Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

[geni]

On 27 March 2016 at 23:00, David Emrany  wrote:
> You are imposing "modern" 1st world standards on these poor people.
> Many I remind you to remember how many 1st world Commons bureaucrats
> and admins were doing something similar / identical [1] only a few
> years ago at Commons.Do we collectively recall how many years.it took
> to ban them and delete their files ?
>


Actually illegal stuff is vaporised as soon as it is found. Images
adult depicting nudity are not per se illegal are where they are
freely licensed and withing project scope they have not been deleted
and remain to this day. By the same token films under a free license
such as Tears of Steel are also not going to be removed from commons.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tears_of_Steel_in_4k_-_Official_Blender_Foundation_release.webm

-- 
geni

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

[Bodhisattwa Mandal]

Hi,

Angola is not alone. Bangladesh also started the practice. :-P Now there is
a good number of Facebook groups and pages to do this kind of piracy
related works through Commons.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/Bangladesh_Facebook_Case

They are even creating manuals in different Facebook groups on how to
download movies even if get blocked by admins.
*
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1683585148563391/permalink/1695000264088546/
*
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1173773462655208=1036981463001076

Phabricator link to deal with this -
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T129845

Regards,
Bodhisattwa

On 28 March 2016 at 03:30, David Emrany  wrote:

> Dear Teles
>
> I am exercising my right of reply, anticipating that.a list mod may
> censor it or delay it till it is infructuous
>
> You are imposing "modern" 1st world standards on these poor people.
> Many I remind you to remember how many 1st world Commons bureaucrats
> and admins were doing something similar / identical [1] only a few
> years ago at Commons.Do we collectively recall how many years.it took
> to ban them and delete their files ?
>
> So give these Angolans time and respectfully equitably treat them as
> unequals when you deal with them.
>
> Dave
>
> [1] http://www.britannica.com/topic/Wikipedia
> " .. in 2010 it was revealed that there was a cache of pornographic
> images, including illegal depictions of sexual acts involving
> children, on Wikimedia Commons, a site maintained by the Wikimedia
> Foundation that served as a repository of media files for use in all
> Wikimedia products."
>
> On 3/26/16, Lucas Teles  wrote:
> > Yeah, I am definitely watching users that violate any Wikimedia project
> and
> > I talk about it with other users publicly. What should be done different?
> > Should we let this users go and ignore they are violating important
> rules?
> > I will be paying atention to suggestions. And trying to do something
> > different is the reason I created this thread. I am pretty sure that the
> > regular measures won't be enough. I would never blame regular editors
> > though. That would be too much easy and counterproductive.
> >
> > Yeah, Wikipedia Zero is a good thing. That goes without saying. And I am
> > not saying that because I expect something in return from the users of
> > Wikipedia Zero. I actually don't think many of them will improve wiki as
> > they use cellphones to edit and there is not yet an app for easily
> editing.
> > Other than reading, doing anything else on cellphone is too much painful.
> > The best thing of WP Zero is that it *provides* information for too many
> > people in need.
> >
> > Teles
> >
> > Em quinta-feira, 24 de março de 2016, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> escreveu:
> >
> >> Hoi,
> >> So what are you saying? It is ok for people to do dastardly things and
> >> abuse Commons and it is even worse when people at Commons use the
> >> environment they know, the Internet, to do some research and expose what
> >> they find?
> >>
> >> Really? And I must be impressed when Mr Kolbe asks attention for it??
> >> Because what! It a Dutch proverb the best sailors are ashore. The same
> can
> >> be said by Mr Kolbe who is proficient in telling other people what to do
> >> and why he objects. That is his prerogative as it is mine to be
> >> underwhelmed.
> >>
> >> Be serious. When issues arise, we may work towards an understanding and
> a
> >> solution and sometimes hands get dirty. I will always support people who
> >> actually make a meaningful difference over people who cannot be faulted.
> >> Mistakes are made and when that is a problem go elsewhere. When there
> is a
> >> meaningful discussion anything is on the cards. So far this is not one.
> >> Thanks,
> >>GerarddM
> >>
> >> On 24 March 2016 at 09:04, David Emrany  >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > Dear Gerard
> >> >
> >> > Correspondingly, what I find unconscionable for us is that a small
> >> > group of Commons editors /admins congregated on the talk page of
> >> > 'Teles' and discussed how to secretly spy on these new Zeropaid
> >> > enabled editors and monitor their Facebook-basic pages [1], [2].
> >> >
> >> > IMO had this been more widely discussed at Commons seeking solutions,
> >> > we would not be seeing unfortunate news articles like the one Andreas
> >> > Kolbe has linked to
> >> >
> >> > Regards
> >> >
> >> > Dave
> >> >
> >> > [1]
> >> >
> >>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATeles=revision=168565809=168565337=en
> >> >
> >> > [2]
> >> >
> >>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Teles/Angola_Facebook_Case=168514640
> >> >
> >> > On 3/20/16, Gerard Meijssen  >
> >> wrote:
> >> > > Hoi,
> >> > > Realistically. Wikipedia is very much an enabler.
> >> > >
> >> > > Your ease to consider "simply" disabling mobile edits or 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
So what are you saying? It is ok for people to do dastardly things and
abuse Commons and it is even worse when people at Commons use the
environment they know, the Internet, to do some research and expose what
they find?

Really? And I must be impressed when Mr Kolbe asks attention for it??
Because what! It a Dutch proverb the best sailors are ashore. The same can
be said by Mr Kolbe who is proficient in telling other people what to do
and why he objects. That is his prerogative as it is mine to be
underwhelmed.

Be serious. When issues arise, we may work towards an understanding and a
solution and sometimes hands get dirty. I will always support people who
actually make a meaningful difference over people who cannot be faulted.
Mistakes are made and when that is a problem go elsewhere. When there is a
meaningful discussion anything is on the cards. So far this is not one.
Thanks,
   GerarddM

On 24 March 2016 at 09:04, David Emrany  wrote:

> Dear Gerard
>
> Correspondingly, what I find unconscionable for us is that a small
> group of Commons editors /admins congregated on the talk page of
> 'Teles' and discussed how to secretly spy on these new Zeropaid
> enabled editors and monitor their Facebook-basic pages [1], [2].
>
> IMO had this been more widely discussed at Commons seeking solutions,
> we would not be seeing unfortunate news articles like the one Andreas
> Kolbe has linked to
>
> Regards
>
> Dave
>
> [1]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATeles=revision=168565809=168565337=en
>
> [2]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Teles/Angola_Facebook_Case=168514640
>
> On 3/20/16, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > Realistically. Wikipedia is very much an enabler.
> >
> > Your ease to consider "simply" disabling mobile edits or uploads I find
> > appalling. People in countries like USA or UK are very fortunate. Nobody
> > would ever argue to disable their edits or uploads. At the same time as a
> > movement we desperately need more and more diverse involvement. While you
> > may say what you want, it is unconscionable for us to do as you suggest
> as
> > it is fully contrary to what we aim to achieve.
> >
> > What we are experiencing is a bump in the road. We have to deal with it
> but
> > throwing the baby with the washing water? REALLY !!
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On 19 March 2016 at 15:03, David Emrany  wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Adele
> >>
> >> Can we have a clear picture of Wikimedia's ‘complicated’ relationship
> >> with net neutrality - 1year on from the Washington Post story [1]
> >>
> >> Can we also have specific figures on how much of WMF's traffic has
> >> been lost / gained from key markets in Latin America and Asia after
> >> regulators have blocked zeropaid schemes due to local concerns.
> >>
> >> WMF's "complicated" stance has also turned off many like-minded
> >> support groups who stand for pure net neutrality - and not WMF's or
> >> Facebook's ersatz versions [2]
> >>
> >> Lastly, if the primary aim of Wikipedia Zero is to gain readership,
> >> why not simply disable all mobile edits / uploads from these accounts.
> >>
> >> David
> >>
> >> [1]
> >>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/
> >>
> >> [2]
> >>
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/01/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-protecting-the-internet/
> >>
> >> On 3/19/16, Adele Vrana  wrote:
> >> > Hi Teles,
> >> >
> >> > As the head of the Wikipedia Zero program, I would like to respond and
> >> > provide more context to the important challenges you are bringing up.
> >> >
> >> > Last year, the Foundation increased our security and privacy by
> >> > requiring
> >> > HTTPS to access all Wikimedia projects. That change has greatly
> impacted
> >> > the Wikipedia Zero program, and most importantly has also allowed
> >> > editing
> >> > (and not only reading) and extended the scope of zero-rated access
> from
> >> > just Wikipedia to all Wikimedia projects. However, our banners do not
> >> > reflect this additional zero-rating, but still only appear on
> Wikipedia.
> >> >
> >> > In your message you highlight two main concerns. One would be the
> upload
> >> of
> >> > copyrighted materials and overall abuse on Commons. The other concern
> >> > regards how the editing community should deal with an influx of new
> good
> >> > faith edits and potential editors in Portuguese, with particular
> >> challenge
> >> > of the extra work this causes for existing community members.
> >> >
> >> > Regarding Commons, we have experienced abuse from a few subscribers
> of a
> >> > Zero partner in Angola. Typically what happens is that the pirates
> >> > upload
> >> > copyrighted movies to Commons either directly or in a concealed form
> >> (like
> >> > huge/split PDFs or JPEGs). Then they promote the links on Facebook or

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

[Vi to]

It's ordinary countervandalism, honestly I cannot find anything
questionable but maybe a missed something.

Vito

2016-03-24 9:04 GMT+01:00 David Emrany :

> Dear Gerard
>
> Correspondingly, what I find unconscionable for us is that a small
> group of Commons editors /admins congregated on the talk page of
> 'Teles' and discussed how to secretly spy on these new Zeropaid
> enabled editors and monitor their Facebook-basic pages [1], [2].
>
> IMO had this been more widely discussed at Commons seeking solutions,
> we would not be seeing unfortunate news articles like the one Andreas
> Kolbe has linked to
>
> Regards
>
> Dave
>
> [1]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATeles=revision=168565809=168565337=en
>
> [2]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Teles/Angola_Facebook_Case=168514640
>
> On 3/20/16, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > Realistically. Wikipedia is very much an enabler.
> >
> > Your ease to consider "simply" disabling mobile edits or uploads I find
> > appalling. People in countries like USA or UK are very fortunate. Nobody
> > would ever argue to disable their edits or uploads. At the same time as a
> > movement we desperately need more and more diverse involvement. While you
> > may say what you want, it is unconscionable for us to do as you suggest
> as
> > it is fully contrary to what we aim to achieve.
> >
> > What we are experiencing is a bump in the road. We have to deal with it
> but
> > throwing the baby with the washing water? REALLY !!
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On 19 March 2016 at 15:03, David Emrany  wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Adele
> >>
> >> Can we have a clear picture of Wikimedia's ‘complicated’ relationship
> >> with net neutrality - 1year on from the Washington Post story [1]
> >>
> >> Can we also have specific figures on how much of WMF's traffic has
> >> been lost / gained from key markets in Latin America and Asia after
> >> regulators have blocked zeropaid schemes due to local concerns.
> >>
> >> WMF's "complicated" stance has also turned off many like-minded
> >> support groups who stand for pure net neutrality - and not WMF's or
> >> Facebook's ersatz versions [2]
> >>
> >> Lastly, if the primary aim of Wikipedia Zero is to gain readership,
> >> why not simply disable all mobile edits / uploads from these accounts.
> >>
> >> David
> >>
> >> [1]
> >>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/
> >>
> >> [2]
> >>
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/01/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-protecting-the-internet/
> >>
> >> On 3/19/16, Adele Vrana  wrote:
> >> > Hi Teles,
> >> >
> >> > As the head of the Wikipedia Zero program, I would like to respond and
> >> > provide more context to the important challenges you are bringing up.
> >> >
> >> > Last year, the Foundation increased our security and privacy by
> >> > requiring
> >> > HTTPS to access all Wikimedia projects. That change has greatly
> impacted
> >> > the Wikipedia Zero program, and most importantly has also allowed
> >> > editing
> >> > (and not only reading) and extended the scope of zero-rated access
> from
> >> > just Wikipedia to all Wikimedia projects. However, our banners do not
> >> > reflect this additional zero-rating, but still only appear on
> Wikipedia.
> >> >
> >> > In your message you highlight two main concerns. One would be the
> upload
> >> of
> >> > copyrighted materials and overall abuse on Commons. The other concern
> >> > regards how the editing community should deal with an influx of new
> good
> >> > faith edits and potential editors in Portuguese, with particular
> >> challenge
> >> > of the extra work this causes for existing community members.
> >> >
> >> > Regarding Commons, we have experienced abuse from a few subscribers
> of a
> >> > Zero partner in Angola. Typically what happens is that the pirates
> >> > upload
> >> > copyrighted movies to Commons either directly or in a concealed form
> >> (like
> >> > huge/split PDFs or JPEGs). Then they promote the links on Facebook or
> a
> >> > similar public forum for others to download. When partners become
> aware
> >> of
> >> > this they have flagged it to us and we've, in turn, flagged it to
> >> Community
> >> > Engagement who has worked with editors to try and make sure it's
> >> > removed.
> >> >
> >> > We agree that this is not an ideal way to handle this problem, and we
> >> would
> >> > prefer to catch it much earlier or simply prevent it outright (without
> >> > significant limits being placed on good faith editors). Last fall, we
> >> > had
> >> > internal discussions on finding technical solutions for this problem.
> >> > However, we discovered that we could not widely identify traffic from
> >> zero
> >> > rated partners, and that ability was a prerequisite to address this
> >> issue.
> >> > As of December 2015, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

[David Emrany]

Dear Gerard

Correspondingly, what I find unconscionable for us is that a small
group of Commons editors /admins congregated on the talk page of
'Teles' and discussed how to secretly spy on these new Zeropaid
enabled editors and monitor their Facebook-basic pages [1], [2].

IMO had this been more widely discussed at Commons seeking solutions,
we would not be seeing unfortunate news articles like the one Andreas
Kolbe has linked to

Regards

Dave

[1]  
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATeles=revision=168565809=168565337=en

[2] 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Teles/Angola_Facebook_Case=168514640

On 3/20/16, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
> Hoi,
> Realistically. Wikipedia is very much an enabler.
>
> Your ease to consider "simply" disabling mobile edits or uploads I find
> appalling. People in countries like USA or UK are very fortunate. Nobody
> would ever argue to disable their edits or uploads. At the same time as a
> movement we desperately need more and more diverse involvement. While you
> may say what you want, it is unconscionable for us to do as you suggest as
> it is fully contrary to what we aim to achieve.
>
> What we are experiencing is a bump in the road. We have to deal with it but
> throwing the baby with the washing water? REALLY !!
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 19 March 2016 at 15:03, David Emrany  wrote:
>
>> Hi Adele
>>
>> Can we have a clear picture of Wikimedia's ‘complicated’ relationship
>> with net neutrality - 1year on from the Washington Post story [1]
>>
>> Can we also have specific figures on how much of WMF's traffic has
>> been lost / gained from key markets in Latin America and Asia after
>> regulators have blocked zeropaid schemes due to local concerns.
>>
>> WMF's "complicated" stance has also turned off many like-minded
>> support groups who stand for pure net neutrality - and not WMF's or
>> Facebook's ersatz versions [2]
>>
>> Lastly, if the primary aim of Wikipedia Zero is to gain readership,
>> why not simply disable all mobile edits / uploads from these accounts.
>>
>> David
>>
>> [1]
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/
>>
>> [2]
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/01/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-protecting-the-internet/
>>
>> On 3/19/16, Adele Vrana  wrote:
>> > Hi Teles,
>> >
>> > As the head of the Wikipedia Zero program, I would like to respond and
>> > provide more context to the important challenges you are bringing up.
>> >
>> > Last year, the Foundation increased our security and privacy by
>> > requiring
>> > HTTPS to access all Wikimedia projects. That change has greatly impacted
>> > the Wikipedia Zero program, and most importantly has also allowed
>> > editing
>> > (and not only reading) and extended the scope of zero-rated access from
>> > just Wikipedia to all Wikimedia projects. However, our banners do not
>> > reflect this additional zero-rating, but still only appear on Wikipedia.
>> >
>> > In your message you highlight two main concerns. One would be the upload
>> of
>> > copyrighted materials and overall abuse on Commons. The other concern
>> > regards how the editing community should deal with an influx of new good
>> > faith edits and potential editors in Portuguese, with particular
>> challenge
>> > of the extra work this causes for existing community members.
>> >
>> > Regarding Commons, we have experienced abuse from a few subscribers of a
>> > Zero partner in Angola. Typically what happens is that the pirates
>> > upload
>> > copyrighted movies to Commons either directly or in a concealed form
>> (like
>> > huge/split PDFs or JPEGs). Then they promote the links on Facebook or a
>> > similar public forum for others to download. When partners become aware
>> of
>> > this they have flagged it to us and we've, in turn, flagged it to
>> Community
>> > Engagement who has worked with editors to try and make sure it's
>> > removed.
>> >
>> > We agree that this is not an ideal way to handle this problem, and we
>> would
>> > prefer to catch it much earlier or simply prevent it outright (without
>> > significant limits being placed on good faith editors). Last fall, we
>> > had
>> > internal discussions on finding technical solutions for this problem.
>> > However, we discovered that we could not widely identify traffic from
>> zero
>> > rated partners, and that ability was a prerequisite to address this
>> issue.
>> > As of December 2015, the Ops team was able to complete that work.
>> >
>> > With this task completed, our team, in coordination with community
>> > engagement and engineering is working on finding the best approach to
>> > resolve this issue. Do you have suggestions or guidance? We are eager to
>> > examine multiple approaches and this is a great time to open the
>> > discussion. As we evaluate different approaches, we can also 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

[Vi to]

Personally I'd say "it's 100% wrong" but "not 100% to blame".

I've just made https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T130761 IMHO we need to
address the problem form a technical point of view, implicitly discarding
"block'em all" options.

Vito

2016-03-23 19:42 GMT+01:00 Keegan Peterzell :

> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Keegan Peterzell 
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Ziko van Dijk 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Actually, I am quite appalled by the article. Whether one wants to see
> >> something positive in pirating or not, the Wikimedia servers are not
> meant
> >> for this purpose (for good reasons). Breaking rules and taking abuse of
> an
> >> opportunity is not a goal by itself.
> >> Kind regards
> >> Ziko
> >>
> >
> > ​Call it what you want, but the world is changed when ordinary people who
> > are just trying to do ordinary things​
> >
> > ​have a roadblock put in front of them. This is that kind of thing, and
> > it's the "revolution" power of the distributed internet.​ We can shut
> them
> > down, but Angolans are going to find another way to do the very things
> that
> > those with full access to the internet take for granted. As Jason says,
> we
> > should take great caution and give deep thought before taking a binary
> side.
> >
> >
> ​Oh, and I'm not condoning the behavior or use of Wikimedia servers, but I
> do think that the entire situation is much more nuanced than the simplicity
> of "that's wrong."​
>
>
> --
> ~Keegan
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
>
> This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
> is in a personal capacity.
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Keegan Peterzell 
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
>
>> Actually, I am quite appalled by the article. Whether one wants to see
>> something positive in pirating or not, the Wikimedia servers are not meant
>> for this purpose (for good reasons). Breaking rules and taking abuse of an
>> opportunity is not a goal by itself.
>> Kind regards
>> Ziko
>>
>
> ​Call it what you want, but the world is changed when ordinary people who
> are just trying to do ordinary things​
>
> ​have a roadblock put in front of them. This is that kind of thing, and
> it's the "revolution" power of the distributed internet.​ We can shut them
> down, but Angolans are going to find another way to do the very things that
> those with full access to the internet take for granted. As Jason says, we
> should take great caution and give deep thought before taking a binary side.
>
>
​Oh, and I'm not condoning the behavior or use of Wikimedia servers, but I
do think that the entire situation is much more nuanced than the simplicity
of "that's wrong."​


-- 
~Keegan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan

This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
is in a personal capacity.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> Actually, I am quite appalled by the article. Whether one wants to see
> something positive in pirating or not, the Wikimedia servers are not meant
> for this purpose (for good reasons). Breaking rules and taking abuse of an
> opportunity is not a goal by itself.
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>

​Call it what you want, but the world is changed when ordinary people who
are just trying to do ordinary things​

​have a roadblock put in front of them. This is that kind of thing, and
it's the "revolution" power of the distributed internet.​ We can shut them
down, but Angolans are going to find another way to do the very things that
those with full access to the internet take for granted. As Jason says, we
should take great caution and give deep thought before taking a binary side.

-- 
~Keegan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan

This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
is in a personal capacity.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

[Ziko van Dijk]

Actually, I am quite appalled by the article. Whether one wants to see
something positive in pirating or not, the Wikimedia servers are not meant
for this purpose (for good reasons). Breaking rules and taking abuse of an
opportunity is not a goal by itself.
Kind regards
Ziko




Am Mittwoch, 23. März 2016 schrieb Jason Koebler :

> This is an important issue and how Wikimedia and the community handles it
> is very important. I would caution that even those who are pirating and
> sharing copyrighted materials are not "bad actors," they are people who
> have no other file sharing options who have found a creative solution in
> the face of being given partial access to the internet.
>
> Here is an article I just published on the subject:
>
>
> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/wikipedia-zero-facebook-free-basics-angola-pirates-zero-rating
>
> On 22 March 2016 at 07:37, Mwaoshe Njemah  > wrote:
>
> > Reminder: Wikipedia Zero is actually a very good thing. We are hoping to
> > improve the quality and quantity of articles
> >
> > Mwaoshe Njemah,
> > Siku Ya Wiki Project
> > On 21 Mar 2016 09:58, "WereSpielChequers"  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Is much of the problem about differing varieties of Portuguese? Last I
> > > heard the Portuguese language Wikipedia allowed multiple versions of
> > > Portuguese in a similar way to English - i.e. standardised at the
> article
> > > level not the project level; Though the editing base is much more
> skewed
> > to
> > > Brazil than EN is to the US. Assuming Angolan Portuguese is closer to
> the
> > > Portuguese spoken in Portugal, then just as in EN you are likely to get
> > > some goodfaith newbies "correcting" spelling to the version they know.
> If
> > > so perhaps edit filters might work. Alternatively, would it be possible
> > to
> > > do something similar to the Chinese Wikipedia and display different
> > > versions of Portuguese according to user preference/IP geography?
> > >
> > > WereSpielChequers
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > > 
> ?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,
> > 
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jason Koebler
> Staff Writer, Motherboard  / VICE
> Host & Producer, Radio Motherboard
> 
> podcast
> 49 South 2nd Street, Brooklyn, NY 11249
> 301-412-7324
> @jason_koebler 
> ___
> 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,
> 
> ?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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

[Jason Koebler]

This is an important issue and how Wikimedia and the community handles it
is very important. I would caution that even those who are pirating and
sharing copyrighted materials are not "bad actors," they are people who
have no other file sharing options who have found a creative solution in
the face of being given partial access to the internet.

Here is an article I just published on the subject:

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/wikipedia-zero-facebook-free-basics-angola-pirates-zero-rating

On 22 March 2016 at 07:37, Mwaoshe Njemah  wrote:

> Reminder: Wikipedia Zero is actually a very good thing. We are hoping to
> improve the quality and quantity of articles
>
> Mwaoshe Njemah,
> Siku Ya Wiki Project
> On 21 Mar 2016 09:58, "WereSpielChequers" 
> wrote:
>
> > Is much of the problem about differing varieties of Portuguese? Last I
> > heard the Portuguese language Wikipedia allowed multiple versions of
> > Portuguese in a similar way to English - i.e. standardised at the article
> > level not the project level; Though the editing base is much more skewed
> to
> > Brazil than EN is to the US. Assuming Angolan Portuguese is closer to the
> > Portuguese spoken in Portugal, then just as in EN you are likely to get
> > some goodfaith newbies "correcting" spelling to the version they know. If
> > so perhaps edit filters might work. Alternatively, would it be possible
> to
> > do something similar to the Chinese Wikipedia and display different
> > versions of Portuguese according to user preference/IP geography?
> >
> > WereSpielChequers
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
Jason Koebler
Staff Writer, Motherboard  / VICE
Host & Producer, Radio Motherboard

podcast
49 South 2nd Street, Brooklyn, NY 11249
301-412-7324
@jason_koebler 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

[Andreas Kolbe]

Motherboard today has a fairly comprehensive report on this:

Angola’s Wikipedia Pirates Are Exposing the Problems With Digital
Colonialism
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/wikipedia-zero-facebook-free-basics-angola-pirates-zero-rating

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Mwaoshe Njemah  wrote:

> Reminder: Wikipedia Zero is actually a very good thing. We are hoping to
> improve the quality and quantity of articles
>
> Mwaoshe Njemah,
> Siku Ya Wiki Project
> On 21 Mar 2016 09:58, "WereSpielChequers" 
> wrote:
>
> > Is much of the problem about differing varieties of Portuguese? Last I
> > heard the Portuguese language Wikipedia allowed multiple versions of
> > Portuguese in a similar way to English - i.e. standardised at the article
> > level not the project level; Though the editing base is much more skewed
> to
> > Brazil than EN is to the US. Assuming Angolan Portuguese is closer to the
> > Portuguese spoken in Portugal, then just as in EN you are likely to get
> > some goodfaith newbies "correcting" spelling to the version they know. If
> > so perhaps edit filters might work. Alternatively, would it be possible
> to
> > do something similar to the Chinese Wikipedia and display different
> > versions of Portuguese according to user preference/IP geography?
> >
> > WereSpielChequers
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

[Mwaoshe Njemah]

Reminder: Wikipedia Zero is actually a very good thing. We are hoping to
improve the quality and quantity of articles

Mwaoshe Njemah,
Siku Ya Wiki Project
On 21 Mar 2016 09:58, "WereSpielChequers" 
wrote:

> Is much of the problem about differing varieties of Portuguese? Last I
> heard the Portuguese language Wikipedia allowed multiple versions of
> Portuguese in a similar way to English - i.e. standardised at the article
> level not the project level; Though the editing base is much more skewed to
> Brazil than EN is to the US. Assuming Angolan Portuguese is closer to the
> Portuguese spoken in Portugal, then just as in EN you are likely to get
> some goodfaith newbies "correcting" spelling to the version they know. If
> so perhaps edit filters might work. Alternatively, would it be possible to
> do something similar to the Chinese Wikipedia and display different
> versions of Portuguese according to user preference/IP geography?
>
> WereSpielChequers
> ___
> 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,
> 
___
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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

[Lucas Teles]

WereSpielChequers, the different varieties of Portuguese is not the problem
here. It actually hasn't been a problem for a while. :)))

James and Adele, I am sincerely happy to know that WMF is not only aware of
it but also applying and thinking about measures to solve the problem.

Maybe opening large doors to Wikipedia is not enough. Unfortunately, we are
frustrating many users that come to Wikipedia and Commons expecting a place
to share their selfies and create profiles about themselves. Even though
they are acting in good faith, it is a pain to repeatedly delete files and
tell new users that they can't create an article about themselves. The good
part of dealing with a good faith user is that all we need to do to stop
them or fix the problem somehow is informing them the right. After knowing
the right, previous mistakes won't be repeated in most cases.

We are, however, doing that several times to several users. Maybe we could
use ways of reaching more users in a row with loud speakers. I believe that
if they are told that they can't upload certain files for instance, a large
part of them won't.

What if we use sitenotice with geolocalization to Angola? What if we try
reaching them through social medias as they also have free access to it in
some cases? What if we look for local editors to share Wikipedia
knowledge, communicate with press and engage other local editors to raise
grounds for generating regular editors there? That may be a hard one but
what if we rethink ways of communication and recognize that user talk page
is far from optimal to connect with new users? Sorry if that sounds naive
but I can't come with better ideas.

When I say we should inform them, I am obviously not underestimating people
of Angola and not trying to do some kind of "catechism". It is just trying
to improve their learning curve about wiki. Blocking is a desperate and
sometimes necessary measure but not a solution. Limiting uploads is not so
different though more specific, but actually even on Commons there are many
problems on editing too and not only with uploading.

A well deserved barnstar to the one with an insightfull idea about it.

Kind regards,

Teles


Em segunda-feira, 21 de março de 2016, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com
> escreveu:

> Is much of the problem about differing varieties of Portuguese? Last I
> heard the Portuguese language Wikipedia allowed multiple versions of
> Portuguese in a similar way to English - i.e. standardised at the article
> level not the project level; Though the editing base is much more skewed to
> Brazil than EN is to the US. Assuming Angolan Portuguese is closer to the
> Portuguese spoken in Portugal, then just as in EN you are likely to get
> some goodfaith newbies "correcting" spelling to the version they know. If
> so perhaps edit filters might work. Alternatively, would it be possible to
> do something similar to the Chinese Wikipedia and display different
> versions of Portuguese according to user preference/IP geography?
>
> WereSpielChequers
> ___
> 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,
> 



-- 
Steward for Wikimedia Foundation. Administrator at Portuguese Wikipedia and
Wikimedia Commons.
Sent from mobile. Please, excuse my brevity.

+55 (71) 98290-7553
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

[WereSpielChequers]

Is much of the problem about differing varieties of Portuguese? Last I
heard the Portuguese language Wikipedia allowed multiple versions of
Portuguese in a similar way to English - i.e. standardised at the article
level not the project level; Though the editing base is much more skewed to
Brazil than EN is to the US. Assuming Angolan Portuguese is closer to the
Portuguese spoken in Portugal, then just as in EN you are likely to get
some goodfaith newbies "correcting" spelling to the version they know. If
so perhaps edit filters might work. Alternatively, would it be possible to
do something similar to the Chinese Wikipedia and display different
versions of Portuguese according to user preference/IP geography?

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

[Isla Haddow-Flood]

Hello

I am with all of those who see this as a positive thing. But perhaps a bit
of gentle curation of their initial experience could be the "fix" that is
needed rather than just cutting any fledgeling editors off altogether. How
about the following ...

reader decides to edit
> clicks on edit button
> directed to registration
> then to a step by step introduction to initial editing with links
(simplified pillars, neutrality, info about media)
> at end of steps put in touch with a member from either the a) language
community (in this case, Wikipedia Portuguese) to access initial editing
resources, OR b) put in touch with Wikimedia Chapter or Usergroups (where
possible) to request a notification on the next editing/community event. If
they still want to edit after that, then all power to them ... but at least
we have supported their effort and not cut them off entirely or confused
them into wrong actions or trolling.

Of course, you will always get people who are trying to be inappropriate,
but that can be taken care of on an individual and not a national basis.

warmest
Isla

On 21 March 2016 at 06:10, James Alexander  wrote:

> Aye, what Vito said.
>
> For some context the WP0 team reached out to me when the partners started
> flagging some of this as well. We've been considering a couple different
> options which I think should be wider discussed. Part of that was also a
> realization that we needed a way to actually tell if something was coming
> from WP0 compared to a non-WP0 user and they implemented technical changes
> with ops so that a header is passed through flagging that early this year
> allowing for more targeted actions to be taken. Completely figuring out the
> extent of the problem has also been though since it seems that even when
> Wikipedia Zero is blocked the users most set at getting around restrictions
> (which are, of course, the most dangerous in many  ways) also use other
> options such as Facebook's Internet Basics/FB0 which also apparently gives
> free access to our sites.
>
> Some of the options considered (not yet implemented though I'd be
> interested in peoples thoughts on them):
>
>- Edit filters (targeted specifically to WP0 or otherwise) flagging
>abnormally large files when compared to the stated file type or files
>coming in through WP0 in general.
>- File upload blocks or other filtering (such as file sizes over X or
>videos ) specifically on WP0
>ranges.
>- More technical measures to try and detect abnormal images or PDFs that
>hold hidden files (apparently this is actually very difficult).
>
> We've been talking with multiple groups within Engineering and given the
> new information and options are going to continue to do so. I do think that
> it is overall a "good" thing that people are trying to edit (originally all
> we saw was the bad uploads and organized copyright violations which was
> much less of a good thing...) but it's definitely true that we don't want
> to overwhelm the current community in such a way that we not only lose
> those new editors but old ones as well (or push them back so hard given the
> necessity of protecting the wiki that they never come back). I think it
> would be really good to think about ways to help deal with that.
>
> James Alexander
> Manager
> Trust & Safety
> Wikimedia Foundation
> (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
>
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Vi to  wrote:
>
> > Anytime a new linguistic group joins Wiki* we should expect a looong
> > September  which will
> > sooner or later end. Meanwhile what might become *so* problematic (and
> then
> > must be stopped asap) is the usage of Commons as a file sharing platform.
> > There's a series of technical countermeasures (stopping truncated files,
> > setting requirements for upload of videos...) which don't imply blocking
> > editing from Zero.
> >
> > Vito
> >
> > 2016-03-20 17:05 GMT+01:00 Lodewijk :
> >
> > > In a way, it is great to hear that Wikipedia zero is attracting new
> > > editors! That is what I hoped for more than increasing readership.
> > >
> > > The general question on how to stimulate positive edits while
> > discouraging
> > > negative contributions is the tricky part. What we always tell
> outsiders
> > on
> > > why we can cope with vandalism or simply bad edits is that we made it
> > > easier to identify and revert it than to make them.
> > >
> > > Maybe a superfluous question, but can we still differentiate individual
> > > devices from each other somehow? I can imagine this is a tricky part if
> > > not...
> > >
> > > Besides the obvious downside,  are the positive sides also visible? Do
> we
> > > see more edits on Angola relayed topics? Do you see more positive
> active
> > > users from Angola?
> > >
> > > Lodewijk
> > >
> > > Op zondag 20 maart 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

[James Alexander]

Aye, what Vito said.

For some context the WP0 team reached out to me when the partners started
flagging some of this as well. We've been considering a couple different
options which I think should be wider discussed. Part of that was also a
realization that we needed a way to actually tell if something was coming
from WP0 compared to a non-WP0 user and they implemented technical changes
with ops so that a header is passed through flagging that early this year
allowing for more targeted actions to be taken. Completely figuring out the
extent of the problem has also been though since it seems that even when
Wikipedia Zero is blocked the users most set at getting around restrictions
(which are, of course, the most dangerous in many  ways) also use other
options such as Facebook's Internet Basics/FB0 which also apparently gives
free access to our sites.

Some of the options considered (not yet implemented though I'd be
interested in peoples thoughts on them):

   - Edit filters (targeted specifically to WP0 or otherwise) flagging
   abnormally large files when compared to the stated file type or files
   coming in through WP0 in general.
   - File upload blocks or other filtering (such as file sizes over X or
   videos ) specifically on WP0
   ranges.
   - More technical measures to try and detect abnormal images or PDFs that
   hold hidden files (apparently this is actually very difficult).

We've been talking with multiple groups within Engineering and given the
new information and options are going to continue to do so. I do think that
it is overall a "good" thing that people are trying to edit (originally all
we saw was the bad uploads and organized copyright violations which was
much less of a good thing...) but it's definitely true that we don't want
to overwhelm the current community in such a way that we not only lose
those new editors but old ones as well (or push them back so hard given the
necessity of protecting the wiki that they never come back). I think it
would be really good to think about ways to help deal with that.

James Alexander
Manager
Trust & Safety
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur

On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Vi to  wrote:

> Anytime a new linguistic group joins Wiki* we should expect a looong
> September  which will
> sooner or later end. Meanwhile what might become *so* problematic (and then
> must be stopped asap) is the usage of Commons as a file sharing platform.
> There's a series of technical countermeasures (stopping truncated files,
> setting requirements for upload of videos...) which don't imply blocking
> editing from Zero.
>
> Vito
>
> 2016-03-20 17:05 GMT+01:00 Lodewijk :
>
> > In a way, it is great to hear that Wikipedia zero is attracting new
> > editors! That is what I hoped for more than increasing readership.
> >
> > The general question on how to stimulate positive edits while
> discouraging
> > negative contributions is the tricky part. What we always tell outsiders
> on
> > why we can cope with vandalism or simply bad edits is that we made it
> > easier to identify and revert it than to make them.
> >
> > Maybe a superfluous question, but can we still differentiate individual
> > devices from each other somehow? I can imagine this is a tricky part if
> > not...
> >
> > Besides the obvious downside,  are the positive sides also visible? Do we
> > see more edits on Angola relayed topics? Do you see more positive active
> > users from Angola?
> >
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > Op zondag 20 maart 2016 heeft Gerard Meijssen  >
> > het volgende geschreven:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > Realistically. Wikipedia is very much an enabler.
> > >
> > > Your ease to consider "simply" disabling mobile edits or uploads I find
> > > appalling. People in countries like USA or UK are very fortunate.
> Nobody
> > > would ever argue to disable their edits or uploads. At the same time
> as a
> > > movement we desperately need more and more diverse involvement. While
> you
> > > may say what you want, it is unconscionable for us to do as you suggest
> > as
> > > it is fully contrary to what we aim to achieve.
> > >
> > > What we are experiencing is a bump in the road. We have to deal with it
> > but
> > > throwing the baby with the washing water? REALLY !!
> > > Thanks,
> > >   GerardM
> > >
> > > On 19 March 2016 at 15:03, David Emrany  > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Adele
> > > >
> > > > Can we have a clear picture of Wikimedia's ‘complicated’ relationship
> > > > with net neutrality - 1year on from the Washington Post story [1]
> > > >
> > > > Can we also have specific figures on how much of WMF's traffic has
> > > > been lost / gained from key markets in Latin America and Asia after
> > > > regulators have blocked zeropaid schemes due to local concerns.
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

[Lodewijk]

In a way, it is great to hear that Wikipedia zero is attracting new
editors! That is what I hoped for more than increasing readership.

The general question on how to stimulate positive edits while discouraging
negative contributions is the tricky part. What we always tell outsiders on
why we can cope with vandalism or simply bad edits is that we made it
easier to identify and revert it than to make them.

Maybe a superfluous question, but can we still differentiate individual
devices from each other somehow? I can imagine this is a tricky part if
not...

Besides the obvious downside,  are the positive sides also visible? Do we
see more edits on Angola relayed topics? Do you see more positive active
users from Angola?

Lodewijk

Op zondag 20 maart 2016 heeft Gerard Meijssen 
het volgende geschreven:

> Hoi,
> Realistically. Wikipedia is very much an enabler.
>
> Your ease to consider "simply" disabling mobile edits or uploads I find
> appalling. People in countries like USA or UK are very fortunate. Nobody
> would ever argue to disable their edits or uploads. At the same time as a
> movement we desperately need more and more diverse involvement. While you
> may say what you want, it is unconscionable for us to do as you suggest as
> it is fully contrary to what we aim to achieve.
>
> What we are experiencing is a bump in the road. We have to deal with it but
> throwing the baby with the washing water? REALLY !!
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 19 March 2016 at 15:03, David Emrany  > wrote:
>
> > Hi Adele
> >
> > Can we have a clear picture of Wikimedia's ‘complicated’ relationship
> > with net neutrality - 1year on from the Washington Post story [1]
> >
> > Can we also have specific figures on how much of WMF's traffic has
> > been lost / gained from key markets in Latin America and Asia after
> > regulators have blocked zeropaid schemes due to local concerns.
> >
> > WMF's "complicated" stance has also turned off many like-minded
> > support groups who stand for pure net neutrality - and not WMF's or
> > Facebook's ersatz versions [2]
> >
> > Lastly, if the primary aim of Wikipedia Zero is to gain readership,
> > why not simply disable all mobile edits / uploads from these accounts.
> >
> > David
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/
> >
> > [2]
> >
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/01/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-protecting-the-internet/
> >
> > On 3/19/16, Adele Vrana > wrote:
> > > Hi Teles,
> > >
> > > As the head of the Wikipedia Zero program, I would like to respond and
> > > provide more context to the important challenges you are bringing up.
> > >
> > > Last year, the Foundation increased our security and privacy by
> requiring
> > > HTTPS to access all Wikimedia projects. That change has greatly
> impacted
> > > the Wikipedia Zero program, and most importantly has also allowed
> editing
> > > (and not only reading) and extended the scope of zero-rated access from
> > > just Wikipedia to all Wikimedia projects. However, our banners do not
> > > reflect this additional zero-rating, but still only appear on
> Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > In your message you highlight two main concerns. One would be the
> upload
> > of
> > > copyrighted materials and overall abuse on Commons. The other concern
> > > regards how the editing community should deal with an influx of new
> good
> > > faith edits and potential editors in Portuguese, with particular
> > challenge
> > > of the extra work this causes for existing community members.
> > >
> > > Regarding Commons, we have experienced abuse from a few subscribers of
> a
> > > Zero partner in Angola. Typically what happens is that the pirates
> upload
> > > copyrighted movies to Commons either directly or in a concealed form
> > (like
> > > huge/split PDFs or JPEGs). Then they promote the links on Facebook or a
> > > similar public forum for others to download. When partners become aware
> > of
> > > this they have flagged it to us and we've, in turn, flagged it to
> > Community
> > > Engagement who has worked with editors to try and make sure it's
> removed.
> > >
> > > We agree that this is not an ideal way to handle this problem, and we
> > would
> > > prefer to catch it much earlier or simply prevent it outright (without
> > > significant limits being placed on good faith editors). Last fall, we
> had
> > > internal discussions on finding technical solutions for this problem.
> > > However, we discovered that we could not widely identify traffic from
> > zero
> > > rated partners, and that ability was a prerequisite to address this
> > issue.
> > > As of December 2015, the Ops team was able to complete that work.
> > >
> > > With this task completed, our team, in coordination with community
> > > engagement and engineering is working on finding the best 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

[Steinsplitter Wiki]

Hoi Gerard Meijssen et all.,

If there are issue with mobile edits we must take the necessary action to 
protect the wiki and re-users, this might include the aforementioned measures. 
I am sure we won't wast volunteers time.

If there are more problems than benefit... It is speaking for itself.

--Steinsplitter

> From: gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 12:51:07 +0100
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects
> 
> Hoi,
> Realistically. Wikipedia is very much an enabler.
> 
> Your ease to consider "simply" disabling mobile edits or uploads I find
> appalling. People in countries like USA or UK are very fortunate. Nobody
> would ever argue to disable their edits or uploads. At the same time as a
> movement we desperately need more and more diverse involvement. While you
> may say what you want, it is unconscionable for us to do as you suggest as
> it is fully contrary to what we aim to achieve.
> 
> What we are experiencing is a bump in the road. We have to deal with it but
> throwing the baby with the washing water? REALLY !!
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
> 
> On 19 March 2016 at 15:03, David Emrany <david.emr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Adele
> >
> > Can we have a clear picture of Wikimedia's ‘complicated’ relationship
> > with net neutrality - 1year on from the Washington Post story [1]
> >
> > Can we also have specific figures on how much of WMF's traffic has
> > been lost / gained from key markets in Latin America and Asia after
> > regulators have blocked zeropaid schemes due to local concerns.
> >
> > WMF's "complicated" stance has also turned off many like-minded
> > support groups who stand for pure net neutrality - and not WMF's or
> > Facebook's ersatz versions [2]
> >
> > Lastly, if the primary aim of Wikipedia Zero is to gain readership,
> > why not simply disable all mobile edits / uploads from these accounts.
> >
> > David
> >
> > [1]
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/
> >
> > [2]
> > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/01/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-protecting-the-internet/
> >
> > On 3/19/16, Adele Vrana <avr...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > > Hi Teles,
> > >
> > > As the head of the Wikipedia Zero program, I would like to respond and
> > > provide more context to the important challenges you are bringing up.
> > >
> > > Last year, the Foundation increased our security and privacy by requiring
> > > HTTPS to access all Wikimedia projects. That change has greatly impacted
> > > the Wikipedia Zero program, and most importantly has also allowed editing
> > > (and not only reading) and extended the scope of zero-rated access from
> > > just Wikipedia to all Wikimedia projects. However, our banners do not
> > > reflect this additional zero-rating, but still only appear on Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > In your message you highlight two main concerns. One would be the upload
> > of
> > > copyrighted materials and overall abuse on Commons. The other concern
> > > regards how the editing community should deal with an influx of new good
> > > faith edits and potential editors in Portuguese, with particular
> > challenge
> > > of the extra work this causes for existing community members.
> > >
> > > Regarding Commons, we have experienced abuse from a few subscribers of a
> > > Zero partner in Angola. Typically what happens is that the pirates upload
> > > copyrighted movies to Commons either directly or in a concealed form
> > (like
> > > huge/split PDFs or JPEGs). Then they promote the links on Facebook or a
> > > similar public forum for others to download. When partners become aware
> > of
> > > this they have flagged it to us and we've, in turn, flagged it to
> > Community
> > > Engagement who has worked with editors to try and make sure it's removed.
> > >
> > > We agree that this is not an ideal way to handle this problem, and we
> > would
> > > prefer to catch it much earlier or simply prevent it outright (without
> > > significant limits being placed on good faith editors). Last fall, we had
> > > internal discussions on finding technical solutions for this problem.
> > > However, we discovered that we could not widely identify traffic from
> > zero
> > > rated partners, and that ability was a prerequisite to address this
> > issue.
> > > As 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Realistically. Wikipedia is very much an enabler.

Your ease to consider "simply" disabling mobile edits or uploads I find
appalling. People in countries like USA or UK are very fortunate. Nobody
would ever argue to disable their edits or uploads. At the same time as a
movement we desperately need more and more diverse involvement. While you
may say what you want, it is unconscionable for us to do as you suggest as
it is fully contrary to what we aim to achieve.

What we are experiencing is a bump in the road. We have to deal with it but
throwing the baby with the washing water? REALLY !!
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 19 March 2016 at 15:03, David Emrany  wrote:

> Hi Adele
>
> Can we have a clear picture of Wikimedia's ‘complicated’ relationship
> with net neutrality - 1year on from the Washington Post story [1]
>
> Can we also have specific figures on how much of WMF's traffic has
> been lost / gained from key markets in Latin America and Asia after
> regulators have blocked zeropaid schemes due to local concerns.
>
> WMF's "complicated" stance has also turned off many like-minded
> support groups who stand for pure net neutrality - and not WMF's or
> Facebook's ersatz versions [2]
>
> Lastly, if the primary aim of Wikipedia Zero is to gain readership,
> why not simply disable all mobile edits / uploads from these accounts.
>
> David
>
> [1]
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/
>
> [2]
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/01/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-protecting-the-internet/
>
> On 3/19/16, Adele Vrana  wrote:
> > Hi Teles,
> >
> > As the head of the Wikipedia Zero program, I would like to respond and
> > provide more context to the important challenges you are bringing up.
> >
> > Last year, the Foundation increased our security and privacy by requiring
> > HTTPS to access all Wikimedia projects. That change has greatly impacted
> > the Wikipedia Zero program, and most importantly has also allowed editing
> > (and not only reading) and extended the scope of zero-rated access from
> > just Wikipedia to all Wikimedia projects. However, our banners do not
> > reflect this additional zero-rating, but still only appear on Wikipedia.
> >
> > In your message you highlight two main concerns. One would be the upload
> of
> > copyrighted materials and overall abuse on Commons. The other concern
> > regards how the editing community should deal with an influx of new good
> > faith edits and potential editors in Portuguese, with particular
> challenge
> > of the extra work this causes for existing community members.
> >
> > Regarding Commons, we have experienced abuse from a few subscribers of a
> > Zero partner in Angola. Typically what happens is that the pirates upload
> > copyrighted movies to Commons either directly or in a concealed form
> (like
> > huge/split PDFs or JPEGs). Then they promote the links on Facebook or a
> > similar public forum for others to download. When partners become aware
> of
> > this they have flagged it to us and we've, in turn, flagged it to
> Community
> > Engagement who has worked with editors to try and make sure it's removed.
> >
> > We agree that this is not an ideal way to handle this problem, and we
> would
> > prefer to catch it much earlier or simply prevent it outright (without
> > significant limits being placed on good faith editors). Last fall, we had
> > internal discussions on finding technical solutions for this problem.
> > However, we discovered that we could not widely identify traffic from
> zero
> > rated partners, and that ability was a prerequisite to address this
> issue.
> > As of December 2015, the Ops team was able to complete that work.
> >
> > With this task completed, our team, in coordination with community
> > engagement and engineering is working on finding the best approach to
> > resolve this issue. Do you have suggestions or guidance? We are eager to
> > examine multiple approaches and this is a great time to open the
> > discussion. As we evaluate different approaches, we can also update you
> and
> > the list here.
> >
> > On the editing topic, the primary goal of Wikipedia Zero is to increase
> > readership. This is measured in potential reach (through subscriber
> counts)
> > and pageviews within regions with Wikipedia Zero partnerships.  There’s
> not
> > enough information to show that Zero can also increase editorship, but it
> > is something we believe is furthered by expanding reading access. So if
> > that is what is happening in Angola, we see that is a great thing.
> >
> > However, we understand that it’s challenging for our existing editing
> > community to handle a sudden influx of new editors. This seems to be a
> > crucial and important conversation for the movement at large to have. I
> > hope we can figure out a way to turn this moment in Angola into an
> > opportunity to learn how to deal 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

[David Emrany]

Hi Adele

Can we have a clear picture of Wikimedia's ‘complicated’ relationship
with net neutrality - 1year on from the Washington Post story [1]

Can we also have specific figures on how much of WMF's traffic has
been lost / gained from key markets in Latin America and Asia after
regulators have blocked zeropaid schemes due to local concerns.

WMF's "complicated" stance has also turned off many like-minded
support groups who stand for pure net neutrality - and not WMF's or
Facebook's ersatz versions [2]

Lastly, if the primary aim of Wikipedia Zero is to gain readership,
why not simply disable all mobile edits / uploads from these accounts.

David

[1] 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/

[2] 
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/01/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-protecting-the-internet/

On 3/19/16, Adele Vrana  wrote:
> Hi Teles,
>
> As the head of the Wikipedia Zero program, I would like to respond and
> provide more context to the important challenges you are bringing up.
>
> Last year, the Foundation increased our security and privacy by requiring
> HTTPS to access all Wikimedia projects. That change has greatly impacted
> the Wikipedia Zero program, and most importantly has also allowed editing
> (and not only reading) and extended the scope of zero-rated access from
> just Wikipedia to all Wikimedia projects. However, our banners do not
> reflect this additional zero-rating, but still only appear on Wikipedia.
>
> In your message you highlight two main concerns. One would be the upload of
> copyrighted materials and overall abuse on Commons. The other concern
> regards how the editing community should deal with an influx of new good
> faith edits and potential editors in Portuguese, with particular challenge
> of the extra work this causes for existing community members.
>
> Regarding Commons, we have experienced abuse from a few subscribers of a
> Zero partner in Angola. Typically what happens is that the pirates upload
> copyrighted movies to Commons either directly or in a concealed form (like
> huge/split PDFs or JPEGs). Then they promote the links on Facebook or a
> similar public forum for others to download. When partners become aware of
> this they have flagged it to us and we've, in turn, flagged it to Community
> Engagement who has worked with editors to try and make sure it's removed.
>
> We agree that this is not an ideal way to handle this problem, and we would
> prefer to catch it much earlier or simply prevent it outright (without
> significant limits being placed on good faith editors). Last fall, we had
> internal discussions on finding technical solutions for this problem.
> However, we discovered that we could not widely identify traffic from zero
> rated partners, and that ability was a prerequisite to address this issue.
> As of December 2015, the Ops team was able to complete that work.
>
> With this task completed, our team, in coordination with community
> engagement and engineering is working on finding the best approach to
> resolve this issue. Do you have suggestions or guidance? We are eager to
> examine multiple approaches and this is a great time to open the
> discussion. As we evaluate different approaches, we can also update you and
> the list here.
>
> On the editing topic, the primary goal of Wikipedia Zero is to increase
> readership. This is measured in potential reach (through subscriber counts)
> and pageviews within regions with Wikipedia Zero partnerships.  There’s not
> enough information to show that Zero can also increase editorship, but it
> is something we believe is furthered by expanding reading access. So if
> that is what is happening in Angola, we see that is a great thing.
>
> However, we understand that it’s challenging for our existing editing
> community to handle a sudden influx of new editors. This seems to be a
> crucial and important conversation for the movement at large to have. I
> hope we can figure out a way to turn this moment in Angola into an
> opportunity to learn how to deal with new readers and editors.
>
> Best regards,
> Adele
>
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
>> some of the issue stems form the copyright laws of Angola, which are
>> really
>> interesting to read -- read them in english --
>> https://www.copyright-watch.org/files/Angola.pdf  of course I dont expect
>> people to know their copyright laws in detail or to have read them but
>> they
>> do know the principles of it and what they can do
>>
>> some points of interest
>>
>>- Non protected works Article  9 section c -- news of the day published
>>by the press or broadcast
>>- Chapter IV Uses lawful without Authorisation article 29 section b -
>>reproduction by photographic process or process analogous to
>> photographic
>>process by  documentation centres  or teaching
>> organisations
>>. refers 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

[Vituzzu]

Il 19/03/2016 13:57, Gnangarra ha scritto:

​outside the US things like copyright isnt  respected, enforced or even
part of a person education

Not really.

  We also have
the URAA which even Commons has struggled with swings in interpretation
over the last few years

Definitely a fail of common law ;)
Seriously I think Wikimedia should somehow escape from being *so* 
affected by USA law.



Vito

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

[Gnangarra]

On 19 March 2016 at 19:30, Benjamin Lees  wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> >  of course I dont expect
> > people to know their copyright laws in detail or to have read them but
> they
> > do know the principles of it and what they can do
> Are you sure?  In the US, at least, industry groups go to a lot of
> trouble to "remind" people of the things they're not supposed to do.
> :)
>

​outside the US things like copyright isnt  respected, enforced or even
part of a person education especially in third world countries​, there is
no specific mention of digital work provisions in the Angola law


>
> But I'm not sure the provisions you point to are actually so unusual.
>
> >- Non protected works Article  9 section c -- news of the day
> published
> >by the press or broadcast
> This is in the Berne Convention (article 2, section 8).
>

​international conventions and agreements dont reach the end users
knowledge even in first world countries I sure very few people in the US
would know the changes being introduced in the TPP
​, I'd guess that alot of the people on this list are living in countries
that didnt even exist when the Berne Convention was signed. We also have
the URAA which even Commons has struggled with swings in interpretation
over the last few years

>
> >- Chapter IV Uses lawful without Authorisation article 29 section b -
> >reproduction by photographic process or process analogous to
> photographic
> >process by  documentation centres  or teaching
> organisations
> >. refers to minimum amount of copies necessary, but wither way
> >Wikipedia would fall into either of these definitions as permitted to
> >reproduce
> I don't know if Wikipedia would actually be covered by this: those
> terms are probably pretty narrow (and this is just a translation of
> the law, anyway).  In any event, it's pretty standard for copyright
> laws to make allowances for limited educational use.
>
​
This isnt limited reproduction of parts its the whole of the item can be
reproduced​,



>
> >- article 30 - is the key here it enables translation into Portuguese
> >after 3 years without any real restrictions - hence why the pt.wikis
> are
> >having so much of an issue and by extension commons where they
> encourage
> >uploading of media
> This appears to implement article 2 of the Berne Convention's "special
> provisions regarding developing countries" (Angola isn't a signatory,
> but it has signed the TRIPS Agreement, which incorporates those
> provisions).  It actually looks quite restrictive (the license has to
> be granted by the "State Secretariat for Culture", you have to try to
> get permission first, there are limitations on export, and you still
> have to pay the copyright holder).
>
> I don't think problematic uploads from mobile are a new or regional
> phenomenon—I seem to recall an earlier "selfiepocalypse".
>

​the problem coincided with Wikipedia Zero introduction, currently
volunteers spend thousands of hours every year dealing with copyright
violations from 1st world countries ​, the issue how do we stop the
inundation when its related to WP Zero activation, one is looking at the
copyright in each region and taking steps to avoid the creation of work for
the current volunteers, we know any two lawyers can read the same law and
come to differing interpretations

What could solve an immediate burden on current volunteers when introducing
WP Zero one possibility  is a read only access period, another is media
upload restrictions, but also incorporating some copyright education to end
users as well as the identifying which of our volunteer communities are
likely to impacted and provide clarity or least a WMF interpretation on
FOP, reuse, fair use , moral rights etc to those communities so they can be
prepared to address the impact. Maube ot be possible toput something like
pending revisions on uploads from the ip range of the country so at least
its not generally available in the initial period.  This has been an on
going issue for Commons and pt.wp for 12 months, its an issue that should
be addressed prior to startup not left to community to stumble around to
resolve leaving good faith editors impacted unfairly because there was no
preparation or support in managing the issue in the first instance. (yes
acknowledging that experience & hindsight are good teachers)

Gn.


> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

[Benjamin Lees]

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>  of course I dont expect
> people to know their copyright laws in detail or to have read them but they
> do know the principles of it and what they can do
Are you sure?  In the US, at least, industry groups go to a lot of
trouble to "remind" people of the things they're not supposed to do.
:)

But I'm not sure the provisions you point to are actually so unusual.

>- Non protected works Article  9 section c -- news of the day published
>by the press or broadcast
This is in the Berne Convention (article 2, section 8).

>- Chapter IV Uses lawful without Authorisation article 29 section b -
>reproduction by photographic process or process analogous to photographic
>process by  documentation centres  or teaching organisations
>. refers to minimum amount of copies necessary, but wither way
>Wikipedia would fall into either of these definitions as permitted to
>reproduce
I don't know if Wikipedia would actually be covered by this: those
terms are probably pretty narrow (and this is just a translation of
the law, anyway).  In any event, it's pretty standard for copyright
laws to make allowances for limited educational use.

>- article 30 - is the key here it enables translation into Portuguese
>after 3 years without any real restrictions - hence why the pt.wikis are
>having so much of an issue and by extension commons where they encourage
>uploading of media
This appears to implement article 2 of the Berne Convention's "special
provisions regarding developing countries" (Angola isn't a signatory,
but it has signed the TRIPS Agreement, which incorporates those
provisions).  It actually looks quite restrictive (the license has to
be granted by the "State Secretariat for Culture", you have to try to
get permission first, there are limitations on export, and you still
have to pay the copyright holder).

I don't think problematic uploads from mobile are a new or regional
phenomenon—I seem to recall an earlier "selfiepocalypse".

___
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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

[Lucas Teles]

Hi, everyone.

It is being recently reported on Portuguese Wikipedia and Commons (at
least) the increasing ammount of improper editing coming from IP addresses
located in Angola. Some users believe that this may be related with
Wikipedia Zero and a partnership between WMF and a cellphone company [1]
that allows reading and editing at free cost.

One of the first reactions to that is a large range block that was just set
on Commons in order to prevent these edits [2], as they are being done in a
way that volunteers can't handle.

That seems to be some kind of "second wave" as the first that hit Commons
[3] had been already reported months ago [4] and seemed to be controled or
just paused for a while. On Portuguese Wikipedia, one thing that seemss to
be clear is that edits are done in good faith. However, they end by being
undone as they are incorrect for some reason, whether being pages of files
about themselves or just test edits. One of the users identified actually
confirm [5] that he is editing through Wikipedia Zero.

Concerning that more partnerships may occur in future, I think it is time
for us to start talking about ways of dealing with that, other than
blocking. Sadly, I don't have an answer to that problem, but I tend to
believe that some way of mass reaching these potential users should be made
out.

The current process is that editors will be the ones to notice that (as I
am not aware of any kind of follow up by WMF on that) and they will try to
solve their way, which may cause too many collateral damage.

I wonder if there is any kind of way to diminish the problem, by using any
off-wiki strategy.

Kind regards.

Teles

[1] -
http://www.telecompaper.com/news/movicel-offers-free-access-to-wikipedia--1116012
[2] -
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Steinsplitter=190598884#Unblock
[3] - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Teles/Angola_Facebook_Case
[4] -
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Forum=12835750#Wikipedia_Zero_being_used_to_violate_copyright
[5] -
https://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usu%C3%A1rio_Discuss%C3%A3o:Darwinius=prev=45095087


*Lucas Teles*

*+55 (71) 98290 7553Steward at Wikimedia Foundation. Administrator *
*at Portuguese Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons.*- wikipedista.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

[Adele Vrana]

Hi Teles,

As the head of the Wikipedia Zero program, I would like to respond and
provide more context to the important challenges you are bringing up.

Last year, the Foundation increased our security and privacy by requiring
HTTPS to access all Wikimedia projects. That change has greatly impacted
the Wikipedia Zero program, and most importantly has also allowed editing
(and not only reading) and extended the scope of zero-rated access from
just Wikipedia to all Wikimedia projects. However, our banners do not
reflect this additional zero-rating, but still only appear on Wikipedia.

In your message you highlight two main concerns. One would be the upload of
copyrighted materials and overall abuse on Commons. The other concern
regards how the editing community should deal with an influx of new good
faith edits and potential editors in Portuguese, with particular challenge
of the extra work this causes for existing community members.

Regarding Commons, we have experienced abuse from a few subscribers of a
Zero partner in Angola. Typically what happens is that the pirates upload
copyrighted movies to Commons either directly or in a concealed form (like
huge/split PDFs or JPEGs). Then they promote the links on Facebook or a
similar public forum for others to download. When partners become aware of
this they have flagged it to us and we've, in turn, flagged it to Community
Engagement who has worked with editors to try and make sure it's removed.

We agree that this is not an ideal way to handle this problem, and we would
prefer to catch it much earlier or simply prevent it outright (without
significant limits being placed on good faith editors). Last fall, we had
internal discussions on finding technical solutions for this problem.
However, we discovered that we could not widely identify traffic from zero
rated partners, and that ability was a prerequisite to address this issue.
As of December 2015, the Ops team was able to complete that work.

With this task completed, our team, in coordination with community
engagement and engineering is working on finding the best approach to
resolve this issue. Do you have suggestions or guidance? We are eager to
examine multiple approaches and this is a great time to open the
discussion. As we evaluate different approaches, we can also update you and
the list here.

On the editing topic, the primary goal of Wikipedia Zero is to increase
readership. This is measured in potential reach (through subscriber counts)
and pageviews within regions with Wikipedia Zero partnerships.  There’s not
enough information to show that Zero can also increase editorship, but it
is something we believe is furthered by expanding reading access. So if
that is what is happening in Angola, we see that is a great thing.

However, we understand that it’s challenging for our existing editing
community to handle a sudden influx of new editors. This seems to be a
crucial and important conversation for the movement at large to have. I
hope we can figure out a way to turn this moment in Angola into an
opportunity to learn how to deal with new readers and editors.

Best regards,
Adele

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:

> some of the issue stems form the copyright laws of Angola, which are really
> interesting to read -- read them in english --
> https://www.copyright-watch.org/files/Angola.pdf  of course I dont expect
> people to know their copyright laws in detail or to have read them but they
> do know the principles of it and what they can do
>
> some points of interest
>
>- Non protected works Article  9 section c -- news of the day published
>by the press or broadcast
>- Chapter IV Uses lawful without Authorisation article 29 section b -
>reproduction by photographic process or process analogous to
> photographic
>process by  documentation centres  or teaching organisations
>. refers to minimum amount of copies necessary, but wither way
>Wikipedia would fall into either of these definitions as permitted to
>reproduce
>- article 30 - is the key here it enables translation into Portuguese
>after 3 years without any real restrictions - hence why the pt.wikis are
>having so much of an issue and by extension commons where they encourage
>uploading of media
>
>
> Wikipedia zero implementation needs to also consider the implication of
> local laws especially copyright on the projects where the laws are this
> outdated and effectively enable copyright issues then WP Zero could provide
> a read only option for IP's or a no upload option,  with a rights request
> process on commons
>
> On 19 March 2016 at 00:45, Lucas Teles  wrote:
>
> > Hi, everyone.
> >
> > It is being recently reported on Portuguese Wikipedia and Commons (at
> > least) the increasing ammount of improper editing coming from IP
> addresses
> > located in Angola. Some users believe that this may be related with
> > Wikipedia Zero 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

[Gnangarra]

some of the issue stems form the copyright laws of Angola, which are really
interesting to read -- read them in english --
https://www.copyright-watch.org/files/Angola.pdf  of course I dont expect
people to know their copyright laws in detail or to have read them but they
do know the principles of it and what they can do

some points of interest

   - Non protected works Article  9 section c -- news of the day published
   by the press or broadcast
   - Chapter IV Uses lawful without Authorisation article 29 section b -
   reproduction by photographic process or process analogous to photographic
   process by  documentation centres  or teaching organisations
   . refers to minimum amount of copies necessary, but wither way
   Wikipedia would fall into either of these definitions as permitted to
   reproduce
   - article 30 - is the key here it enables translation into Portuguese
   after 3 years without any real restrictions - hence why the pt.wikis are
   having so much of an issue and by extension commons where they encourage
   uploading of media


Wikipedia zero implementation needs to also consider the implication of
local laws especially copyright on the projects where the laws are this
outdated and effectively enable copyright issues then WP Zero could provide
a read only option for IP's or a no upload option,  with a rights request
process on commons

On 19 March 2016 at 00:45, Lucas Teles  wrote:

> Hi, everyone.
>
> It is being recently reported on Portuguese Wikipedia and Commons (at
> least) the increasing ammount of improper editing coming from IP addresses
> located in Angola. Some users believe that this may be related with
> Wikipedia Zero and a partnership between WMF and a cellphone company [1]
> that allows reading and editing at free cost.
>
> One of the first reactions to that is a large range block that was just set
> on Commons in order to prevent these edits [2], as they are being done in a
> way that volunteers can't handle.
>
> That seems to be some kind of "second wave" as the first that hit Commons
> [3] had been already reported months ago [4] and seemed to be controled or
> just paused for a while. On Portuguese Wikipedia, one thing that seemss to
> be clear is that edits are done in good faith. However, they end by being
> undone as they are incorrect for some reason, whether being pages of files
> about themselves or just test edits. One of the users identified actually
> confirm [5] that he is editing through Wikipedia Zero.
>
> Concerning that more partnerships may occur in future, I think it is time
> for us to start talking about ways of dealing with that, other than
> blocking. Sadly, I don't have an answer to that problem, but I tend to
> believe that some way of mass reaching these potential users should be made
> out.
>
> The current process is that editors will be the ones to notice that (as I
> am not aware of any kind of follow up by WMF on that) and they will try to
> solve their way, which may cause too many collateral damage.
>
> I wonder if there is any kind of way to diminish the problem, by using any
> off-wiki strategy.
>
> Kind regards.
>
> Teles
>
> [1] -
>
> http://www.telecompaper.com/news/movicel-offers-free-access-to-wikipedia--1116012
> [2] -
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Steinsplitter=190598884#Unblock
> [3] - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Teles/Angola_Facebook_Case
> [4] -
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Forum=12835750#Wikipedia_Zero_being_used_to_violate_copyright
> [5] -
>
> https://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usu%C3%A1rio_Discuss%C3%A3o:Darwinius=prev=45095087
>
>
> *Lucas Teles*
>
> *+55 (71) 98290 7553Steward at Wikimedia Foundation. Administrator *
> *at Portuguese Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons.*- wikipedista.com
> ___
> 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,
> 




-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
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,