Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA)
The servers are still in the US, has anybody proposed a global effort? Will Wikimedia move the servers to EU in case this is accepted? On 28/02/2014, at 03:19, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: This is being done at least for EU, see consultation for which there is time till March 5. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/European_Commission_copyright_consultation/Single_EU_copyright_title Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA)
On 28 February 2014 06:41, Dennis Pierri dennis6...@gmail.com wrote: It would be nice if all of the chapters send to their governments a petition to allow a global standardized use of media just for wikimedia projects, it is a big problem that every country has different laws on copyright and public domain media, and that wikimedia has to comply with U.S law just because the servers are in there, we as a community should ask a global standardized media handling law for wikimedia which might or might not include giving special licenses for wikimedia projects, trying to keep in line with the foundation ideals, I know it sounds a bit crazy, but hey it's the biggest compilation of human knowlege, it should be following laws (copyright and public domain in this case) that all of human kind reach in consensus, not just the laws of the place where the servers are. D Wikimedia only licences aren't helpful. Finding out their position on goverment works with expired copyrights is somewhat more useful. Brits did it back in 2005: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-May/022055.html -- geni ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA)
On 28 February 2014 21:49, Dennis Pierri dennis6...@gmail.com wrote: The servers are still in the US, has anybody proposed a global effort? Will Wikimedia move the servers to EU in case this is accepted? No. There is quite a bit of stuff on Wikimedia severs that is in breach of criminal law in parts of the EU. Nothing special just the usual mix of blasphemy, breach of court orders, insulting foreign heads of state and extreme pornography. There may be some other stuff but there is a limit to the number of legal systems I can keep track of. -- geni ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA)
Thanks for your reply :) On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 5:37 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 February 2014 21:49, Dennis Pierri dennis6...@gmail.com wrote: The servers are still in the US, has anybody proposed a global effort? Will Wikimedia move the servers to EU in case this is accepted? No. There is quite a bit of stuff on Wikimedia severs that is in breach of criminal law in parts of the EU. Nothing special just the usual mix of blasphemy, breach of court orders, insulting foreign heads of state and extreme pornography. There may be some other stuff but there is a limit to the number of legal systems I can keep track of. -- geni ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Dennis Pierri Telf: +584129818988 Director de Publicidad Club de Surf Nalu USB [image: Replacing Emoji...] ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA)
Wikimedia Argentina is formed by a group of volunteers from the Wikimedia movement. That includes several long-time contributors to Commons that have discussed with us in the past months the situation about URAA. This open letter is not something written by a group of strangers or people that haven't participated in the discussions of the community; probably not all of them have been able to participate before as much as we want in this particular topic, but that doesn't mean their opinions are less valuable than those that take a more active role within the discussions. Some of them have seen in the past weeks their talk pages flooded with DR notices against Argentine free pictures, uploaded even several years ago and they have argued, trying to save them. Saying that they don't know how Wikimedia Commons work to this group of volunteers is also really offensive. I understand you could feel upset for the strong words of our letter regarding the particular URAA situation, especially when most of the contributors work hardly every day to maintain this project and a lot of them have had a constructive approach to this discussion. If you feel our letter has been disrespectful for the rest of the Commons community, our sincere apologies for that. However, we still believe in what we wrote on the letter. When you see that, even after the BoT statement there are still new DR coming up [1] and more files being deleted [2], then it is clear that something wrong is happening. The BoT has called to stop the massive deletions unless there are DMCA notices and this has been regarded as a mere opinion instead of a statement from the authorities responsible of the project (it would be great, anyway, to have a less ambiguous statement). You may not agree with the BoT statement or the large majority on the proposal to restore the deleted images on Commons [3], but there should have been more prudence within some administrators and freeze the deletions until we find a consensus for this situation. And it hasn't been the case, clearly. This is what we criticize; this is the kind of attitudes that de-motivates many editors. When one of the strictest interpretations of law is applied without consideration of anything else, is what we labeled legal fetichism. Maybe you don't agree with that opinion and that's ok, but it is a feeling that a lot of people share, including even Commons contributors. Not only those that wrote this open letter but also many of those that have voted for the massive restoration proposal. [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Carlos_Trillo.jpg [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Le%C3%B3n_Gieco_1980.jpg [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAA *Osmar Valdebenito G.* Director Ejecutivo A. C. Wikimedia Argentina 2014-02-27 0:28 GMT-03:00 Avenue avenu...@gmail.com: Look, I have no problem with the open letters from WM Venezuela, España or Israel. I might not agree 100% with everything in them, but they are generally on top of the issues, and they focus on the problems they law poses for us and our need for better solutions - all worth bringing to a wider audience. But the letter from WM Argentina is very different. It condemns the actions of certain Wikimedia Commons administrators who have deleted URAA-affected files (without naming them or linking to any of the relevant deletions), and makes various claims about how Commons policy and practice has changed and is inconsistent with statements by the WMF Board and Legal team. If you want to make these sorts of claims in an open letter, you should be ready to back them up. But WM Argentina cannot do so IMO, because many of their claims are untrue. Our practice is consistent with the WMF Board and Legal team statements, and it isn't true that the burden of proof has been inverted - the burden of proof has always been on those who want us to keep hosting a file. These sorts of mistakes could easily have been avoided if they had talked directly to experienced Commons editors first. I'm a Commons admin, but I'm fairly inactive these days and I don't believe I have deleted any URAA-affected files, so I don't think I am one of the certain Commons admins they refer to. But I do find defamation of hard-working members of my community offensive. If WM Argentina wants to respectfully call the Wikimedia Commons community to reflect on something, that does not seem the best way to start. On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 6:03 AM, Carlos M. Colina ma...@wikimedia.org.ve wrote: Wait, aren't the chapters composed from people from the wikimedia community? Also, didn't you guys stop by a second to think the chapter thoroughly discussed the contents of the letter with its members, which may vote in favor or against publishing it? And if it is on Meta, is open to discussion, no? Finally, in
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA)
It would be nice if all of the chapters send to their governments a petition to allow a global standardized use of media just for wikimedia projects, it is a big problem that every country has different laws on copyright and public domain media, and that wikimedia has to comply with U.S law just because the servers are in there, we as a community should ask a global standardized media handling law for wikimedia which might or might not include giving special licenses for wikimedia projects, trying to keep in line with the foundation ideals, I know it sounds a bit crazy, but hey it's the biggest compilation of human knowlege, it should be following laws (copyright and public domain in this case) that all of human kind reach in consensus, not just the laws of the place where the servers are. Dennis Pierri On 27/02/2014, at 19:23, Osmar Valdebenito os...@wikimedia.org.ar wrote: Wikimedia Argentina is formed by a group of volunteers from the Wikimedia movement. That includes several long-time contributors to Commons that have discussed with us in the past months the situation about URAA. This open letter is not something written by a group of strangers or people that haven't participated in the discussions of the community; probably not all of them have been able to participate before as much as we want in this particular topic, but that doesn't mean their opinions are less valuable than those that take a more active role within the discussions. Some of them have seen in the past weeks their talk pages flooded with DR notices against Argentine free pictures, uploaded even several years ago and they have argued, trying to save them. Saying that they don't know how Wikimedia Commons work to this group of volunteers is also really offensive. I understand you could feel upset for the strong words of our letter regarding the particular URAA situation, especially when most of the contributors work hardly every day to maintain this project and a lot of them have had a constructive approach to this discussion. If you feel our letter has been disrespectful for the rest of the Commons community, our sincere apologies for that. However, we still believe in what we wrote on the letter. When you see that, even after the BoT statement there are still new DR coming up [1] and more files being deleted [2], then it is clear that something wrong is happening. The BoT has called to stop the massive deletions unless there are DMCA notices and this has been regarded as a mere opinion instead of a statement from the authorities responsible of the project (it would be great, anyway, to have a less ambiguous statement). You may not agree with the BoT statement or the large majority on the proposal to restore the deleted images on Commons [3], but there should have been more prudence within some administrators and freeze the deletions until we find a consensus for this situation. And it hasn't been the case, clearly. This is what we criticize; this is the kind of attitudes that de-motivates many editors. When one of the strictest interpretations of law is applied without consideration of anything else, is what we labeled legal fetichism. Maybe you don't agree with that opinion and that's ok, but it is a feeling that a lot of people share, including even Commons contributors. Not only those that wrote this open letter but also many of those that have voted for the massive restoration proposal. [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Carlos_Trillo.jpg [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Le%C3%B3n_Gieco_1980.jpg [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAA *Osmar Valdebenito G.* Director Ejecutivo A. C. Wikimedia Argentina 2014-02-27 0:28 GMT-03:00 Avenue avenu...@gmail.com: Look, I have no problem with the open letters from WM Venezuela, España or Israel. I might not agree 100% with everything in them, but they are generally on top of the issues, and they focus on the problems they law poses for us and our need for better solutions - all worth bringing to a wider audience. But the letter from WM Argentina is very different. It condemns the actions of certain Wikimedia Commons administrators who have deleted URAA-affected files (without naming them or linking to any of the relevant deletions), and makes various claims about how Commons policy and practice has changed and is inconsistent with statements by the WMF Board and Legal team. If you want to make these sorts of claims in an open letter, you should be ready to back them up. But WM Argentina cannot do so IMO, because many of their claims are untrue. Our practice is consistent with the WMF Board and Legal team statements, and it isn't true that the burden of proof has been inverted - the burden of proof has always been on those who want us to keep hosting a
[Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA)
I'm sorry but I find it pretty inappropriate that a chapter published such strong words about volunteers of a Wikimedia Project *certain legal fetishism whose reason gets lost in processes and misses the outcome.* I'm speaking on my behalf, however as a former board member of a Wikimedia Chapter I would never ever publish such a text, it's uncalled for and inappropriate to judge so strongly volunteers who dededicate their time for our common mission Free educational knowledge http://www.wikimedia.org/. As a Wikimedia Commons volunteer I'm disappointed by the process followed by some chapters, i.e. which have chosen to bypass the community and send a letter directly to the board of trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation. However, I must say I would have prefered the chapters to talk with the principal stakeholders, i.e. all the communities. I know, said chapters are not forced to talk with the communities but It is rather ironical, when ignoring the stakeholder is a blame that I have heard a lot this month :p I believe the community as a whole is capable of complex discussion and decision as proven by the *Trademark policy consultation*, or the *reclaim community logo discussions*. The thing that sadden the most is that I believe discussion on the URAA application is important movement wide (and also for the spread of free knowledge), however this discussion doesn't start on a good process and some letters were not mellow. I know people might not share my point of view on how we should work together as a movement, however I wanted to state it. That being said, it doesn't change all the good work done by WMIL, WMES, WMAR, and I'll be happy to talk with anyone of you guys around a drink the next time we can meet to share our vision of the movement. *Disclaimer:* I'm writting on my own capacity, my opinion as an administrator (and oversighter) on Commons is that I'm pretty neutral on the URAA matter, what I want and need is a community consensus to apply when I'm using the tools the Community gave me. Sincerely, Pierre-Selim 2014-02-24 21:51 GMT+01:00 Galileo Vidoni gali...@gmail.com: Dear movement fellows, Wikimedia Argentina would like to express its support for the letter by Wikimedia Israel regarding URAA-motivated massive content deletions in Wikimedia Commons. Yet, we would like to express our view not only to the Foundation BoT but also to all Wikimedia editors, and especially to those working in Wikimedia Commons. Volunteers from Argentina have been among the most affected by the policy adopted by Wikimedia Commons administrators regarding images that could fall under URAA copyright provisions. Argentine copyright law provides that images enter the public domain only 25 years after their production and 20 after their first documented publication. This relatively generous criterion has enabled unaffiliated volunteers and we as Wikimedia Argentina to enrich Commons with hundreds of thousands of historical images that are absolutely free under Argentine law: images of the political and every day life of the country, of its culture, of its popular idols, of its joyful and dark days, of its customs and architecture. However, over the last months certain Wikimedia Commons administrators have conducted massive deletions of these contents, in many cases involving entire categories. The burden of proof has been inverted: instead of having to justify the deletion of a certain file, things go that volunteers have to devout their time trying to justify the validity of their efforts. This has caused great damage, not only by way of our readers loosing access to free educational contents, but also de-motivating many editors and volunteers by making them feel that their efforts are ultimately vain and that our goal of free knowledge for everyone is being replaced by a certain legal fetishism whose reason gets lost in processes and misses the outcome. We acknowledge that the Wikimedia Foundation BoT and its Legal team have repeatedly stated, as has been reinforced in recent communications, that images shouldn't be deleted unless we receive a takedown notice, and that it has not received a single URAA-motivated notice to date. Certain Wikimedia Commons administrators have dismissed the Foundation's statement as a mere opinion vis-à-vis the SCOTUS ruling. Yet, it is an opinion by the organization that is legally responsible for the contents being hosted in Wikimedia Commons. We respectfully call the Wikimedia Commons community to reflect on the practical consequences of its current policy on URAA's implementation. Those files generating potential conflict could be even identified as such without the need for a pre-emptive deletion. And we would like the Commons community to reflect not only on the preventive loss of free contents we are generating, but also on the harmful disconnection between Wikimedia Commons and all of the other Wikimedia projects it serves as
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA)
2014-02-26 13:26 GMT+01:00 Pierre-Selim pierre-se...@huard.info: As a Wikimedia Commons volunteer I'm disappointed by the process followed by some chapters, i.e. which have chosen to bypass the community and send a letter directly to the board of trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation. However, I must say I would have prefered the chapters to talk with the principal stakeholders, i.e. all the communities. I know, said chapters are not forced to talk with the communities but It is rather ironical, when ignoring the stakeholder is a blame that I have heard a lot this month :p WM-IL and the other chapters have posted a text on meta, saying what they think. I don't know how this counts as bypassing the community, isn't Meta the place where the community discuss? That said, it is not the first time I see strong opinions in a discussion within our community. Also note, that these open letters do not imply any decision (as the board resolution, which you are referring to, did). C ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA)
Maybe it's a cultural issue, does e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_letter have a geopolitically limited point of view? Open letters are a common tool of *discussion* with the public (= community in our case) in the corners of the world that I know best. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA)
On 26 February 2014 13:51, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe it's a cultural issue, does e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_letter have a geopolitically limited point of view? Open letters are a common tool of *discussion* with the public (= community in our case) in the corners of the world that I know best. As a major unpaid Commons contributor, I find these emotive and political emails to lists and open letters elsewhere confusing and rather wasteful of the good faith volunteer effort behind them. If anyone wants to create meaningful and lasting change to Commons, then please create a Request for Comment on Commons[1] rather than making a fuss and criticising Commons (volunteer) administrators in non-Commons discussion channels, which most Commons volunteers are unlikely to either notice or care much about. For Chapters, I suggest you check who among your active volunteers are most active on Commons[2] and ask them to help engage or create discussion about policy and guideline changes. If you cannot find anyone close to your chapter that is active and engaged on Commons, perhaps you should change that situation before firing off official letters. Links: 1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:RFC 2. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Userlist Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA)
Wait, aren't the chapters composed from people from the wikimedia community? Also, didn't you guys stop by a second to think the chapter thoroughly discussed the contents of the letter with its members, which may vote in favor or against publishing it? And if it is on Meta, is open to discussion, no? Finally, in Venezuela we say el que se pica es porque ají come. No need to take it personally if you are not among those certain Commons admins, right? Sent from Samsung Mobile Original message From: Fæ fae...@gmail.com Date: 26/02/2014 18:46 (GMT+02:00) To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA) On 26 February 2014 13:51, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe it's a cultural issue, does e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_letter have a geopolitically limited point of view? Open letters are a common tool of *discussion* with the public (= community in our case) in the corners of the world that I know best. As a major unpaid Commons contributor, I find these emotive and political emails to lists and open letters elsewhere confusing and rather wasteful of the good faith volunteer effort behind them. If anyone wants to create meaningful and lasting change to Commons, then please create a Request for Comment on Commons[1] rather than making a fuss and criticising Commons (volunteer) administrators in non-Commons discussion channels, which most Commons volunteers are unlikely to either notice or care much about. For Chapters, I suggest you check who among your active volunteers are most active on Commons[2] and ask them to help engage or create discussion about policy and guideline changes. If you cannot find anyone close to your chapter that is active and engaged on Commons, perhaps you should change that situation before firing off official letters. Links: 1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:RFC 2. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Userlist Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA)
On 26 February 2014 16:46, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: If anyone wants to create meaningful and lasting change to Commons, then please create a Request for Comment on Commons[1] rather than making a fuss and criticising Commons (volunteer) administrators in non-Commons discussion channels, which most Commons volunteers are unlikely to either notice or care much about. The trouble with your proposed course of action is that it seems the action *least* likely to resolve the problem. Commons is at a stage where the problems with its approach can only be worked around. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA)
On 26 February 2014 17:07, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 26 February 2014 16:46, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: If anyone wants to create meaningful and lasting change to Commons, then please create a Request for Comment on Commons[1] rather than making a fuss and criticising Commons (volunteer) administrators in non-Commons discussion channels, which most Commons volunteers are unlikely to either notice or care much about. The trouble with your proposed course of action is that it seems the action *least* likely to resolve the problem. Commons is at a stage where the problems with its approach can only be worked around. No David. It is just the least dramatic approach. As for the mantra OMG Commons is broken, you wore out that record a long time ago. Those using channels elsewhere to create noise and heat, can hardly be considered to be using their time to help us reach a community consensus if deliberately avoiding the community they are targeting. Folks, dust off your Wikimedia Commons accounts, and log in. You can start by raising your issues at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:VP rather than by sending emails or writing in other places where Commons volunteers are never going to read your opinion. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA)
Hi, 2014-02-26 22:56 GMT+05:30 Fæ fae...@gmail.com: On 26 February 2014 17:07, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 26 February 2014 16:46, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: If anyone wants to create meaningful and lasting change to Commons, then please create a Request for Comment on Commons[1] rather than making a fuss and criticising Commons (volunteer) administrators in non-Commons discussion channels, which most Commons volunteers are unlikely to either notice or care much about. The trouble with your proposed course of action is that it seems the action *least* likely to resolve the problem. Commons is at a stage where the problems with its approach can only be worked around. No David. It is just the least dramatic approach. As for the mantra OMG Commons is broken, you wore out that record a long time ago. Those using channels elsewhere to create noise and heat, can hardly be considered to be using their time to help us reach a community consensus if deliberately avoiding the community they are targeting. Folks, dust off your Wikimedia Commons accounts, and log in. You can start by raising your issues at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:VP rather than by sending emails or writing in other places where Commons volunteers are never going to read your opinion. On this, I agree (at least partially) with David. If only some Commons admins were not pursuing a political campaign to delete URAA-affected files under false pretences, everything would be much better. I am not saying (yet) that Commons cannot be fixed, but there is certainly wrong there. I am thankful to the board who, in its last statement, has taken a position allowing the community to find a solution to these files. However some admins continue to ignore that, and to oppose any kind of proposition. This needs to change. If these admins didn't take that position, no chapter would have felt the need to send such letters. Regards, Yann ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA)
On 26 February 2014 17:55, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote: ... On this, I agree (at least partially) with David. If only some Commons admins were not pursuing a political campaign to delete URAA-affected files under false pretences, everything would be much better. If you have the evidence that individual troublesome Commons admins are disrupting Commons against the aims of the project, then desysop them. As you know Yann, Commons has a simple governance process compared to most other Wikimedia projects, as described at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/De-adminship. After the required /on-project/ discussion, the number of desysop votes needed would be fewer than the number of active members of most Chapters as it only needs a 50% majority to take effect. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA)
Fæ, 26/02/2014 17:46: For Chapters, I suggest you check who among your active volunteers are most active on Commons[2] and ask them to help engage or create discussion about policy and guideline changes. If you cannot find anyone close to your chapter that is active and engaged on Commons, perhaps you should change that situation before firing off official letters. As for WMIT, we're considering to write one letter too and of course we'll give maximum priority to the opinion and advice of our members who are active on Commons and Wikisource. I've not reviewed the exact wording of each letter to ensure they don't attack/offend Commons: they certainly should not, the hard-working and backlog-overwhelmed Commons users are jewels; but I think on-wiki essays, including open letters, are an entirely legitimate method for any person or group to freely express their opinion on any Wikimedia topic. Especially on Meta-Wiki, freedom of opinion and expression from all wikimedians is highly valued. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA)
2014-02-26 23:39 GMT+05:30 Fæ fae...@gmail.com: On 26 February 2014 17:55, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote: ... On this, I agree (at least partially) with David. If only some Commons admins were not pursuing a political campaign to delete URAA-affected files under false pretences, everything would be much better. If you have the evidence that individual troublesome Commons admins are disrupting Commons against the aims of the project, then desysop them. Hopefully, we will not go that far. The debate is still going on. Yann ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA)
I really expect to not being, what in Brazil we call as jogar lenha na fogueira (throw fuel on the fire in a literal translation) but... The question here is something that the Board of Trustees known since 2007 [1], when it raised firstly by Wikisource volunteers: what to do with works still protected in USA but PD-old on country of origin? They finally remembered to research for legal advice for better alternates than making forks only recently, getting an answer more than one year ago [2]. So instead of communities fighting against communities we must demand that the Wikimedia Foundation really research on ways to proper support free knowledge in all countries, acting more quickly, instead of ignoring such subjects as they are shamefully doing until now. Or it will end as some suggested to me back in 2007: every national groups making local forks and stopping to contribute in a global platform. [[:m:User:555]] [1] - https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=639122oldid=619743 [2] - https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=5216837 On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-02-26 23:39 GMT+05:30 Fæ fae...@gmail.com: On 26 February 2014 17:55, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote: ... On this, I agree (at least partially) with David. If only some Commons admins were not pursuing a political campaign to delete URAA-affected files under false pretences, everything would be much better. If you have the evidence that individual troublesome Commons admins are disrupting Commons against the aims of the project, then desysop them. Hopefully, we will not go that far. The debate is still going on. Yann ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA)
Look, I have no problem with the open letters from WM Venezuela, España or Israel. I might not agree 100% with everything in them, but they are generally on top of the issues, and they focus on the problems they law poses for us and our need for better solutions - all worth bringing to a wider audience. But the letter from WM Argentina is very different. It condemns the actions of certain Wikimedia Commons administrators who have deleted URAA-affected files (without naming them or linking to any of the relevant deletions), and makes various claims about how Commons policy and practice has changed and is inconsistent with statements by the WMF Board and Legal team. If you want to make these sorts of claims in an open letter, you should be ready to back them up. But WM Argentina cannot do so IMO, because many of their claims are untrue. Our practice is consistent with the WMF Board and Legal team statements, and it isn't true that the burden of proof has been inverted - the burden of proof has always been on those who want us to keep hosting a file. These sorts of mistakes could easily have been avoided if they had talked directly to experienced Commons editors first. I'm a Commons admin, but I'm fairly inactive these days and I don't believe I have deleted any URAA-affected files, so I don't think I am one of the certain Commons admins they refer to. But I do find defamation of hard-working members of my community offensive. If WM Argentina wants to respectfully call the Wikimedia Commons community to reflect on something, that does not seem the best way to start. On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 6:03 AM, Carlos M. Colina ma...@wikimedia.org.vewrote: Wait, aren't the chapters composed from people from the wikimedia community? Also, didn't you guys stop by a second to think the chapter thoroughly discussed the contents of the letter with its members, which may vote in favor or against publishing it? And if it is on Meta, is open to discussion, no? Finally, in Venezuela we say el que se pica es porque ají come. No need to take it personally if you are not among those certain Commons admins, right? Sent from Samsung Mobile ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
