated that there were discussions
 about how to deal with her report, because all of the comments
 Wikipediologists so far on this list leads me to think that they would
 likely deal with it the same way Wikipediologists deal with others who
 dare to stray from or mock the Wikipediology doctrine -- that being
 attack, attack, attack! And this is something you excel at Ira.

 For the record Ira, I have been in touch with the reporter a few
 times, and she has told me, that like the Avicii interview, she
 recorded the entire conversation and she stands by her report. So will
 New York Magazine when they review her recorded conversation, if
 Wikipediologists wanted to make her report an issue. What you may not
 have seen about the Avicii report is that the reporter was vindicated
 in the end, simply because the conversation was recorded. I also told
 her that she would probably be notable enough for a Wikipedia article,
 and that she has no need to be worried if one were created -- people
 generally do edit in an NPOV way. She has faith in that system.

 Now on your other comments, and it's one which Pete Forsyth touched on
 --- Wikipediologists do have a history of creating articles when they
 have been slighted.

 Take Theodore Katsanevas,[1] for example. Prior to the news of him
 suing a Greek Wikipedia editor, he had a bio article on one project,
 Greek Wikipedia.[2] He now has an article on 18 projects.[3] It's the
 same thing with Pierre-sur-Haute military

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media

2014-06-09 Thread Newyorkbrad
Russavia, despite the smilie, your last comment suggests that someone would
create a biography of a living person in retaliation for the fact that she
wrote unflatteringly and made errors in a piece about the Wikiconference.

BLPs must never be created or edited as a form of retaliation against the
article subject or misused in connection with an off-wiki dispute, nor may
any suggestion of doing so be made at any time..

It is also undesirable to provide ammunition for the (sometimes,
unfortunately, accurate) perception that being the subject of a Wikipedia
article is something that people should fear, nor that we would, even
jokingly, threaten to do create a BLP as a form of what came last year to
be called revenge editing.

Please don't make this sort of comment again.

Thanks,
Newyorkbrad/IBM


On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com
wrote:


 There is the option of contacting her directly, or the chief editor of
 the magazine, for further comment/clarification. Or the Wikipedia way
 -- create a totally neutral on-project biography. ;)

 Cheers,

 Russavia

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

2014-05-28 Thread Newyorkbrad
Wil:

Please take this particular aspect of the discussion offline without
further postings about it.

There are entirely legitimate reasons for my request and for the
expressions of concern from others that have come through in the past
couple of hours.  This request is not an attempt to stifle any form of
Wikipedia/Wikimedia criticism nor your becoming more familiar with the
projects and their communities.

Newyorkbrad/IBM


On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

 What???

 What talk page are you talking about? How in the world am I making an
 unsafe environment?

 Those are some *very* serious charges. I'm really just stunned.

 *No wonder people are afraid to post here!*

 ,Wil



 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
  On 28 May 2014 21:37, Molly White gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
   Harassment: Has harassment been addressed in a comprehensive way on
   all sites, including all of the WP site? As an example, Wikipedia has
   had a problem with low and declining female participation for years,
   and the WMF has often stated that it would like to address it. Are
   women actively encouraged to participate on Wikipedia by the WMF or
   other organizations? If we're not doing everything to protect women
   and all other Wikipedians, is it morally or ethically correct to
   perform outreach to potentially vulnerable groups? I'd especially like
   to hear about this from a female perspective.
 
  A great start would be to hold this conversation in a safe space where
  people can discuss without fear of reprisal. I do not mean to say that
  wikimedia-l, nor any other public Wikimedia mailing list or page, is an
  inherently unsafe place to hold this discussion—that's not the case at
 all.
  But trying to hold this discussion after all the drama that you have
 been
  passing through this list in the past few days makes this a scary place
 for
  myself and others to post.
 
  You have ensured that this list has Wikipediocracy's rapt attention.
  Although I don't doubt the folks over there pay some attention to the
  regular goings-on of this list, the threads that you have been
 motivating
  and interacting with mean that every comment to this list is being
  scrutinized, and anyone they dislike is being torn apart. You have also
  shown that you have been interacting with and, at least to some degree,
  sympathizing with at least one person who, I feel, is dangerous.
 
  You have created a space where comments are being picked apart by a
 group
  of
  people eager to find or fabricate any flaw. My revision-deletion of an
  extremely violent and threatening edit was construed not as a standard
  admin
  action but as some sort of clean-up after someone whom they feel I am
  desperate to protect or cover up. You have drawn the attention of a
  dangerous user, who had not had contact with me for quite some time
 until
  now. You have the attention of at least one, likely more, of the people
 who
  created the racist, sexist, and threatening attack/doxxing pages
 mentioning
  me at EncyclopediaDramatica.
 
  So you'll have to excuse me when I'm somewhat unwilling to give my more
  in-depth female perspective here and now.
 
  Yours,
  Molly (GorillaWarfare)
 
 
 
  I'm going to second what Molly says here, Wil.  I'm a woman who has held
  positions that have attracted abuse and harassment  (directed both at me
  and my family) throughout the movement for years, and the first time I
 have
  ever felt unsafe on this mailing list was today.
 
  You knew that the subject you were raising here had already caused a
  Wikimedia staffer to take the (very unusual) step of advising his ED that
  s/he felt unsafe because of your actions, not to mention the post that
 was
  left on a talk page.  Let me tell you, Wil, 85-90% of women would never
  edit Wikipedia again if that post had been left on their talk page. And
  yet, you could not leave it alone.  It was all about you, and how you
 were
  done wrong by, and how you didn't like how someone who has a long history
  of making violently and sexually graphic abusive posts on English
 Wikipedia
  (and other places) was treated.  (I'm pretty sure he didn't get around to
  telling you why he was banned, but you knew by the time you were drawn
 away
  from IRC.)
 
  So..you perpetuated the feeling of unsafeness for your own purposes
 rather
  than respect that your actions (whether intentionally or not) had created
  that unsafe setting.  Several community members tried to draw you away
 from
  continuing in this vein, myself included, but you were not to be
 deterred.
  Your determination to continue to perpetuate this unsafeness, by actively
  participating in the ridiculing of Wikimedians, is precisely the kind of
  behaviour that makes Wikimedia projects so unpleasant for women.
 
  I've been trying very hard to keep an open mind about you, despite your
  unwillingness to modify your behaviour

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-24 Thread Newyorkbrad
I've participated from time to time in Wikipediocracy and its predecessor
Wikipedia Review, and I've kept an eye on discussions there even when I
haven't been participating.  At times I've gained useful insights and
information from things posted on those sites.  In particular, they have
been a set of strong voices advocating over the years for greater attention
to the well-being of BLP subjects.

To be clear, there are valid reasons for people to be upset by some
things that take place on those sites.  A few contributors there have
a tendency to take things badly out of context (not least about myself), to
exaggerate problems that do exist, and to take even valid points to their
illogical extremes.  The sites often do not abide by the Wikimedia
norm that allows editors to remain anonymous or
pseudonymous, which disturbs those of us who think there are valid and
important reasons for this norm and sanctions for breaching it.  The tone
of discourse can be grating and nasty and at times seems to be
deteriorating, which is not to suggest that it was ever the Algonquin Round
Table to begin with (nor, to be fair, is WP:ANI.)  There is a
troublesome tendency to focus unduly on a few individuals' personalities
and private lives (the subforum devoted to mocking Jimmy Wales is
particularly unimpressive and ought to be discontinued).  The wholesale
publication of hacked or leaked correspondence from an internal mailing
list on WR a couple of years ago was certainly a low point.

As a general statement, the threads focused on article quality and on
policy issues are more substantive and more useful than those focused on
particular individuals.

I can't say whether it's a good idea or not for Wil to participate on
Wikipediocracy, but I don't agree with those who've opined it reflects
badly on him to do so, and I certainly don't agree with those who suggest
it reflects badly on Lila.  I do suggest to Wil that a critic site
should not become one's *main* source of input on Wikipedia or Wikimedia,
and that assertions there need to be cross-checked rather than simply
accepted.  But I suspect that Wil understands that already.

Newyorkbrad


On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

  So perhaps you can understand why you emerging from WO with questions
  about child protection rang all sort of alarm bells.  You didn't look
  like you were genuinely curious but as though you were simply aping one
  of their calls for war.  Coming from most anyone else, it'd have been
  dismissed as simple trolling - but you are *not* anyone else.

 I'm also a father with a long history of stepping up to bat on issues
 that affect my own children.

 Moreover, speculating on each other's motives doesn't seem to bring
 insight to these important issues. Instead, we all start talking about
 what may or may not be going on in each other's heads.

 Maybe we can improve the signal-to-noise ratio here by focusing more
 on what's being said rather than who is saying it.

 Thanks.
 ,Wil

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

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia and Universities

2014-05-06 Thread Newyorkbrad
Is there one place, perhaps on Meta, where a Wikipedian/Wikimedian could
find a summary/briefing on the various different programs that exist?

Newyorkbrad


On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Leigh Thelmadatter osama...@hotmail.comwrote:

 I think this speaks to how little is known and how poorly education
 projects have been promoted, especially outside the US and Canada. There is
 even the assumption on the part of many that this is the purview of
 chapters.

 The Education Program has just convened an Education Cooperative with
 representatives from education projects in various parts of the world.
 Article in the Education newsletter (yes there is one) is here
 http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/Newsletter/March_2014/Education_Cooperative_Kickoff_Meeting_in_Prague




  Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 11:23:10 +0100
  From: fae...@gmail.com
  To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia and Universities
 
  If Universities or GLAMs want to talk about our best practices for
  running open knowledge projects that include Wikimedia projects, they
  ought to be asking some of the many people who have successfully
  delivered these projects.
 
  Tip: ** Always recommend they visit https://outreach.wikimedia.org **
  plenty of contacts and useful case studies are maintained there, both
  for GLAMs and education.
 
  Fae
  --
  fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use

2014-02-19 Thread Newyorkbrad
When we were discussing an update to the COI/paid editing page on English
Wikipedia a few months ago, I posted a set of hypothetical (but not all
that hypothetical) situations to help guide the discussion.  I've copied
and updated that question set and posted it to the talkpage of the meta
discussion, in the hopes that it might be useful there too in ensuring that
any proposal addresses real situations that arise in a sensible way.

Link:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment#Hypothetical_.28but_not_all_that_hypothetical.29_examples_for_discussion

Regards,
Newyorkbrad



On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks
mcdev...@gmail.comwrote:

 I've thought a lot about the issues around conflict of interest, paid
 editing, and paid advocacy (by the way, those are all overlapping but
 different concepts). My writing (and
 disclosure)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic/FAQ was
 brought up on this list last time the issue came up as a model of good
 behavior. I always advocate transparency and disclosure of affiliation when
 edits are done as part of work duties, and only making edits that serve
 Wikimedia's own mission, not just self-interest.

 Having said that, this proposal seems awful. It appears to outlaw mistakes.
 All failures to disclose affiliation are deceptive according to the
 language, regardless of whether it is done in good faith or bad. I would
 never have interpreted the current TOU's language to mean that omission is
 the same thing as misrepresentation in all cases. That includes edits from
 newbies, or those editing under the assumption presumption that Wikimedia
 grants users unconditional privacy. I think about every GLAM professional
 or academic ever who makes their first tentative edit, and maybe just adds
 a link or uploads a historical image. Or maybe they made a valid, but
 self-interested comment on a talk page (like Actually, the library has 4
 branches, not 3). Now, they don't just face the problem of getting
 reverted/warned if they've done something wrong; they have violated the
 site's terms of use as well. And will be subject to applicable law(!) As
 if there aren't enough potential stumbling blocks for contributors with
 subject matter expertise or from underserved communities. I see this being
 invoked more often in toxic ways than constructive ones, since more nuanced
 community policies are already in place on major projects.

 You said on the talk page in response to someone's concern about those
 types of desirable contributions that In fact, Wikipedians in Residence
 usually explain their affiliation on their user page (consistent with this
 provision), and exemplify some of the best practices for transparency and
 disclosure. I'm you view us so favorably, but I think it's important to
 point out that good Wikipedians are not born that way. And they probably
 didn't learn their good practices from the terms of use.

 And I'm not sure how to make it better. What value does this even serve the
 movement? I can't understand from the background information why there is
 the need to resolve the problem of conflict of interest through a
 Wikimedia-wide terms of use change, especially such a rigid one, when local
 policies are already in place. (Or, if they are not in place, perhaps it
 has more to do with the fact that not all Wikimedia projects even face the
 same problems of neutrality as Wikipedia.) I don't question that conflicts
 of interest are a valid concern, and I am sure this proposal was probably
 written with more clear-cut cases of profit motives in mind, but it seems
 more like an overreach than any kind of solution.

 Dominic

 (Note, I wasn't paid to make this mailing list post.)


 On 19 February 2014 17:06, Stephen LaPorte slapo...@wikimedia.org wrote:

  Hello all,
 
  We are asking for community input on a proposed amendment to the
 Wikimedia
  Terms of Use regarding undisclosed paid editing. The amendment is
 currently
  available in English, German, Spanish, French, Italian, and Japanese, and
  we welcome further translations and discussion in any language.
 
  For your review, you may find the proposed amendment and background
  information here:
 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment
 
  Please join the discussion on the talk page:
 
 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment
 
  Thank you for sharing your thoughts and comments.
 
  --
  Stephen LaPorte
  Legal Counsel
  Wikimedia Foundation
 
  *For legal reasons, I may only serve as an attorney for the Wikimedia
  Foundation. This means I may not give legal advice to or serve as a
 lawyer
  for community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal
  capacity.*
 
  ___
  Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
  directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Wikimediauk-l] WMUK slide scanner

2014-02-18 Thread Newyorkbrad
I'm surprised not to see any replies to this particular thread.  It seems
to me to be a no-brainer (to use a nonce-word that I hate) that imaging
equipment for local wiki organizations in a position to make good use of it
to upload free content for the projects should be a high priority for
funding at whatever level.

In the next funding cycle, maybe someone should propose a pilot program of
allocating $10,000 and making ten $1,000 micro-grants for this purpose,
with the application process to include discussion of what or whose free
content would be made available to the projects if the equipment were
provided.

Newyorkbrad


On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 3:04 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

 A message I just sent in a wikimediauk-l thread about photographic
 negative scanners, which I thought might be of general interest to
 Wikimedia organisations.

 tl;dr: an archival-quality negative scanner has potential to be a
 white elephant* (a donation that is actually a liability), but could
 be a useful thing that an organisation could use to make very good
 friends with GLAMs and individuals.


 - d.


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_elephant


 -- Forwarded message --
 From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
 Date: 15 February 2014 20:00
 Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] WMUK slide scanner
 To: UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediau...@lists.wikimedia.org


 On 15 February 2014 19:52, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
  On 15 February 2014 15:23, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
  On 15 February 2014 15:09, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk
 wrote:

   Change of plan: Thank you, but I've been offered the use of one of
   these:
 http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/scanner/scoolscan_4000/
   by a friend who lives locally.

  Oh you lucky bugger. That's the level of archival-quality
  piece of kit we could do with for WMUK. Though it would have to live
  in the office.

  A nikon product at the WMUK office? Is that wise:
 
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Canon_EOS_DSLR_family_(selection).jpg


 :-)

 Seriously, though: if you want archival quality, the way to go is a
 CoolScan. Not only would we be able to scan negatives ourselves
 (though it'd be tied to the office, rather than being a loanable
 item), we'd be able to make very good friends indeed with GLAMs that
 have random piles of unscanned negatives.

 It'd be nice if someone with a few hundred quid bought a CoolScan,
 scanned their collection, then donated the kit to WMUK when done with
 it.

 The way it usually goes is: someone buys a CoolScan on eBay, scans
 their negative collection, sells it to the next person. WMUK would be
 a suitable end point for such a chain.

 The main catch is for it to be *someone else's* problem to make sure a
 decade-old piece of kit is in usable condition not to be a white
 elephant - donating something that turns into a liability is helpy
 rather than helpful. CoolScan IV/4000 use FireWire, V/5000 on use USB
 ... software and supported OS is an interesting question as well ...
 III/3000 and earlier do archival-quality scanning, but often have
 weird hardware requirements. I think the I and II needed their own ISA
 card. This is the sort of white elephant *not* to inflict on a small
 charity.

 If I had ~£500 to spare I would happily be that person. I'm not though :-)

 I'll borrow the Ion (a rather less fragile piece of kit, so
 borrowable), but if I had access to a CoolScan I'd happily do 'em
 again.


 - d.

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

2013-12-30 Thread Newyorkbrad
I have no role or participation on Commons, but from my work on English WP
I'm aware of the very real copyright status of free as a practical matter
although someone could theoretically make a disputed technical argument
otherwise.

One solution, where there is a good-faith argument the image is free and no
rights-holder claiming otherwise, would be a disclaimer. Perhaps something
along the lines of It is believed this image is in the public domain [or,
the status of this image depends on resolution of an open legal issue, or
whatever] and therefore eligible for inclusion on Wikimedia Commons and for
re-use. However, it is possible that the free status of this image could be
disputed because [brief explanation of reason]. Potential re-users should
therefore proceed cautiously.

I hasten to add that this would be appropriate only where the impediment to
freedom is seen as mostly theoretical, not to screw over legitimate claims
by rightsholders or by people with privacy interests implicated by the
image.

Newyorkbrad


On Monday, December 30, 2013, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 30 December 2013 11:26, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Hoi Tomasz,

 You have a really strong opinion. When you read this thread, you will
 notice that it is not appreciated by many and seen as disruptive. Can you
 appreciate it in this way?

 You argument about re-users is valid when you turn around the argument as
 well; as long as we do NOT have a take down notice re-users are better
 served by the continuation of the presence of images.
 Thanks,
  GerardM


 No because then reusers also get hit which a bunch of takedown notices (or
 lawsuits) which is decidedly disruptive for them.


 --
 geni
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Office hours for VisualEditor

2013-10-30 Thread Newyorkbrad
It's simple enough to use 0001 instead of .

Newyorkbrad


On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org
 wrote:

  On 10/30/2013 11:20 AM, Risker wrote:
   Just to clarify, since  UTC is a confusing time for most of us
 
  {{cn}}
 
  I've heard that said very often (that 00:00 is somehow confusing to many
  people), but I've yet to actually see someone being actually confused by
  it.
 
  There is exactly one minute labeled 00:00 in every day, and that is
  unambiguously the first of the day.  It makes as much sense to be
  hesitant about it as it does wondering whether Jan 1 is part of the
  previous year or not*.
 
  -- Marc
 
  * Hint:  It's not.
 
 
 Just a shot in the dark, but maybe Risker asked because she's confused. So,
 now you have at last seen someone confused by it! Congrats, and may all
 your future demands for citations supporting the personal reactions of
 other people be met so easily ;)
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Office hours for VisualEditor

2013-10-30 Thread Newyorkbrad
In an arbitration committee election a couple of years ago, I definitely
recall confusion about whether a deadline of  on a given date meant
that the deadline expired as of the beginning of that date or the end of
that date.

Time designations are human conventions, not laws of nature, and should be
as clearly expressed as possible.  Anyone who disagrees with me is free
to state his or her opinion until  today.

Newyorkbrad


On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.orgwrote:

 On 10/30/2013 11:45 AM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
  It's simple enough to use 0001 instead of .

 It is, but if there /are/ in fact a large number of people being
 confused by it, then treating 00:00 as though it had special status by
 avoiding it will only *add* to that confusion rather than clarify the
 matter.

 -- Marc


 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Office hours for VisualEditor

2013-10-30 Thread Newyorkbrad
Are you saying that our extensive discussion of the meaning of  counts
for naught?

Newyorkbrad


On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.comwrote:

 On 10/30/2013 8:39 AM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:

 On 10/30/2013 11:20 AM, Risker wrote:

 Just to clarify, since  UTC is a confusing time for most of us

 {{cn}}

 I've heard that said very often (that 00:00 is somehow confusing to many
 people), but I've yet to actually see someone being actually confused by
 it.

 There is exactly one minute labeled 00:00 in every day, and that is
 unambiguously the first of the day.

 It ought to be straightforward, yes, since in numeric sequences 00:00
 clearly comes before other possible time values, and therefore is not
 nearly as confusing as, say, 12:00 (is noon AM and midnight PM, or is it
 the other way around?). However, it is definitely possible to overthink
 things, and as this conversation demonstrates, of all the faults of which
 our community is capable, overthinking things is one of the easiest for us
 to fall into.

 --Michael Snow


 __**_
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: 
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.orgwikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
 ?subject=**unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New access to non-public information policy, re-ID requirements and data retention

2013-10-23 Thread Newyorkbrad
Although I personally didn't consider identifying to be onerous, I've never
thought the entire identification requirement and process were necessary,
since nothing is ever done with the identification data.  Can anyone think
of a situation that would have been handled differently if the
proposed policy had been in place at the relevant time?  (I myself can
think of one and only one, but am curious if there are others.)

Newyorkbrad


On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:

 On 10/21/2013 08:13 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
  On a typical site, paid staff would deal with problematic users.

 The obvious, and perhaps a bit trite, answer would be that we are most
 certainly not a typical site by any meaning of the term.  :-)

 Seriously, however, I can understand why some current holders of rights
 might have reservations about a policy that tightens greatly how private
 information is handled and how much vetting is done on who does the
 handling; but that tightening does very much need to take place.

 It's not clear to me what those people who have signed the petition
 think they can accomplish; those new rules (perhaps altered through
 feedback) will need to be installed eventually, but nobody is obliged to
 abide them if they do not feel comfortable doing so; being a steward,
 oversighter or checkuser is not something one is forced into doing.  If
 they prefer not to proceed with the new system, they don't actually need
 to resign.

 As a volunteer, I'd *much* rather those functions be held by active
 members of the community than by staff; and as long as there remains
 sufficient volunteers to do the job, then this is what should happen.
 (We'd probably get more people willing to step forward if we stopped -
 collectively - heaping so much crap on the heads of functionaries; but
 that's a different issue).

 -- Coren / Marc


 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Info: Election for WCA Chairperson

2013-02-24 Thread Newyorkbrad
Although I'm pretty much a complete outsider to this process, and so my
opinion may be discounted accordingly, this schedule for voting may be a
little bit too expedited to be optimal. I'm especially concerned that only
one week is allotted between the close of nominations and the close of
voting. To the extent that a given member might wish to decide his or her
vote through consultation with his or her chapter -- through internal
discussion and consensus or a vote of the chapter board members or all the
chapter's members, on a mailing list or at a chapter meeting -- I'm not
sure one week is a long enough period in which all chapters can do so.

I understand there are reasons to want to move ahead expeditiously with
this election, so I'm not calling for delay for the sake of delay; on the
other hand, allowing a bit more time might be in order.

Regards,
Newyorkbrad

On Sunday, February 24, 2013, Fae fae...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi,

 The schedule of election for the Chapters Association Council Chair
 has been announced at
 
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_Association/Elections/2013_Chair


 The schedule is:
 Nominations open midnight (UTC) on Monday 25 February 2013.
 Nominations close midnight on Monday 4 March 2013 and voting is
opened.
 Voting closes midnight Monday 11 March 2013.

 Note that all 21 Council members will be eligible to vote, including
 those that stand for election. In a heavily contested election,
 expecting nominated candidates to refrain from voting would not be
 workable.

 Thanks,
 Fae
 --
 Ashley Van Haeften (Fae) fae...@gmail.com
 Chapters Association Council Chair http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WCA
 Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/mfae

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

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] This is an encyclopedia

2013-01-17 Thread Newyorkbrad
CECI N'EST PAS UNE ENCYCLOPEDIE.

Newyorkbrad

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 4:41 PM, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote:

 Tom,

 I too like that work of Catherine. I have it on my userpage also.

 Pine

 -

 Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:41:26 -0200
 From: Everton Zanella Alvarenga ezalvare...@wikimedia.org
 To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,  Mailing
 list do Cap?tulo brasileiro da Wikimedia.
 wikimediab...@lists.wikimedia.org
 Subject: [Wikimedia-l] This is an encyclopedia
 Message-ID:
 
 caexlhe_d2mylt5bhj75mogaqe24yjkgcqcqrgod9ox_y1sx...@mail.gmail.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

 THIS

 IS AN
 ENCYCLOPEDIA

 One gateway to the wide garden
 of knowledge, where lies
 The deep rock of our past,
 in which we must delve
 the well of our future,
 The clear water we must leave untainted
 for those who come after us,
 The fertile earth, in which
 truth may grow in bright places,
 tended by many hands,
 And the broad fall of sunshine,
 warming our first steps toward knowing
 how much we do not know.


 *Catherine Munro*


 inspired by *This is a printing
 office
 http://infoshare1.princeton.edu/rbsc2/ga/unseenhands/labels/wardePrintOffice.html
 
 *,
 by Beatrice Warde http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatrice_Warde


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CatherineMunro


 Just discovered from a wikipedian friend from Kenya.

 Tom

 --
 Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom)
 A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable, but more useful
 than a life spent doing nothing.
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Under block threat on fr.wp because of request on meta

2012-11-03 Thread Newyorkbrad
I have no knowledge of the dispute on French Wikipedia, but I've just read
the thread on Meta, and frankly I agree that your making and insisting on
your request seems to have been inappropriate.  We had a similar situation
recently involving English Wikipedia -- in which an editor went to Meta to
request that one of our checkusers have his rights remove because his
appointment was supposedly invalid, but he had never raised his concern on
English first and it turned out to be meritless -- and we did not take
kindly to that action at all.

As a matter of common sense, it seems more than reasonable that if a wiki
is transitioning from one method of appointing CUs to another, this doesn't
mean that all CUs appointed under the old method are invalid.  The
conclusion would be that French should be left with no CUs at all for an
indefinite period, which if French WP is subject to anything remotely
appoaching the level of spamming and disruption that hits English
sometimes, is unlikely to be a viable option.

The more intriguing question to me, as an editor who has been a member of
the English WP ArbCom for five years, is why French has decided to no
longer have an ArbCom.  Or is it just that there is disagreement about
the membership or method of picking the ArbCom?  (The Meta discussion is
not completely clear.)

Newyorkbrad



On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote:

 A group of French admins is threatening me of what they call a block
 with consequences in the case I would perform any similar move, a
 move similar with what I did which they interpret as disrupting
 Wikipedia to illustrate a point (1).

 As the wording is totally vague (similar move) this deprives me of
 the right to express myself on community matters. My freedom of speech
 on community matters is being denied.

 What I did, was a request to stewards on meta to remove access for all
 current French Checkusers as a consequence of the French Wikipedia
 switching from the wiki with arbcom to the wiki without arbcom
 status (2).

 So I am under threat, because I tried to enforce the checkuser policy,
 which provides different access procedures according to whether the
 wiki is with or without arbcom (3).

 Would it be possible to provide some kind of protection to users
 making requests on meta in reference to WMF policies ?

 Would it be possible to have some kind of meta-arbcom that would be
 a supreme court responsible for guaranteeing a set of fundamental
 principles, such as freedom of speech ?

 References:

 (1)
 http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discussion_utilisateur%3ATeofilodiff=84877524oldid=84615519
 (2)
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissionsoldid=4347135#per_CheckUser_policy.23Checkuser_access.2C_all_current_checkusers_on_fr.Wikipedia.org_.28wiki_without_an_Arbitration_Committee.29
 (3) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_policy#Access_to_CheckUser

 See also:


 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Prise_de_d%C3%A9cision/Checkuser
  [The community vote in 2005 where checkusers where agreed by only a
 very short majority (52.4%)]

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

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