subject:"Re\\\: \\\[Wikimedia\\\-l\\\] The tragedy of Commons"

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-07-03 Thread Shlomi Fish

Hi Michael,

On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 16:16:58 +0100
Michael Maggs mich...@maggs.name wrote:

Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the notice boards on Commons, or
who is subscribed to this mailing list, will be aware of a huge, wide-ranging
and unfocused set of disputes and ill-natured arguments that have been raging
for several months. The disputes are becoming more and more intemperate, and
the positions of some editors more and more entrenched. While a few
contributors have tried hard to pull the community back to constructive
discussion and have made sensible suggestions, their comments have been
drowned out in the noise.

We need to stop now and focus not on stating a re-stating positions, but on
making definite and constructive proposals for ways in which these issues can
be fixed. The discussion on this list has been non-productive for some time,
and I suggest that editors should drop discussion there and should focus
attention on the discussion on Commons:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Disputes_relating_to_URAA.2C_policy.2C_Israeli_images.2C_and_behaviour

Michael.

here's a piece of advice. After I ran into this article on wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_effect

and the corresponding Golem effect, it changed my life for the better.
Reading from it:

[ QUOTE ]
The Pygmalion effect, or Rosenthal effect, is the phenomenon whereby the
greater the expectation placed upon people, the better they perform.[1] The
effect is named after the Greek myth of Pygmalion.

A corollary of the Pygmalion effect is the golem effect, in which low
expectations lead to a decrease in performance.[1] The Pygmalion effect and the
golem effect are forms of self-fulfilling prophecy. People will take the belief
they have of themselves and attribute traits of the belief with themselves and
their work. This will lead them to perform closer to these expectations that
they set for themselves. Within sociology, the effect is often cited with
regard to education and social class.
[ / QUOTE ]

After reading this, I decided that I will have high expectations of
improvement from *anyone* and any community, and will practise it. So maybe
some people should try to apply it in this case as well.

Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Heaven_%28film%29 .

Best regards,

Shlomi Fish

--
-
Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/
Optimising Code for Speed - http://shlom.in/optimise

When Chuck Norris disses your product, it’s not good publicity, even though
you can bet he’ll get the name right.
— http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/facts/Chuck-Norris/

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-07-03 Thread Peter Southwood

Wonderful,
 I have high expectations of your ability and willingness to solve these 
problems, 
Please notify us of your success so we can celebrate.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org 
[mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Shlomi Fish
Sent: 03 July 2014 01:02 PM
To: Michael Maggs
Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

Hi Michael,

On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 16:16:58 +0100
Michael Maggs mich...@maggs.name wrote:

 Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the notice boards on 
 Commons, or who is subscribed to this mailing list, will be aware of a 
 huge, wide-ranging and unfocused set of disputes and ill-natured 
 arguments that have been raging for several months. The disputes are 
 becoming more and more intemperate, and the positions of some editors 
 more and more entrenched. While a few contributors have tried hard to 
 pull the community back to constructive discussion and have made 
 sensible suggestions, their comments have been drowned out in the noise.
 
 We need to stop now and focus not on stating a re-stating positions, 
 but on making definite and constructive proposals for ways in which 
 these issues can be fixed. The discussion on this list has been 
 non-productive for some time, and I suggest that editors should drop 
 discussion there and should focus attention on the discussion on Commons:
 
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboa
 rd#Disputes_relating_to_URAA.2C_policy.2C_Israeli_images.2C_and_behavi
 our
 
 Michael.

here's a piece of advice. After I ran into this article on wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_effect

and the corresponding Golem effect, it changed my life for the better.
Reading from it:

[ QUOTE ]
The Pygmalion effect, or Rosenthal effect, is the phenomenon whereby the 
greater the expectation placed upon people, the better they perform.[1] The 
effect is named after the Greek myth of Pygmalion.

A corollary of the Pygmalion effect is the golem effect, in which low 
expectations lead to a decrease in performance.[1] The Pygmalion effect and the 
golem effect are forms of self-fulfilling prophecy. People will take the belief 
they have of themselves and attribute traits of the belief with themselves and 
their work. This will lead them to perform closer to these expectations that 
they set for themselves. Within sociology, the effect is often cited with 
regard to education and social class.
[ / QUOTE ]

After reading this, I decided that I will have high expectations of improvement 
from *anyone* and any community, and will practise it. So maybe some people 
should try to apply it in this case as well.

Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Heaven_%28film%29 .

Best regards,

Shlomi Fish

--
-
Shlomi Fish   http://www.shlomifish.org/
Optimising Code for Speed - http://shlom.in/optimise

When Chuck Norris disses your product, it’s not good publicity, even though you 
can bet he’ll get the name right.
— http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/facts/Chuck-Norris/

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .

___
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

-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4592 / Virus Database: 3986/7788 - Release Date: 07/03/14


___
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] The tragedy of Commons

2014-07-03 Thread Peter Gervai

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Peter Southwood
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote:
 Wonderful,
  I have high expectations of your ability and willingness to solve these 
 problems,
 Please notify us of your success so we can celebrate.

This was neither constructive nor civilised. It shows that you have
missed the point, either. It said you should stop treating people as
inferior and foretell their failure. Unlike you just did.

g

___
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] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-28 Thread Erik Moeller

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:

 So what is your proposal for how to effectively curate the firehose of good
 and bad content that is uploaded to Commons day by day, hour by hour,
 minute by minute?

Hi Pete,

I would generally advocate for the following:

- more emphasis on education and positive communication in cases of
good faith, constructive behavior;
- more tolerance for ambiguity regarding files in the collection (e.g.
when the legal situation is truly ambiguous), and more use of tagging
over deletion;
- software which supports all of the above effectively.

Some of this is easier to act on. For example, the threshold at which
we decide to delete (rather than wait, or tag) is one which we can
modify. The templates we use for communication purposes are easy to
edit to be friendly or specific. Software is slower to build, but we
should definitely keep in mind what the ideal curation tools should
look like, as well, so we can plan on where we situate it in the
longer term roadmap of development efforts.

I do believe, though, that a lot of this conversation should ideally
take place on Wikimedia Commons itself. These types of threads
illustrate that there's a lot of real frustration in the larger
community today. I would encourage folks who want to see Commons
become a friendlier, more positive environment to not give up, but to
advocate for changes to practices and policies on Commons itself,
including in deletion discussions and policy debates. I don't think
setting up a new site is likely to be the answer, though if someone
wants to draft a clearer proposal for how such a site would work, this
list is certainly one appropriate forum to discuss it.

Erik

___
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] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-27 Thread Yann Forget

Hi,

2014-06-27 5:57 GMT+05:30 Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com:
 On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 than aggressively purging content in the fear that a single byte of
 potentially non-free content may infect the repository.


 You're attacking a straw man. I hope you do not sincerely believe anybody
 acts out of such a childish fear. Rather, we have committed volunteers at
 Commons who take seriously our commitment to the world, to provide a
 repository of files that can be (pretty) reliably reused under a free
 license, or as public domain materials. Maintaining the integrity of the
 collection, in the face of literally hundreds of problematic uploads every
 single day, is a big job, and certainly some less-than-ideal decisions will
 be made along the way.

 Apart from the moaning I see on this email list, I generally hear good
 things from those who visit Wikimedia Commons. Tragedy? Citation needed,
 for real.

 I think it's absolutely crucial to maintain that aspect of its identity.

 So what is your proposal for how to effectively curate the firehose of good
 and bad content that is uploaded to Commons day by day, hour by hour,
 minute by minute? We have a collection of processes that has been good
 enough to get us to where we are today. I don't think anybody believes it's
 perfect, but it's gotten us this far. What, pray tell, would be the better
 approach? Do you really think that if you present a better idea, it will be
 rejected? Do you think we *enjoy* sifting through the details of a zillion
 files, and comparing them to a zillion copyright laws, personality rights
 laws, FOP laws, etc.? I guess I can only speak for myself, but I'd much
 rather be creating content than curating it. But curation is the glaring,
 everyday need at Commons, so I pitch in.

 It's also absolutely crucial to keep my house from turning into a garbage
 dump...which is why I take the garbage out every week.

 But maintaining that commitment requires that we also maintain a  capacity
 for nuance in how we enforce it, or we turn into a club of zealots nobody
 wants to be part of rather than being effective advocates for our cause.

 Good God, Erik. Seriously, with the name-calling? Seriously? I don't know
 why you did it to begin with, but since you have, please share with us who
 the zealots are, and give some evidence of zealous behavior. If the
 zealotry is as obvious as you seem to assume, we should have no trouble
 running those ne'erdowells out on a rail.

 But the reality, I think, is much more straightforward: this club of
 zealots is a figment of your imagination.

 -Pete
 [[User:Peteforsyth]]

Pete, Erik is exactly right here, in this precise case.

Here LGA tagged, and Fastily deleted 50 years old images from the
Israeli government and army on the reason that as no proof of
publication were given, these images were unpublished, and therefore
still in copyright in USA. As several contributors have explained,
these famous images were given to the press for publication 50 years
ago.

At the same time, Russavia wrote a request for deletion for recent
images from the Israeli government or army, which were copied from
Flickr, on the claim that a proper CC release was not provided. A
letter from the Israeli government was uploaded to Commons, saying the
Israeli government does not claim on copyright on these images. This
letter was speedy deleted by Fastily, again.

So clearly these requests for deletion, and these deletions are spurious.

Regards,

Yann

___
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] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-27 Thread MZMcBride

Pete Forsyth wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
than aggressively purging content in the fear that a single byte of
 potentially non-free content may infect the repository.

You're attacking a straw man. I hope you do not sincerely believe anybody
acts out of such a childish fear. Rather, we have committed volunteers at
Commons who take seriously our commitment to the world, to provide a
repository of files that can be (pretty) reliably reused under a free
license, or as public domain materials. Maintaining the integrity of the
collection, in the face of literally hundreds of problematic uploads every
single day, is a big job, and certainly some less-than-ideal decisions
will be made along the way.

Apart from the moaning I see on this email list, I generally hear good
things from those who visit Wikimedia Commons. Tragedy? Citation needed,
for real.

Uploading media to Commons isn't as awful today as it once was. That's
nice. But video support is pretty awful. Search support is pretty awful.
Even browsing images is pretty bad. Support for moving (renaming) files is
rudimentary and restricted. And there are many other flaws... but you're
right that it probably doesn't amount to a tragedy quite yet. There's
plenty of moaning on this e-mail list, but the issues are alive and real.

I largely agree with Erik. Users at the extremes have the power at Commons
and this reality is actively damaging the wiki culture. Commons isn't
alone in having this problem: the defensive (and hostile) response to the
firehose is expected and predictable. But it still remains a real problem.

MZMcBride



___
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] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-27 Thread Magnus Manske

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 1:27 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

  than aggressively purging content in the fear that a single byte of
  potentially non-free content may infect the repository.
 

 You're attacking a straw man. I hope you do not sincerely believe anybody
 acts out of such a childish fear.


Well, just yesterday I saw a (good but slightly amateurish-looking) image
that is to be deleted because the metadata embedded in the /other/ images
of the uploader indicates multiple cameras were used. Clearly, no one has
more than one camera, so it must be a copyright violation. (would post the
URL but forgot which image)

Childish fears indeed.

Magnus
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-27 Thread Pipo Le Clown

Aren't you mixing things a little bit ?

Nobody denies that there are problems with video support, Search engine and
image display. But this is not (completely) the responsability of the
Commons community. The software is provided by the foundation, and we deal
with what they give us. If you want to point fingers, point them in the
right direction.

Regarding the URAA shitstorm in a teacup, I will stand on my position:
Saying It's not our problem, and we won't provide legal advice or help if
there is any problem (ie: I wash my hands of it) is not very helpfull.
The position of the BoT and the statement from the legal team are at least
confusing and a open door to problems.

The current situation at hand is messy, and not very well handled by the
community, I will admit that. Quoting from a famous movie: it's a huge
shit sandwich, and we're all gonna have to take a bite, but adding manure
to shit will not help to sweeten the taste.

Pleclown.
Le 27 juin 2014 09:22, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com a écrit :

 Pete Forsyth wrote:
 On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org
 wrote:
 than aggressively purging content in the fear that a single byte of
  potentially non-free content may infect the repository.
 
 You're attacking a straw man. I hope you do not sincerely believe anybody
 acts out of such a childish fear. Rather, we have committed volunteers at
 Commons who take seriously our commitment to the world, to provide a
 repository of files that can be (pretty) reliably reused under a free
 license, or as public domain materials. Maintaining the integrity of the
 collection, in the face of literally hundreds of problematic uploads every
 single day, is a big job, and certainly some less-than-ideal decisions
 will be made along the way.
 
 Apart from the moaning I see on this email list, I generally hear good
 things from those who visit Wikimedia Commons. Tragedy? Citation needed,
 for real.

 Uploading media to Commons isn't as awful today as it once was. That's
 nice. But video support is pretty awful. Search support is pretty awful.
 Even browsing images is pretty bad. Support for moving (renaming) files is
 rudimentary and restricted. And there are many other flaws... but you're
 right that it probably doesn't amount to a tragedy quite yet. There's
 plenty of moaning on this e-mail list, but the issues are alive and real.

 I largely agree with Erik. Users at the extremes have the power at Commons
 and this reality is actively damaging the wiki culture. Commons isn't
 alone in having this problem: the defensive (and hostile) response to the
 firehose is expected and predictable. But it still remains a real problem.

 MZMcBride



 ___
 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] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-27 Thread Jeevan Jose

 Well, just yesterday I saw a (good but slightly amateurish-looking) image
 that is to be deleted because the metadata embedded in the /other/ images
 of the uploader indicates multiple cameras were used. Clearly, no one has
 more than one camera, so it must be a copyright violation. (would post the
 URL but forgot which image)

 Childish fears indeed.

 Magnus


Indeed. The old days had gone. Now people have so many gadgets. Further,
forensic research is not our business. Another grey area is the handling of
selfies.  People need evidence that the photo is taken by themselves. They
even do dummy tests to verify if it is possible from such an angle. Tired
by the arguments, Legal released [1].

Links:

1.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Authorship_and_Copyright_Ownership

Jee

Regards,
Jeevan Jose


On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Pipo Le Clown plecl...@gmail.com wrote:

 Aren't you mixing things a little bit ?

 Nobody denies that there are problems with video support, Search engine and
 image display. But this is not (completely) the responsability of the
 Commons community. The software is provided by the foundation, and we deal
 with what they give us. If you want to point fingers, point them in the
 right direction.

 Regarding the URAA shitstorm in a teacup, I will stand on my position:
 Saying It's not our problem, and we won't provide legal advice or help if
 there is any problem (ie: I wash my hands of it) is not very helpfull.
 The position of the BoT and the statement from the legal team are at least
 confusing and a open door to problems.

 The current situation at hand is messy, and not very well handled by the
 community, I will admit that. Quoting from a famous movie: it's a huge
 shit sandwich, and we're all gonna have to take a bite, but adding manure
 to shit will not help to sweeten the taste.

 Pleclown.
 Le 27 juin 2014 09:22, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com a écrit :

  Pete Forsyth wrote:
  On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org
  wrote:
  than aggressively purging content in the fear that a single byte of
   potentially non-free content may infect the repository.
  
  You're attacking a straw man. I hope you do not sincerely believe
 anybody
  acts out of such a childish fear. Rather, we have committed volunteers
 at
  Commons who take seriously our commitment to the world, to provide a
  repository of files that can be (pretty) reliably reused under a free
  license, or as public domain materials. Maintaining the integrity of the
  collection, in the face of literally hundreds of problematic uploads
 every
  single day, is a big job, and certainly some less-than-ideal decisions
  will be made along the way.
  
  Apart from the moaning I see on this email list, I generally hear good
  things from those who visit Wikimedia Commons. Tragedy? Citation
 needed,
  for real.
 
  Uploading media to Commons isn't as awful today as it once was. That's
  nice. But video support is pretty awful. Search support is pretty awful.
  Even browsing images is pretty bad. Support for moving (renaming) files
 is
  rudimentary and restricted. And there are many other flaws... but you're
  right that it probably doesn't amount to a tragedy quite yet. There's
  plenty of moaning on this e-mail list, but the issues are alive and real.
 
  I largely agree with Erik. Users at the extremes have the power at
 Commons
  and this reality is actively damaging the wiki culture. Commons isn't
  alone in having this problem: the defensive (and hostile) response to the
  firehose is expected and predictable. But it still remains a real
 problem.
 
  MZMcBride
 
 
 
  ___
  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] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-27 Thread Peter Southwood

Indeed, and as there is a notice on the Wikilegal article stating that it is 
not legal advice, it can and will be ignored by those who think they know 
better.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org 
[mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jeevan Jose
Sent: 27 June 2014 10:46 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

 Well, just yesterday I saw a (good but slightly amateurish-looking) 
 image that is to be deleted because the metadata embedded in the 
 /other/ images of the uploader indicates multiple cameras were used. 
 Clearly, no one has more than one camera, so it must be a copyright 
 violation. (would post the URL but forgot which image)

 Childish fears indeed.

 Magnus


Indeed. The old days had gone. Now people have so many gadgets. Further, 
forensic research is not our business. Another grey area is the handling of 
selfies.  People need evidence that the photo is taken by themselves. They even 
do dummy tests to verify if it is possible from such an angle. Tired by the 
arguments, Legal released [1].

Links:

1.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Authorship_and_Copyright_Ownership

Jee

Regards,
Jeevan Jose


On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Pipo Le Clown plecl...@gmail.com wrote:

 Aren't you mixing things a little bit ?

 Nobody denies that there are problems with video support, Search 
 engine and image display. But this is not (completely) the 
 responsability of the Commons community. The software is provided by 
 the foundation, and we deal with what they give us. If you want to 
 point fingers, point them in the right direction.

 Regarding the URAA shitstorm in a teacup, I will stand on my position:
 Saying It's not our problem, and we won't provide legal advice or 
 help if there is any problem (ie: I wash my hands of it) is not very 
 helpfull.
 The position of the BoT and the statement from the legal team are at 
 least confusing and a open door to problems.

 The current situation at hand is messy, and not very well handled by 
 the community, I will admit that. Quoting from a famous movie: it's a 
 huge shit sandwich, and we're all gonna have to take a bite, but 
 adding manure to shit will not help to sweeten the taste.

 Pleclown.
 Le 27 juin 2014 09:22, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com a écrit :

  Pete Forsyth wrote:
  On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org
  wrote:
  than aggressively purging content in the fear that a single byte 
  of  potentially non-free content may infect the repository.
  
  You're attacking a straw man. I hope you do not sincerely believe
 anybody
  acts out of such a childish fear. Rather, we have committed 
  volunteers
 at
  Commons who take seriously our commitment to the world, to provide 
  a repository of files that can be (pretty) reliably reused under a 
  free license, or as public domain materials. Maintaining the 
  integrity of the collection, in the face of literally hundreds of 
  problematic uploads
 every
  single day, is a big job, and certainly some less-than-ideal 
  decisions will be made along the way.
  
  Apart from the moaning I see on this email list, I generally hear 
  good things from those who visit Wikimedia Commons. Tragedy? 
  Citation
 needed,
  for real.
 
  Uploading media to Commons isn't as awful today as it once was. 
  That's nice. But video support is pretty awful. Search support is pretty 
  awful.
  Even browsing images is pretty bad. Support for moving (renaming) 
  files
 is
  rudimentary and restricted. And there are many other flaws... but 
  you're right that it probably doesn't amount to a tragedy quite yet. 
  There's plenty of moaning on this e-mail list, but the issues are alive and 
  real.
 
  I largely agree with Erik. Users at the extremes have the power at
 Commons
  and this reality is actively damaging the wiki culture. Commons 
  isn't alone in having this problem: the defensive (and hostile) 
  response to the firehose is expected and predictable. But it still 
  remains a real
 problem.
 
  MZMcBride
 
 
 
  ___
  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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-27 Thread Jeevan Jose

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Peter Southwood 
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote:

 Indeed, and as there is a notice on the Wikilegal article stating that it
 is not legal advice, it can and will be ignored by those who think they
 know better.
 Cheers,
 Peter


That message on their every advice as part of [1] because they can't
advise the community.

Jee

1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-27 Thread Nathan

The issue is *about* Commons but doesn't only affect Commons, particularly
the discussion around alternative methods of making not-purely-free files
available and searchable across Commons. As you can see from the growing
discontent with Commons, this URAA issue is not the only problem. It's
merely the best recent example. The discussion you propose on Commons
appears to focus purely on URAA; that's fine, a discussion like that should
exist (though I object to your presumption (and odders) that the URAA RfC
is discredited or nullified either by the way it was closed or by a
follow-up RfC with drastically fewer participants). But the content of the
various tragedy of Commons threads on this list and others is broader and
attempts to identify and solve deeply embedded problems in the Commons
culture.

So while a discussion on Commons might be easier for Commons administrators
to shape and control, there is no good reason why discussion on this list
(or commons-l) should be dropped in favor of a section on the Commons admin
noticeboard.
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-27 Thread Nathan

Correction - the first line should read available and searchable across
WMF projects. Apologies for double posting.


On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

 The issue is *about* Commons but doesn't only affect Commons,
 particularly the discussion around alternative methods of making
 not-purely-free files available and searchable across Commons. As you can
 see from the growing discontent with Commons, this URAA issue is not the
 only problem. It's merely the best recent example. The discussion you
 propose on Commons appears to focus purely on URAA; that's fine, a
 discussion like that should exist (though I object to your presumption (and
 odders) that the URAA RfC is discredited or nullified either by the way it
 was closed or by a follow-up RfC with drastically fewer participants). But
 the content of the various tragedy of Commons threads on this list and
 others is broader and attempts to identify and solve deeply embedded
 problems in the Commons culture.

 So while a discussion on Commons might be easier for Commons
 administrators to shape and control, there is no good reason why discussion
 on this list (or commons-l) should be dropped in favor of a section on the
 Commons admin noticeboard.

___
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] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-27 Thread Pete Forsyth

Several people have replied to my latest message. I'd like to reiterate - I
thought I was clear, but just to be certain:

I have never claimed that all discussion on Commons is perfect, or that
incivility or poor decisions never occur there.

I did not intend to open this discussion as a free-for-all, for *any* list
member with a problem with a Commons user or decision to bring it up for
critique. I think there are better venues for that.

What I *did* want, and am still waiting for, is some explanation from Erik
Möller, the WMF's Deputy Director, about his inflammatory claim that the
Wikimedia Commons community may be turning into a CLUB OF ZEALOTS
(emphasis mine).

Since it now looks unlikely that we'll have a response from Erik, and since
several people seem to have misunderstood what I meant, let me make myself
very clear.

I believe that the community of volunteers who have created Wikimedia are
its greatest asset, and in spite of all its (well known and documented)
problems, offer the greatest hope for Wikimedia to overcome its many
challenges and flourish. I believe that the people who choose to devote
time to Wikimedia as volunteers, by and large, do so out of a desire to
bring our shared vision -- a world in which everyone freely shares
knowledge -- closer to reality. I believe that organizations like the
Wikimedia Foundation, which intend to support that vision, have the
potential to be effective if they can speak to that shared vision, and
undermine their own influence when they undercut it.

Lest anybody mistake this for a personal attack, I'd like to add the
following.

I have known and admired Erik for many years. He has done tremendous good
for the Wikimedia movement, and for the world, and my respect for him is
unwavering. However, in recent months, he has joined other organizational
leaders in leveling broad and unfounded insults at the volunteer community
that has produced Wikimedia Commons, of which I am one.

I do not think Erik intends harm by doing this, but I think the primary
outcome of this approach is harm. I am confident he is proceeding in a
direction that he believes is positive. But I very strongly disagree with
that, and I do not think Commons volunteers (or any Wikimedia volunteers)
should have to endure broad insults coming from the leaders of an
organization that, in theory, exists to support their work.

I believe this issue is much more significant than any of the other issues
that have been discussed in this thread.

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Michael Maggs mich...@maggs.name wrote:

Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the notice boards on Commons,
or who is subscribed to this mailing list, will be aware of a huge,
wide-ranging and unfocused set of disputes and ill-natured arguments that
have been raging for several months. The disputes are becoming more and
more intemperate, and the positions of some editors more and more
entrenched. While a few contributors have tried hard to pull the community
back to constructive discussion and have made sensible suggestions, their
comments have been drowned out in the noise.

We need to stop now and focus not on stating a re-stating positions, but
on making definite and constructive proposals for ways in which these
issues can be fixed. The discussion on this list has been non-productive
for some time, and I suggest that editors should drop discussion there and
should focus attention on the discussion on Commons:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Disputes_relating_to_URAA.2C_policy.2C_Israeli_images.2C_and_behaviour

Michael.
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-27 Thread Jeevan Jose

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com
wrote:

 What I *did* want, and am still waiting for, is some explanation from Erik
 Möller, the WMF's Deputy Director, about his inflammatory claim that the
 Wikimedia Commons community may be turning into a CLUB OF ZEALOTS
 (emphasis mine).


Please stop asking explanation from people who are coming to Commons with a
helping mind. I agree his comment had a insisting tone. But does Commoners
are too immature to tolerate any small criticism? If we start attacking
people and ask explanation or apology for every comment they make, no one
is going to visit Commons.

Instead we should welcome Erik, SJ, Jimmy or any body else who have an idea
to improve Commons.

Jee
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-26 Thread Erik Moeller

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

 The problem is the behavior of a certain core set of Commons admins; time
 and time and time again we have it reported here, we see it on Commons.
 While not lawyers, they attempt to be extraordinarily demanding when it
 comes to legal accuracy. Far more than the actual WMF lawyers have
 required, incidentally.

Yes, agreed. Deletion is frequently applied in an overzealous manner
based on arbitrary interpretations and lack of nuance. It would be
appropriate to more frequently apply tags like {{Disputed}} and to
rely more on social contact to resolve incomplete metadata, rather
than aggressively purging content in the fear that a single byte of
potentially non-free content may infect the repository.

It is correct that I proposed Commons as a repository of freely
re-usable media -- indeed, that is a key characteristic which
distinguishes it from other sites and services, as others have pointed
out. I think it's absolutely crucial to maintain that aspect of its
identity. I worry that the creation of any kind of non-free repository
would dramatically alter the incentive structure for contributing to
our projects. Especially when negotiating releases of large
collections, it will be much harder to argue for free licensing if it
becomes trivial to upload and re-use non-free files.

But maintaining that commitment requires that we also maintain a
capacity for nuance in how we enforce it, or we turn into a club of
zealots nobody wants to be part of rather than being effective
advocates for our cause. That includes understanding that some
situations in international copyright law are ambiguous and
unresolved, that some files may present a minimal level of risk and
can reasonably be kept unless someone complains, and that copyright on
all bits that make up a work can be difficult to trace, identify and
document comprehensively and consistently. Moreover, it should include
(in policy and application) an emphasis on communication and
education, rather than deletion and confrontation.

In that way, the problems in the application of Commons policy are not
that different from the problems in the application of policy on
Wikipedia. It's just that Wikipedians who are used to operating under
the regime of Wikipedia's policies frequently get upset when they are
subjected to an entirely different regime. Their experience is not
that different from that of a new user whose article gets speedied
because the source cited to establish its notability doesn't quite
cross the threshold applied by an admin.

In my view, it would be appropriate for WMF to take a more active role
not in the decision-making itself, but in the training of and support
for administrators and other functionaries to ensure that we apply
policy rationally, in a manner that's civil and welcoming. That goes
for these types of deletion decisions just as much as for civility and
other standards of conduct. WMF is now organizationally in a position
where it could resource the consensus-driven development of training
modules for admins across projects to create a more welcoming,
rational environment - on Commons and elsewhere.

Erik

___
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] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-26 Thread Jeevan Jose

Hi Erik:

Thanks for your comment. I noticed your comment at [[1]] so hope they are
related.

Yes; making proper attributions and satisfying all license requirements are
a bit complicated and time consuming. See my proposal at [[2]].

I requested the help of CC team; but didn't get any response so far.

I requested the help of the WMF legal; Luis Villa (WMF) commented that Yup,
I understand - it is a difficult situation, and we'd like to help. But
interpreting the license obligations for the public is also tricky for us,
so we're working on it. [[3]]

Any further help is highly appreciated.

Regards,
Jee

Links:

1.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peteforsyth#Some_recent_speedies.
..

2.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Propose_to_update_CC_license_tags_to_comply_with_the_new_wordings_in_CC_deeds

3. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LuisV_(WMF)#Attribution

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

The problem is the behavior of a certain core set of Commons admins; time
and time and time again we have it reported here, we see it on Commons.
While not lawyers, they attempt to be extraordinarily demanding when it
comes to legal accuracy. Far more than the actual WMF lawyers have
required, incidentally.

Yes, agreed. Deletion is frequently applied in an overzealous manner
based on arbitrary interpretations and lack of nuance. It would be
appropriate to more frequently apply tags like {{Disputed}} and to
rely more on social contact to resolve incomplete metadata, rather
than aggressively purging content in the fear that a single byte of
potentially non-free content may infect the repository.

It is correct that I proposed Commons as a repository of freely
re-usable media -- indeed, that is a key characteristic which
distinguishes it from other sites and services, as others have pointed
out. I think it's absolutely crucial to maintain that aspect of its
identity. I worry that the creation of any kind of non-free repository
would dramatically alter the incentive structure for contributing to
our projects. Especially when negotiating releases of large
collections, it will be much harder to argue for free licensing if it
becomes trivial to upload and re-use non-free files.

But maintaining that commitment requires that we also maintain a
capacity for nuance in how we enforce it, or we turn into a club of
zealots nobody wants to be part of rather than being effective
advocates for our cause. That includes understanding that some
situations in international copyright law are ambiguous and
unresolved, that some files may present a minimal level of risk and
can reasonably be kept unless someone complains, and that copyright on
all bits that make up a work can be difficult to trace, identify and
document comprehensively and consistently. Moreover, it should include
(in policy and application) an emphasis on communication and
education, rather than deletion and confrontation.

In that way, the problems in the application of Commons policy are not
that different from the problems in the application of policy on
Wikipedia. It's just that Wikipedians who are used to operating under
the regime of Wikipedia's policies frequently get upset when they are
subjected to an entirely different regime. Their experience is not
that different from that of a new user whose article gets speedied
because the source cited to establish its notability doesn't quite
cross the threshold applied by an admin.

In my view, it would be appropriate for WMF to take a more active role
not in the decision-making itself, but in the training of and support
for administrators and other functionaries to ensure that we apply
policy rationally, in a manner that's civil and welcoming. That goes
for these types of deletion decisions just as much as for civility and
other standards of conduct. WMF is now organizationally in a position
where it could resource the consensus-driven development of training
modules for admins across projects to create a more welcoming,
rational environment - on Commons and elsewhere.

Erik

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-26 Thread billinghurst

Erik Moeller erik@... writes:

 
 On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan nawrich at gmail.com wrote:
 
  The problem is the behavior of a certain core set of Commons admins; time
  and time and time again we have it reported here, we see it on Commons.
  While not lawyers, they attempt to be extraordinarily demanding when it
  comes to legal accuracy. Far more than the actual WMF lawyers have
  required, incidentally.
 
[snip]
 
 In that way, the problems in the application of Commons policy are not
 that different from the problems in the application of policy on
 Wikipedia. It's just that Wikipedians who are used to operating under
 the regime of Wikipedia's policies frequently get upset when they are
 subjected to an entirely different regime. Their experience is not
 that different from that of a new user whose article gets speedied
 because the source cited to establish its notability doesn't quite
 cross the threshold applied by an admin.
 
 In my view, it would be appropriate for WMF to take a more active role
 not in the decision-making itself, but in the training of and support
 for administrators and other functionaries to ensure that we apply
 policy rationally, in a manner that's civil and welcoming. That goes
 for these types of deletion decisions just as much as for civility and
 other standards of conduct. WMF is now organizationally in a position
 where it could resource the consensus-driven development of training
 modules for admins across projects to create a more welcoming,
 rational environment - on Commons and elsewhere.
 
 Erik
 

Refreshing approach Erik.  It would good to see if there could be a
continued conversation about this, maybe something at Wikimania.

I say refreshing, as it follows a similar user talk page conversation at
Commons that discussed the workload for admins trying to manage just the
daily uploads. Part of the reflection was that it was better to be a little
overzealous in the policing to maintain the quality, and to maintain a
curated collection, making it significantly better than flickr, and making
the collection meaningful.

To me it requires multi-pronged approach. You identified that more can done
to support admins. We still have more to do educate users, and the tools
that we have now make an upload easy, however, does it do sufficient to
inform, and does it do enough to provide a framework to ensure that the
added works are within scope. Is there more we can do to make some of the
administrative tasks easier, so admins feel less squeezed for time, and more
able to be supportive rather than squeezed.

Regards, Billinghurst


___
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] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-26 Thread Pete Forsyth

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 2:19 PM, George Herbert
 george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:

  the project and world benefit from [Commons] existing as is.  But we
 need an
  alternative to support the educational mission, reasonable inter-project
 reuse,
  and end the endless deletion wars.

 Yes, this.   With highly visible guidance for licensing/use.


If people are excited about starting up a whole new project, that's fine by
me. I think you'll find that donors attracted to the free knowledge
aspect of our vision  mission statements might be a little tough to
persuade, but if you want to try, have at it.

Still, I have to wonder: are the considerable financial, human, and
technical resources something like this would take justified? Why not
simply create the visible guidance SJ requests on each wiki (presumably as
Exemption Doctrine Policies), and enable a software feature that permits
including an image from elsewhere on the web? Wouldn't that accomplish the
same results, with vastly less effort, less expense, and less distraction
to existing communities?

Uncommons is a charming name.


I have to agree on this point :)

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-26 Thread David Gerard

On 26 June 2014 23:17, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:

 If people are excited about starting up a whole new project, that's fine by
 me. I think you'll find that donors attracted to the free knowledge
 aspect of our vision  mission statements might be a little tough to
 persuade, but if you want to try, have at it.


The more querulous Commons admins are treating this is not provably
100% URAA safe as equivalent to fair-use free-for-all, often seguing
between the two in the same email. This is equivocation of a
particularly unhelpful sort. Speaking as an unreconstructed
Stallmanite, I say what on earth.


- d.

___
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] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-26 Thread Pete Forsyth

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 3:19 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 26 June 2014 23:17, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:

  If people are excited about starting up a whole new project, that's fine
 by
  me. I think you'll find that donors attracted to the free knowledge
  aspect of our vision  mission statements might be a little tough to
  persuade, but if you want to try, have at it.


 The more querulous Commons admins are treating this is not provably
 100% URAA safe as equivalent to fair-use free-for-all, often seguing
 between the two in the same email. This is equivocation of a
 particularly unhelpful sort. Speaking as an unreconstructed
 Stallmanite, I say what on earth.


David, I'm not sure how your message is supposed to connect to mine?
* I'm not an admin on Commons, not sure if you intended to lump me in there
* I have no position on URAA and don't think it's particularly germane to
this topic

My comments in this thread have, I think quite clearly and consistently,
been in response to George's proposal of Uncommons, a site which would
host copyright materials for the purpose of fair use. URAA files would not
be a particularly interesting subset of the copyrighted files that could
live on such a site (or, for that matter, on Flickr etc, in the absence of
a DMCA complaint from a rights-holder.)

So -- who was this addressed to, if not me? What did my message have to do
with URAA, or with querulous admins?

Pete
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-26 Thread Pete Forsyth

On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 than aggressively purging content in the fear that a single byte of
 potentially non-free content may infect the repository.


You're attacking a straw man. I hope you do not sincerely believe anybody
acts out of such a childish fear. Rather, we have committed volunteers at
Commons who take seriously our commitment to the world, to provide a
repository of files that can be (pretty) reliably reused under a free
license, or as public domain materials. Maintaining the integrity of the
collection, in the face of literally hundreds of problematic uploads every
single day, is a big job, and certainly some less-than-ideal decisions will
be made along the way.

Apart from the moaning I see on this email list, I generally hear good
things from those who visit Wikimedia Commons. Tragedy? Citation needed,
for real.

I think it's absolutely crucial to maintain that aspect of its identity.


So what is your proposal for how to effectively curate the firehose of good
and bad content that is uploaded to Commons day by day, hour by hour,
minute by minute? We have a collection of processes that has been good
enough to get us to where we are today. I don't think anybody believes it's
perfect, but it's gotten us this far. What, pray tell, would be the better
approach? Do you really think that if you present a better idea, it will be
rejected? Do you think we *enjoy* sifting through the details of a zillion
files, and comparing them to a zillion copyright laws, personality rights
laws, FOP laws, etc.? I guess I can only speak for myself, but I'd much
rather be creating content than curating it. But curation is the glaring,
everyday need at Commons, so I pitch in.

It's also absolutely crucial to keep my house from turning into a garbage
dump...which is why I take the garbage out every week.

But maintaining that commitment requires that we also maintain a  capacity
 for nuance in how we enforce it, or we turn into a club of zealots nobody
 wants to be part of rather than being effective advocates for our cause.


Good God, Erik. Seriously, with the name-calling? Seriously? I don't know
why you did it to begin with, but since you have, please share with us who
the zealots are, and give some evidence of zealous behavior. If the
zealotry is as obvious as you seem to assume, we should have no trouble
running those ne'erdowells out on a rail.

But the reality, I think, is much more straightforward: this club of
zealots is a figment of your imagination.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-20 Thread Yann Forget

Suite of the drama.

A request for a topic ban against LGA, who made these deletion
requests, was started by Hanay, a user from the Hebrew Wikipedia.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:LGA

Now she is blocked for one week for canvassing, because she informed
the Hebrew Wikipedia of the request.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Block_of_Hanay_for_cross-wiki_canvassing

This affair is going to degenerate in a full war between Commons and
some Wikipedias, if a solution is not found.

Regards,

Yann

2014-06-17 5:04 GMT+05:30 Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com:
Hi,

Some Commons contributors like to ask impossible requirements, and
threaten to delete files if these are not met. We have now a case of
famous pictures from the government of Israel and Israel Defense
Forces.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#Files_and_pages_that_were_deleted_by_User:Fastily_that_I_am_aware_of_them
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beba_Idelson_Ada_Maimon1952.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abba_Hushi_1956.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aharon_Meskin_-_Ben_Gurion_-_Israel_Prize1960.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Avraham_Shlonsky_1952.jpg

These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured
pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia. These files have already been
deleted and restored 3 times. When the URAA issue was not convincing
enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication
details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can
understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they
were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition,
publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in
Israel.

After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a
delete-only account:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Yann
There, more contributors argue on this issue.

By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these
contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will
lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons.
Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is
gone.

Instead of looking for a reason to destroy these files, they should
try to find a reason to keep them.

Regards,

Yann

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-20 Thread Jeevan Jose

All ended in a good way as Sven Manguard unblocked her. Hope the Hebrew
Wikipedia will recover from the painful memories soon.

Regards,
Jee

On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 2:33 AM, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote:

Suite of the drama.

A request for a topic ban against LGA, who made these deletion
requests, was started by Hanay, a user from the Hebrew Wikipedia.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:LGA

Now she is blocked for one week for canvassing, because she informed
the Hebrew Wikipedia of the request.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Block_of_Hanay_for_cross-wiki_canvassing

This affair is going to degenerate in a full war between Commons and
some Wikipedias, if a solution is not found.

Regards,

Yann

2014-06-17 5:04 GMT+05:30 Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com:
Hi,

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#Files_and_pages_that_were_deleted_by_User:Fastily_that_I_am_aware_of_them

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beba_Idelson_Ada_Maimon1952.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abba_Hushi_1956.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aharon_Meskin_-_Ben_Gurion_-_Israel_Prize1960.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Avraham_Shlonsky_1952.jpg

After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a
delete-only account:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Yann
There, more contributors argue on this issue.

Instead of looking for a reason to destroy these files, they should
try to find a reason to keep them.

Regards,

Yann

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-18 Thread Lodewijk

would that become Wikimedia Uncommons or Unwikimedia Commons? Or do we
avoid this question by leaving it to an outside party?

Lodewijk
(who is btw not so much charmed of an uncommons at all)


2014-06-17 21:06 GMT+02:00 Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com:

 On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 2:19 PM, George Herbert
 george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:

  the project and world benefit from [Commons] existing as is.  But we
 need an
  alternative to support the educational mission, reasonable inter-project
 reuse,
  and end the endless deletion wars.

 Yes, this.   With highly visible guidance for licensing/use.
 Uncommons is a charming name.

 SJ

 ___
 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] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-18 Thread Peter Southwood

This is a strong argument for locating Uncommons outside the USA. Somewhere 
where the copyright laws allow the widest range of images to be kept. Images 
can be tagged for where they are free and where they are not free.



-Original Message-
From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org 
[mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of George Herbert
Sent: 17 June 2014 09:29 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

 I don't think the concept of the project is the problem. I'm skeptical 
 that an Uncommons project built around fair use could be workable, 
 considering that the validity of a fair use claim is context-specific 
 and no cross-wiki project (like Commons) is going to have an easy time 
 managing that requirement.


We don't have to.  As a basic inclusion rule, someone justified an image on a 
fair-use project, and someone else wants to share it.  If its use gets deleted 
on both those wikis (and anywhere else that started using it) due to not 
complying with fair use, and it stays out of use, we identify a cleanup 
procedure.  But as long as a basically credible it's fair use over here 
exists for 1 or more projects, it's a candidate for Uncommons.

Uncommons should *never* see an image deleted out from under an article using 
it, for example.  If someone feels it's not compliant with X wiki's local fair 
use criteria, they go to X wiki, argue the case, get it removed from the 
article(s).  Uncommons would consider deletion if all the projects which tried 
to use it rejected it on fair use grounds.

Caveat that a copyright violation in the US, where the servers are, may still 
need to be removed even if fair-use in (for example) Argentina and Botswana 
apply, which is unfortunate, but we have a process for people to report 
copyvios of their images to the Foundation, and allowing OTRS to do their thing 
as usual would cover that.



 The problem is the behavior of a certain core set of Commons admins; 
 time and time and time again we have it reported here, we see it on Commons.
 While not lawyers, they attempt to be extraordinarily demanding when 
 it comes to legal accuracy. Far more than the actual WMF lawyers 
 have required, incidentally.

 It's not surprising that the locus of the dispute often revolves 
 around community members who have been banned on other projects but 
 reached positions of authority on Commons. Perhaps Commons social 
 structures haven't evolved enough to deal with people who are both 
 productive and deeply disruptive, and who are not uncivil but 
 contribute to a toxic environment.



I understand, and applaud those who still want to attempt to reform that.
 The curation of the free content is affected along with the spillover into 
fair use content.

That said, it's time to move on, for a large bulk of the content hosting role.  
The fight now engaged on Commons is not the fight that content creators and 
curators on projects need or want to be engaged in.


--
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com
___
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

-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4592 / Virus Database: 3972/7697 - Release Date: 06/18/14


___
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] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-18 Thread Peter Southwood

Is it currently possible and acceptable to include an image from Flickr or 
equivalent in an article in any project? I don’t think I have ever seen/noticed 
this done.



-Original Message-
From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org 
[mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Nathan
Sent: 17 June 2014 09:52 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:29 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
wrote:

 On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

  I don't think the concept of the project is the problem. I'm 
  skeptical
 that
  an Uncommons project built around fair use could be workable,
 considering
  that the validity of a fair use claim is context-specific and no
 cross-wiki
  project (like Commons) is going to have an easy time managing that 
  requirement.
 

 We don't have to.  As a basic inclusion rule, someone justified an 
 image on a fair-use project, and someone else wants to share it.  If 
 its use gets deleted on both those wikis (and anywhere else that 
 started using it) due to not complying with fair use, and it stays out 
 of use, we identify a cleanup procedure.  But as long as a basically 
 credible it's fair use over here exists for 1 or more projects, it's a 
 candidate for Uncommons.

 Uncommons should *never* see an image deleted out from under an 
 article using it, for example.  If someone feels it's not compliant 
 with X wiki's local fair use criteria, they go to X wiki, argue the 
 case, get it removed from the article(s).  Uncommons would consider 
 deletion if all the projects which tried to use it rejected it on fair use 
 grounds.

 Caveat that a copyright violation in the US, where the servers are, 
 may still need to be removed even if fair-use in (for example) 
 Argentina and Botswana apply, which is unfortunate, but we have a 
 process for people to report copyvios of their images to the 
 Foundation, and allowing OTRS to do their thing as usual would cover that.



So you want to split the role of image repository into two projects - one 
that is freely reusable for all possible reusers, and one that is useful in the 
first instance for all WMF projects and secondarily for anyone else using it in 
an educational context.

Ok, I get that. But there are some unanswered questions:

1) Why would our Uncommons be superior to Flickr or any other repository of 
images that can be used under fair use doctrine? Is it that we are categorizing 
them? That we might be able to select the best file for a particular usage, 
and replicate that out in context across projects?

2) How would Uncommons not fall prey to same set of issues that have beset 
Commons for years? Copyright status would still need to be investigated to some 
degree, FUR would need to be policed at least a little, etc. etc.You'd attract 
the same people, probably, with the same biases and prejudices and problems.

3) EDP files on projects are currently already hosted by WMF, so what we're 
really talking about is pushing them into the same bucket to focus curation 
resources. Considering the challenges, would it be better to just implement an 
easier common architecture for these files (i.e. make discovery of files from 
various projects simpler on any individual project)?
___
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

-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4592 / Virus Database: 3972/7697 - Release Date: 06/18/14


___
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] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-18 Thread geni

On 18 June 2014 08:43, Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote:

 This is a strong argument for locating Uncommons outside the USA.
 Somewhere where the copyright laws allow the widest range of images to be
 kept. Images can be tagged for where they are free and where they are not
 free.



Sure if you want the severs to be confiscated within a week. No 1st
amendment outside the US.


-- 
geni
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-18 Thread Fæ

On 18/06/2014, Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote:
 This is a strong argument for locating Uncommons outside the USA. Somewhere
 where the copyright laws allow the widest range of images to be kept. Images
 can be tagged for where they are free and where they are not free.

I have now uploaded nearly 400,000 public domain and other freely
released images to Wikimedia Commons. Every week there are times I
break into a sweat wondering if one of the many institutions I have
taken the original images from, will attempt to prosecute me
personally under 'sweat of the brow', conflicting international law,
database rights, misuse of a website under a tacit contract, etc. Even
though I am careful to ensure I have made reasonable efforts to
ascertain that the images are free to reuse, mistakes happen and I am
subject to UK law, along with the long reach of US law and the
Wikimedia Foundation has made it clear that there is no guarantee that
any legal costs as a direct result of my volunteer work would be
covered by them.

Deliberately setting out to avoid copyright law and uploading material
to an aggregating website that you know for certain is non-free and
supplying it so that others may avoid copyright, is a far riskier
thing to do. If a civil action against a volunteer were taken, I doubt
there could be a defence in court based on good faith or reasonable
effort.

I note that a WMF trustee has made a supportive comment in this
thread, however before Wikimedia starts officially encouraging and
promoting sharing non-free media using donated charitable funds
intended for free works, any uncommons proposal should be carefully
advised on by lawyers. At an individual level, I would recommend that
volunteers protect themselves with anonymity using technical means to
ensure their contributions were untraceable, so that only the website
host could ever be prosecuted in relevant jurisdictions. Note that
just because your server is in Peru, does not mean that works
protected under US or EU law may not be vigorously defended in local
courts. Legally, this may well be treated as an internet piracy
website, they tend to not end well.

Commons has 21,500,000 files, the unnecessary drama created
(literally) by a couple of admins who should be able to talk to each
other rather than wheel-warring, and then forum shopping, over some
works suffering under the consequences of the rather daft URAA,
represent a pin-drop in that ocean of freely reusable media. This does
not make Commons tragic, indeed it feels like a mellow place 99% of
the time as nobody really notices the committed content contributors.

Links
* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Staying_mellow
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WW#Wheel_war

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-18 Thread Petr Kadlec

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 7:00 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:

 From the technical side, supporting one-click (i.e., easy to use) file
 moves between wikis would be enormously helpful here. This would allow
 transferring files to Commons or from Commons without much pain, which
 should reduce a lot of friction. As David notes, we could set up
 additional file repositories for use in Wikimedia wikis, but it requires
 solving the hosting issues mentioned above.


This. Creating a completely new project when all what people want is an
ability to easily reuse an image they saw on another project (i.e. on
enwiki) means creating thousand new problems instead of solving one. (You
could devise a bit more sophisticated solutions instead of file copying,
e.g. direct cross-project image use like “[[en:File:Example.jpg]]” or
whatever, but they create other issues to solve; one-click cross-project
file upload could be easily implemented right now.)

-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-18 Thread Gerard Meijssen

Hoi,
Arguably when all repositories of media-files are Wikidatified, general
availability could be as difficult as selecting the appropriate license.

To do this no new project is needed as the Wikidata team has started work.
All that is needed is to have one database to know about all media files.
Thanks,
 Gerard


On 18 June 2014 11:01, Petr Kadlec petr.kad...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 7:00 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:

  From the technical side, supporting one-click (i.e., easy to use) file
  moves between wikis would be enormously helpful here. This would allow
  transferring files to Commons or from Commons without much pain, which
  should reduce a lot of friction. As David notes, we could set up
  additional file repositories for use in Wikimedia wikis, but it requires
  solving the hosting issues mentioned above.
 

 This. Creating a completely new project when all what people want is an
 ability to easily reuse an image they saw on another project (i.e. on
 enwiki) means creating thousand new problems instead of solving one. (You
 could devise a bit more sophisticated solutions instead of file copying,
 e.g. direct cross-project image use like “[[en:File:Example.jpg]]” or
 whatever, but they create other issues to solve; one-click cross-project
 file upload could be easily implemented right now.)

 -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
 ___
 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] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-18 Thread Fæ

On 18/06/2014, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hoi,
 Arguably when all repositories of media-files are Wikidatified, general
 availability could be as difficult as selecting the appropriate license.

 To do this no new project is needed as the Wikidata team has started work.
 All that is needed is to have one database to know about all media files.
 Thanks,
  Gerard

Not every thread on this list needs to be about Wikidata, or used as a
platform to promote it.

The vision that a single editor in Wikidata tweaking a licence field,
effectively overrules detailed assessments of copyright, RFCs, or
deletions of media for good reasons such as OTRS request, courtesy
deletions and so forth, is not one I recognize as being within the
original intended scope of Wikidata.

Fae
(Writing from the grave.)
-- 
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-18 Thread Yann Forget

2014-06-18 1:43 GMT+05:30 Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com:
 Yann,

 On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote:

 The rules of the project, free license, or in the public domain in
 USA and in the source country, are fine as long as they are not used
 to game the system.


 Yann I totally agree with this.

 The problem is, that the URAA RFC goes against that statement entirely by
 ignoring or turning a blind eye to the copyright status of files in the US.

 Can you explain why there is the blaring discrepancy in your viewpoint here?

 Cheers

 Russvia

My point here is not about URAA, but about exaggerate requirements
from some contributors.
And gaming the system is exactly what YOU did when you speedy deleted
the 4 files I mentioned in my first message.

I several times proposed to allow only a restricted sets of files
affected by URAA, not all (e.g. only files older than 50? years,
or/and orphan/anonymous files, and/or government files). It seems
there is a wild consensus about such a compromise, but you
deliberately ignore my proposal, and choose to attack unilaterally the
whole issue.

Yann

___
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] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread Lodewijk

Hi Yann,

While we can have a different discussion about methods used and tone
applied, if I understand correctly the core argument/discussion point here
is the question whether US law applies to Commons or not; more
specifically: whether a picture that is (likely?) not in the Public Domain
in the US, but is in the public domain in its 'source country' should be
considered 'free' or not.

This is a returning discussion, and I'm always confused what exactly the
answer is to that. The discussion is equally valid for any content project
actually - all being hosted in the US. It would be good to have a more
fundamental answer to it, and then follow it.

Whether or not the nominating account is a 'delete only' account etc. is
less relevant to this discussion. The core question remains the same. It is
a bit technocrat, I know.

I thought this question was already put for the WMF legal team as a
question, but I wasn't able to find so quickly whether a useful reply
resulted from that consultation.

Lodewijk

2014-06-17 1:34 GMT+02:00 Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com:

Hi,