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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
] 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
...@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
] 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Hi,
2014-06-17 15:07 GMT+05:30 Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org:
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
The discussion about it was already performed:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAA
with final consensus that URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for
deletion. However this consensus (a rough one) was questioned by a
small, but very
On 17/06/2014, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote:
with final consensus that URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for
deletion...
This is a selective quote, missing the explicit caveat that:
Deleted files can be restored after a discussion in COM:UDR.
If the process is being followed
We need an Uncommons, where the strict open license / PD rules are abandoned
and we accept images as long as their fair use can be established. And don't
delete unless that fair use is credibly questioned.
Conflating and comingling our educational role with open content advocacy was
always
On 17 June 2014 16:26, George William Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
We need an Uncommons, where the strict open license / PD rules are abandoned
and we accept images as long as their fair use can be established. And don't
delete unless that fair use is credibly questioned.
Grant
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:26 PM, George William Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
Conflating and comingling our educational role with open content advocacy was
always risky and is proving impossible. Without devaluing open content, we
need to separately support fair use for educational
On Jun 17, 2014, at 8:37 AM, Emmanuel Engelhart kel...@kiwix.org wrote:
On 17.06.2014 17:26, George William Herbert wrote:
We need an Uncommons, where the strict open license / PD rules are abandoned
and we accept images as long as their fair use can be established. And
don't delete
On 17.06.2014 17:26, George William Herbert wrote:
We need an Uncommons, where the strict open license / PD rules are abandoned
and we accept images as long as their fair use can be established. And don't
delete unless that fair use is credibly questioned.
Conflating and comingling our
On 17.06.2014 16:47, Osmar Valdebenito wrote:
If you take a look at the undeletion requests after the URAA
discussion,
most of the images restored were deleted afterwards anyway.[1][2] The
only
exception that I've seen are some German stamps that haven't been
deleted
(yet).
The problem is
Accidentally, I have one of these FFD nomination pages on my watchlist.
Yesterday it was renominated for the THIRD time by the same user (the
second one was keep as well). And I can not act on it anymore. Apparently,
at some point the user will get an admin with a stricter interpretation of
the
On 17/06/2014, George William Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
We need an Uncommons, where the strict open license / PD rules are
abandoned and we accept images as long as their fair use can be
established. And don't delete unless that fair use is credibly
questioned.
There is no such
On 6/17/14, 5:52 PM, George William Herbert wrote:
On Jun 17, 2014, at 8:37 AM, Emmanuel Engelhart kel...@kiwix.org wrote:
On 17.06.2014 17:26, George William Herbert wrote:
We need an Uncommons, where the strict open license / PD rules are abandoned
and we accept images as long as their
On 17.06.2014 18:13, Jeevan Jose wrote:
Accidentally, I have one of these FFD nomination pages on my
watchlist.
Yesterday it was renominated for the THIRD time by the same user (the
second one was keep as well). And I can not act on it anymore.
Apparently,
at some point the user will get an
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:26 AM, George William Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
Conflating and comingling our educational role with open content advocacy
was always risky and is proving impossible.
Insightful point. (We have a similar situation with our competing values of
privacy
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you clarify -- who do you intend by we? If your answer is English
Wikipedia, I think we already have a somewhat workable solution to this
complex problem: fair use is permitted in certain cases.[2] Of course, you
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
If we don't maintain the focus on free media, we may as well direct people
to a web image search, all of which is use at your own risk anyway, just
like our proposed new repository. Being free content is the Commons value
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:26 PM, George William Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
Conflating and comingling our educational role with open content
advocacy was always risky and is proving impossible. Without
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:12 AM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com
wrote:
Can you clarify -- who do you intend by we? If your answer is English
Wikipedia, I think we already have a somewhat workable
Pete -
An apologia for Commons, and the obvious implication that use on projects
will have to (if people actually care to enforce local standards) require
checking license status for every Project use, do not in any way lessen the
need for Uncommons.
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Pete
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
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
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;
George, SJ, and Nathan:
In addition to Erik Moeller's initial proposal that Commons be used as a
repository for *free* media files (linked previously), there
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
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com 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;
George, SJ, and Nathan:
In addition to Erik Moeller's initial proposal that
And yet we have a global, and in many cases (and specifically, en.wp) local
Fair Use policy, which is quite actively and productively used, and has
been since around day one of the first Wikipedia.
Uncommons is not a change in policy. It is ultimately a technical matter;
a software and project
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,
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:37 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
wrote:
Unless you
intend to try to roll that back on en.wikipedia and the Foundation policy,
Absolutely not. I don't have any real problem with the way fair use is
handled on English Wikipedia, and have uploaded some
Hi,
2014-06-18 0:37 GMT+05:30 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com:
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
On 17 June 2014 17:53, Delirium delir...@hackish.org wrote:
educational and other uses, by Wikimedians and third parties. If it's not an
open-content encyclopedia, for example if Wikipedia articles make use of
provincial American copyright loopholes that render them illegal to
redistribute
2014-06-18 0:55 GMT+05:30 Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com:
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;
Yes.
George, SJ, and Nathan:
In addition to Erik Moeller's initial proposal that Commons be
Per GerardM: Many people no longer trust Commons to store their media
files. People
are more certain that their files will remain available when they upload
media files to their own project.
I for one won't use Commons for image uploads. I feel that my uploads have
been treated
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-06-18 0:55 GMT+05:30 Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com:
The people you, Nathan, are accusing of behaving badly, are the ones who
are doing the hard, day-do-day work of enforcing the expressed consensus
of
the
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
The subject line is cute, but perhaps a bit trite. I think with a bit of
effort we can do better. :-)
George Herbert wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
If we don't maintain the focus on free media, we may as well direct
people to a web image search,
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.
70 matches
Mail list logo
