Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects

2020-02-28 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Benjamin is it fair to expect that you are a Wikipedian first and a
Wikimedian second? The problem with perception is that it differs from
where you stand. One of the easiest things to solve on all the Wikipedias
are false friends but hey I stand with data and the Wikipedia perception is
that it is not much of a problem (statistically it is).

When people write scientific papers about Wikipedia, English Wikipedia is
to be included on penalty of not finding a publisher (a quote from a Dutch
professor at a Wikimedia conference).  When the last resort for keeping
images on Commons, OTRS, has a not so public policy where for images to be
accepted the English Wikipedia notability policy is expected. What does it
take for you to alter your perception. What does it take for us to
understand how big this bias is and how insidious its effects are?

Perception, opinions provides the worst guidance because they allow you to
deny the facts that are in front of you.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 09:32, Benjamin Lees  wrote:

>  Like Peter, I do not see a clear connection to the proposed rebranding.
> Threads of this sort would be more constructive if they were framed in a
> way that does not unnecessarily tie in every other issue one might have
> with the movement, and that does not imply that anybody with a different
> perspective must be evil or incompetent.
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 8:06 PM Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> >- it must not say the use is to, for, or on Wikipedia
> >
> >
>
> A file must not say it is *exclusively* for the use of Wikipedia, because
> such a condition is incompatible with the license we demand.  And there
> must be an actual license--"Wikipedia can use my picture" is the classic
> submission that requires us to ask for a proper licensing declaration.  But
> there is certainly no problem if somebody submits a file for the *purpose*
> of use on Wikipedia.  That is one of the most common motivations for
> submitting files.
>
>
>
> > Commons has fallen behind when it comes to the capability of taking
> photos
> > of ones self (selfies) the default position when Commons started was that
> > taking a high quality photograph of yourself wasnt possible there must
> have
> > been someone else pushing the button. What happens is Commons asks for
> the
> > subject to obtain permission from the photographer and submit that to
> OTRS,
> > the systems falls over because the photographer cant prove that the photo
> > they took of themselves was taken by themselves because the underlying
> > assumption is that that isnt possible.
> >
>
> It does appear to be standard practice to ask who took a photograph,
> because in a great many cases, it was not the person submitting the file,
> and many people do not realize that the photographer, rather than the
> subject, owns the copyright. (As Gerard says, "understanding of copyright
> and licensing is dim".) I don't think anybody treats "the picture looks
> good" as creating an irrebuttable presumption that it is not a selfie, but
> different users do have different views of how not-a-selfie-looking a given
> file is and of how much verification should be performed more generally.
>
>
> OTRS permission behaves as expected because there is a very narrow
> > definition of whats acceptable, anything that doesnt fit gets rejected.
> The
> > very real need to be pro-active in ensuring the permissions queue doesnt
> > get overwhelmed and backlogged  contributes to the fact that the grey is
> > treated as black -- close it, delete it, move on.
> >
>
> My impression is that most agents go to reasonable (and sometimes
> excessive) lengths to give people submitting files a chance to show that
> they have the rights to do so.
>
> Emufarmers
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects

2020-02-26 Thread
This is a slight tangent, but please let's be slightly more precise
with wording about what free media content Wikimedia Commons
legitimately hosts.

The scope of Wikimedia Commons is to host all free media with any
rationale for "reasonable educational reuse".[1] The vast majority of
content never will be used on any other sister Wikimedia project. This
means:
* "Reasonable" in a very wide sense, including cultural value,
historical value, illustrative use. So some random modern photograph
of a couple kissing in the street might be out of scope, but if the
photograph was taken 80 years ago, then it has historic value, or if
the photograph was at a pride march, then it probably has cultural and
illustrative value.
* "Reuse" is anywhere and "educational" is subject to generous and
very wide interpretations of potential value. This means media that
someone would find quite interesting for illustrating a school
project, or as a pretty screensaver on their phone, or because it's
something illustrative about cats to post on Twitter.

Consequently, Wikimedia Commons is *not* limited to what might be
"notable" for an encyclopaedia, so there is no automatic deletion for
yet another photograph of someone's breakfast, nor even for a selfie
photo, so long as there can be a case made by anyone for reasonable
reuse.

The only areas where additional guidelines often lead to deletions
(and difficult deletion discussion), is for media with demonstrated
issues of invasion of privacy or consent,[2] apparent harassment, or a
not very special photo of private parts[3] of a specific type for
which we happen to have plenty to choose from already. Lastly,
policies do evolve, albeit very slowly, and no local policy overrides
the WMF top-level policies such as on privacy or harassment.

This tangent was not about copyright, so before anyone points it out,
"free media" has a quite specific definition at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing. But that's a
rabbit-hole of its own.

Links
1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope
2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people
3. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Nudity#New_uploads

Fae

On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 08:56, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> Commons is a project with a specific purpose. It is to host all media that
> fits the use of any other project. As it is English Wikipedia notability
> standards are used to justify why files are not to be kept on Commons. This
> is contrary to its very purpose, it is not acceptable and it is not for the
> Commons community to decide otherwise.
>
> When at OTRS a license is given for the unfettered use of media respecting
> an approved license, there is no argument, no rule inside OTRS itself that
> is applicable particularly when that media is explicitly asked for on
> another project.
> Thanks,
>Gerard
>
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 09:39, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > Scope is a Commons community decision,
> > OTRS is solely about licensing
> >
> > On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 15:30, Gerard Meijssen 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > No it is an administrative process. It follows its own rules IN ORDER TO
> > do
> > > what it does. The notion that material is to be useful to Wikipedia is
> > NOT
> > > covered by any legal restraints. This notion that is alive and well, the
> > > notion that copyright can be retroactively applied never mind the
> > original
> > > copyright holder is that as well.
> > >
> > > Yes, the underlying work is legal, the process is definitely not and
> > > consequently the process has to be revisited, is to be revisited in order
> > > for OTRS to function for all of us.
> > > Thanks,
> > > GerardM
> > >
> > > On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 08:09, Gnangarra  wrote:
> > >
> > > > to quote Gerard
> > > >
> > > > There is no law that insists on the existing rules and regulations as
> > put
> > > > > forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly unfit
> > > >
> > > > for purpose.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > OTRS is very much a legal process because its related to Copyright
> > laws,
> > > > both in the US and in the country in which they reside.  Every
> > > > transaction(image upload) is a person giving away their rights in
> > regards
> > > > to that work OTRS needs to ensure that the person is fully aware of the
> > > > consequences of that action.  OTRS holds an absolute record of that
> > > action
> > > > of when it took place, it protects all parties should there be an issue
> > > in
> > > > the future in particular the WMF and our volunteers who were involved
> > in
> > > > the process.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 13:57, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > Thank you for demonstrating the extend OTRS is not fit for purpose. I
> > > > > understand that OTRS is governed by rules and regulations but a
> > > reference
> > > > > is made to "legal". There is no law that 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects

2020-02-26 Thread Gnangarra
Lets move this along towards a solution;

Maybe the simplest solution is to create a delinker type bot that flags
images which were used on Wikidata but the data item has since been deleted
thus flagging the file for review on Commons.

This addresses the concerns over spam Wikidata id's being created to enable
an image to be uploaded.

WD and Commons community could both request that the person emailing OTRS
with permission identifies the WikiData item its intended for.  Every image
were permission is being received it should have an association with a
WikiData item as its necessary  to fill in the structured data field
anyway.



On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 21:41, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Thanks for this clarity Paulo.
> Is there a way to move more of the underlying policies onto a public wiki
> rather than a closed one, to limit some of this confusion?
>
> 
>
> On Wed., Feb. 26, 2020, 5:36 a.m. Paulo Santos Perneta, <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The OP is misleading. The issue is not with Commons at all, but with
> OTRS.
> > As far as I know, Commons never, ever, deleted a file which was in use in
> > any Wikimedia project, with the notable expectation of copyvios.
> Otherwise,
> > use in *any* wikimedia project = on scope for Commons.
> >
> > Apparently some OTRS volunteers follow some outdated procedures -
> including
> > that one related to selfies, which was mentioned - but that is a problem
> > exclusively with OTRS. I'm part of that team, and I always had the
> freedom
> > to decide which looked like a genuine selfie, and which was problematic
> at
> > that (e.g., with a copyright notice at the metadata). And, as far as I
> > know, anyone willing to help fixing those problems at OTRS is very much
> > welcome there. When the volunteers are very few, and the ones complaining
> > do not volunteer themselves, it only adds up to the pressure on the few
> > existing volunteers, making everything worse.
> >
> > Best,
> > Paulo
> >
> > Peter Southwood  escreveu no dia quarta,
> > 26/02/2020 à(s) 06:04:
> >
> > > This does seem unreasonable. Do they have an explanation at Commons?
> > > This is happening without standardising in one label Wikipedia, so it
> is
> > > jumping to quite a conclusion to assume that the issue is related.
> > > For the record, I am also opposed to rebranding to Wikipedia, but I do
> > not
> > > think this issue is necessarily related.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 6:10 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on
> > other
> > > projects
> > >
> > > Hoi,
> > > Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support
> > > Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards.
> We
> > > are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The
> > best
> > > suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at
> > > Commons.
> > >
> > > When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia,
> > it
> > > is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects.
> The
> > > projects who operate to different standards who have notability
> criteria
> > > different from English Wikipedia.
> > > Thanks,
> > >   GerardM
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects

2020-02-26 Thread Samuel Klein
Thanks for this clarity Paulo.
Is there a way to move more of the underlying policies onto a public wiki
rather than a closed one, to limit some of this confusion?



On Wed., Feb. 26, 2020, 5:36 a.m. Paulo Santos Perneta, <
paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The OP is misleading. The issue is not with Commons at all, but with OTRS.
> As far as I know, Commons never, ever, deleted a file which was in use in
> any Wikimedia project, with the notable expectation of copyvios. Otherwise,
> use in *any* wikimedia project = on scope for Commons.
>
> Apparently some OTRS volunteers follow some outdated procedures - including
> that one related to selfies, which was mentioned - but that is a problem
> exclusively with OTRS. I'm part of that team, and I always had the freedom
> to decide which looked like a genuine selfie, and which was problematic at
> that (e.g., with a copyright notice at the metadata). And, as far as I
> know, anyone willing to help fixing those problems at OTRS is very much
> welcome there. When the volunteers are very few, and the ones complaining
> do not volunteer themselves, it only adds up to the pressure on the few
> existing volunteers, making everything worse.
>
> Best,
> Paulo
>
> Peter Southwood  escreveu no dia quarta,
> 26/02/2020 à(s) 06:04:
>
> > This does seem unreasonable. Do they have an explanation at Commons?
> > This is happening without standardising in one label Wikipedia, so it is
> > jumping to quite a conclusion to assume that the issue is related.
> > For the record, I am also opposed to rebranding to Wikipedia, but I do
> not
> > think this issue is necessarily related.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 6:10 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on
> other
> > projects
> >
> > Hoi,
> > Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support
> > Wikipedia.
> >
> > At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards. We
> > are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The
> best
> > suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at
> > Commons.
> >
> > When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia,
> it
> > is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects. The
> > projects who operate to different standards who have notability criteria
> > different from English Wikipedia.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects

2020-02-26 Thread Paulo Santos Perneta
The OP is misleading. The issue is not with Commons at all, but with OTRS.
As far as I know, Commons never, ever, deleted a file which was in use in
any Wikimedia project, with the notable expectation of copyvios. Otherwise,
use in *any* wikimedia project = on scope for Commons.

Apparently some OTRS volunteers follow some outdated procedures - including
that one related to selfies, which was mentioned - but that is a problem
exclusively with OTRS. I'm part of that team, and I always had the freedom
to decide which looked like a genuine selfie, and which was problematic at
that (e.g., with a copyright notice at the metadata). And, as far as I
know, anyone willing to help fixing those problems at OTRS is very much
welcome there. When the volunteers are very few, and the ones complaining
do not volunteer themselves, it only adds up to the pressure on the few
existing volunteers, making everything worse.

Best,
Paulo

Peter Southwood  escreveu no dia quarta,
26/02/2020 à(s) 06:04:

> This does seem unreasonable. Do they have an explanation at Commons?
> This is happening without standardising in one label Wikipedia, so it is
> jumping to quite a conclusion to assume that the issue is related.
> For the record, I am also opposed to rebranding to Wikipedia, but I do not
> think this issue is necessarily related.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 6:10 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other
> projects
>
> Hoi,
> Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support
> Wikipedia.
>
> At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards. We
> are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The best
> suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at
> Commons.
>
> When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia, it
> is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects. The
> projects who operate to different standards who have notability criteria
> different from English Wikipedia.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects

2020-02-26 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Commons is a project with a specific purpose. It is to host all media that
fits the use of any other project. As it is English Wikipedia notability
standards are used to justify why files are not to be kept on Commons. This
is contrary to its very purpose, it is not acceptable and it is not for the
Commons community to decide otherwise.

When at OTRS a license is given for the unfettered use of media respecting
an approved license, there is no argument, no rule inside OTRS itself that
is applicable particularly when that media is explicitly asked for on
another project.
Thanks,
   Gerard

On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 09:39, Gnangarra  wrote:

> Scope is a Commons community decision,
> OTRS is solely about licensing
>
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 15:30, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > No it is an administrative process. It follows its own rules IN ORDER TO
> do
> > what it does. The notion that material is to be useful to Wikipedia is
> NOT
> > covered by any legal restraints. This notion that is alive and well, the
> > notion that copyright can be retroactively applied never mind the
> original
> > copyright holder is that as well.
> >
> > Yes, the underlying work is legal, the process is definitely not and
> > consequently the process has to be revisited, is to be revisited in order
> > for OTRS to function for all of us.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 08:09, Gnangarra  wrote:
> >
> > > to quote Gerard
> > >
> > > There is no law that insists on the existing rules and regulations as
> put
> > > > forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly unfit
> > >
> > > for purpose.
> > >
> > >
> > > OTRS is very much a legal process because its related to Copyright
> laws,
> > > both in the US and in the country in which they reside.  Every
> > > transaction(image upload) is a person giving away their rights in
> regards
> > > to that work OTRS needs to ensure that the person is fully aware of the
> > > consequences of that action.  OTRS holds an absolute record of that
> > action
> > > of when it took place, it protects all parties should there be an issue
> > in
> > > the future in particular the WMF and our volunteers who were involved
> in
> > > the process.
> > >
> > > On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 13:57, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > Thank you for demonstrating the extend OTRS is not fit for purpose. I
> > > > understand that OTRS is governed by rules and regulations but a
> > reference
> > > > is made to "legal". There is no law that insists on the existing
> rules
> > > and
> > > > regulations as put forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly
> > > unfit
> > > > for purpose.
> > > >
> > > > Particularly the line: "- it must not say the use is to, for, or on
> > > > Wikipedia" is problematic because either this is a list as stated
> what
> > > OTRS
> > > > adheres to or, it is not. It is a negative and as such it reads that
> it
> > > is
> > > > NOT about any Wikipedia and its vagaries.
> > > >
> > > > Yet again it is brought to the attention that the negative attitude
> is
> > to
> > > > be acceptable because of a perceived workload. Apparently it is
> easier
> > to
> > > > say no than to say yes and that is in itself mystifying.
> > > >
> > > > OTRS has not moved on with the time and as such it does not even know
> > > > selfies... An issue not confined to OTRS is that understanding of
> > > copyright
> > > > and licensing is dim anyway. When a copyright holder provides us with
> > > > material, it is licensed by the copyright holder to be available
> under
> > a
> > > > WMF permitted license. When the copyright holder provides it under a
> > > > secondary license elsewhere or when our material is used elsewhere
> > with a
> > > > more restrictive license, it does not follow that we are in breach of
> > > > copyright. I have fought such "delete on sight" battles and the only
> > > result
> > > > is no response on the image that was to be speedily deleted. The rule
> > > > should be; when material is provided to us, the license is checked at
> > the
> > > > time and any and all issues NOT involving the copyright holder are to
> > be
> > > > seen as irrelevant.
> > > >
> > > > OTRS is a Wikimedia Foundation sanctioned function. It insists to
> > > function
> > > > as is and therefore *a new mandate is required* because as is, it
> does
> > > the
> > > > worst possible service. There is no Wikipedia, there are 300+, there
> > are
> > > > other projects that require a functioning Commons and as it is, it is
> > not
> > > > fit for purpose.
> > > >
> > > > You may remember when English Wikipedia had egg on its face because
> of
> > > the
> > > > deletion of what became a Nobel prize winner. There are MANY science
> > > awards
> > > > and we want a picture for all awardees in addition, in the Scholia
> tool
> > > we
> > > > want pictures of any and all people that authored a paper.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >   

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects

2020-02-26 Thread Gnangarra
Scope is a Commons community decision,
OTRS is solely about licensing

On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 15:30, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> No it is an administrative process. It follows its own rules IN ORDER TO do
> what it does. The notion that material is to be useful to Wikipedia is NOT
> covered by any legal restraints. This notion that is alive and well, the
> notion that copyright can be retroactively applied never mind the original
> copyright holder is that as well.
>
> Yes, the underlying work is legal, the process is definitely not and
> consequently the process has to be revisited, is to be revisited in order
> for OTRS to function for all of us.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 08:09, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > to quote Gerard
> >
> > There is no law that insists on the existing rules and regulations as put
> > > forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly unfit
> >
> > for purpose.
> >
> >
> > OTRS is very much a legal process because its related to Copyright laws,
> > both in the US and in the country in which they reside.  Every
> > transaction(image upload) is a person giving away their rights in regards
> > to that work OTRS needs to ensure that the person is fully aware of the
> > consequences of that action.  OTRS holds an absolute record of that
> action
> > of when it took place, it protects all parties should there be an issue
> in
> > the future in particular the WMF and our volunteers who were involved in
> > the process.
> >
> > On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 13:57, Gerard Meijssen  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > Thank you for demonstrating the extend OTRS is not fit for purpose. I
> > > understand that OTRS is governed by rules and regulations but a
> reference
> > > is made to "legal". There is no law that insists on the existing rules
> > and
> > > regulations as put forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly
> > unfit
> > > for purpose.
> > >
> > > Particularly the line: "- it must not say the use is to, for, or on
> > > Wikipedia" is problematic because either this is a list as stated what
> > OTRS
> > > adheres to or, it is not. It is a negative and as such it reads that it
> > is
> > > NOT about any Wikipedia and its vagaries.
> > >
> > > Yet again it is brought to the attention that the negative attitude is
> to
> > > be acceptable because of a perceived workload. Apparently it is easier
> to
> > > say no than to say yes and that is in itself mystifying.
> > >
> > > OTRS has not moved on with the time and as such it does not even know
> > > selfies... An issue not confined to OTRS is that understanding of
> > copyright
> > > and licensing is dim anyway. When a copyright holder provides us with
> > > material, it is licensed by the copyright holder to be available under
> a
> > > WMF permitted license. When the copyright holder provides it under a
> > > secondary license elsewhere or when our material is used elsewhere
> with a
> > > more restrictive license, it does not follow that we are in breach of
> > > copyright. I have fought such "delete on sight" battles and the only
> > result
> > > is no response on the image that was to be speedily deleted. The rule
> > > should be; when material is provided to us, the license is checked at
> the
> > > time and any and all issues NOT involving the copyright holder are to
> be
> > > seen as irrelevant.
> > >
> > > OTRS is a Wikimedia Foundation sanctioned function. It insists to
> > function
> > > as is and therefore *a new mandate is required* because as is, it does
> > the
> > > worst possible service. There is no Wikipedia, there are 300+, there
> are
> > > other projects that require a functioning Commons and as it is, it is
> not
> > > fit for purpose.
> > >
> > > You may remember when English Wikipedia had egg on its face because of
> > the
> > > deletion of what became a Nobel prize winner. There are MANY science
> > awards
> > > and we want a picture for all awardees in addition, in the Scholia tool
> > we
> > > want pictures of any and all people that authored a paper.
> > > Thanks,
> > >   GerardM
> > >
> > > On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 02:06, Gnangarra  wrote:
> > >
> > > > For legal reasons OTRS requires very specific wording, it declines
> > > > permissions that fail to meet that very strict wording.
> > > >
> > > > The person must;
> > > >
> > > >- establish their authority to license the image
> > > >- the license must be a free license PD or CC-by
> > > >- it must not say the use is to, for, or on Wikipedia
> > > >- it needs a URL to associate the permission with
> > > >
> > > > If the media meets these requirements than it will be accept, if it
> > > doesnt
> > > > it gets rejected. Scope is something that gets decided on on Commons.
> > > >
> > > > Wikidata has had an impact on scope, quite literally everything is
> now
> > > > within scope.  We havent even yet got to the issue about Wikidata
> items
> > > > including trademarked logos and copyrighted works for which 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects

2020-02-26 Thread Benjamin Lees
 Like Peter, I do not see a clear connection to the proposed rebranding.
Threads of this sort would be more constructive if they were framed in a
way that does not unnecessarily tie in every other issue one might have
with the movement, and that does not imply that anybody with a different
perspective must be evil or incompetent.


On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 8:06 PM Gnangarra  wrote:

>- it must not say the use is to, for, or on Wikipedia
>
>

A file must not say it is *exclusively* for the use of Wikipedia, because
such a condition is incompatible with the license we demand.  And there
must be an actual license--"Wikipedia can use my picture" is the classic
submission that requires us to ask for a proper licensing declaration.  But
there is certainly no problem if somebody submits a file for the *purpose*
of use on Wikipedia.  That is one of the most common motivations for
submitting files.



> Commons has fallen behind when it comes to the capability of taking photos
> of ones self (selfies) the default position when Commons started was that
> taking a high quality photograph of yourself wasnt possible there must have
> been someone else pushing the button. What happens is Commons asks for the
> subject to obtain permission from the photographer and submit that to OTRS,
> the systems falls over because the photographer cant prove that the photo
> they took of themselves was taken by themselves because the underlying
> assumption is that that isnt possible.
>

It does appear to be standard practice to ask who took a photograph,
because in a great many cases, it was not the person submitting the file,
and many people do not realize that the photographer, rather than the
subject, owns the copyright. (As Gerard says, "understanding of copyright
and licensing is dim".) I don't think anybody treats "the picture looks
good" as creating an irrebuttable presumption that it is not a selfie, but
different users do have different views of how not-a-selfie-looking a given
file is and of how much verification should be performed more generally.


OTRS permission behaves as expected because there is a very narrow
> definition of whats acceptable, anything that doesnt fit gets rejected. The
> very real need to be pro-active in ensuring the permissions queue doesnt
> get overwhelmed and backlogged  contributes to the fact that the grey is
> treated as black -- close it, delete it, move on.
>

My impression is that most agents go to reasonable (and sometimes
excessive) lengths to give people submitting files a chance to show that
they have the rights to do so.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects

2020-02-25 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
No it is an administrative process. It follows its own rules IN ORDER TO do
what it does. The notion that material is to be useful to Wikipedia is NOT
covered by any legal restraints. This notion that is alive and well, the
notion that copyright can be retroactively applied never mind the original
copyright holder is that as well.

Yes, the underlying work is legal, the process is definitely not and
consequently the process has to be revisited, is to be revisited in order
for OTRS to function for all of us.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 08:09, Gnangarra  wrote:

> to quote Gerard
>
> There is no law that insists on the existing rules and regulations as put
> > forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly unfit
>
> for purpose.
>
>
> OTRS is very much a legal process because its related to Copyright laws,
> both in the US and in the country in which they reside.  Every
> transaction(image upload) is a person giving away their rights in regards
> to that work OTRS needs to ensure that the person is fully aware of the
> consequences of that action.  OTRS holds an absolute record of that action
> of when it took place, it protects all parties should there be an issue in
> the future in particular the WMF and our volunteers who were involved in
> the process.
>
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 13:57, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Thank you for demonstrating the extend OTRS is not fit for purpose. I
> > understand that OTRS is governed by rules and regulations but a reference
> > is made to "legal". There is no law that insists on the existing rules
> and
> > regulations as put forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly
> unfit
> > for purpose.
> >
> > Particularly the line: "- it must not say the use is to, for, or on
> > Wikipedia" is problematic because either this is a list as stated what
> OTRS
> > adheres to or, it is not. It is a negative and as such it reads that it
> is
> > NOT about any Wikipedia and its vagaries.
> >
> > Yet again it is brought to the attention that the negative attitude is to
> > be acceptable because of a perceived workload. Apparently it is easier to
> > say no than to say yes and that is in itself mystifying.
> >
> > OTRS has not moved on with the time and as such it does not even know
> > selfies... An issue not confined to OTRS is that understanding of
> copyright
> > and licensing is dim anyway. When a copyright holder provides us with
> > material, it is licensed by the copyright holder to be available under a
> > WMF permitted license. When the copyright holder provides it under a
> > secondary license elsewhere or when our material is used elsewhere with a
> > more restrictive license, it does not follow that we are in breach of
> > copyright. I have fought such "delete on sight" battles and the only
> result
> > is no response on the image that was to be speedily deleted. The rule
> > should be; when material is provided to us, the license is checked at the
> > time and any and all issues NOT involving the copyright holder are to be
> > seen as irrelevant.
> >
> > OTRS is a Wikimedia Foundation sanctioned function. It insists to
> function
> > as is and therefore *a new mandate is required* because as is, it does
> the
> > worst possible service. There is no Wikipedia, there are 300+, there are
> > other projects that require a functioning Commons and as it is, it is not
> > fit for purpose.
> >
> > You may remember when English Wikipedia had egg on its face because of
> the
> > deletion of what became a Nobel prize winner. There are MANY science
> awards
> > and we want a picture for all awardees in addition, in the Scholia tool
> we
> > want pictures of any and all people that authored a paper.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 02:06, Gnangarra  wrote:
> >
> > > For legal reasons OTRS requires very specific wording, it declines
> > > permissions that fail to meet that very strict wording.
> > >
> > > The person must;
> > >
> > >- establish their authority to license the image
> > >- the license must be a free license PD or CC-by
> > >- it must not say the use is to, for, or on Wikipedia
> > >- it needs a URL to associate the permission with
> > >
> > > If the media meets these requirements than it will be accept, if it
> > doesnt
> > > it gets rejected. Scope is something that gets decided on on Commons.
> > >
> > > Wikidata has had an impact on scope, quite literally everything is now
> > > within scope.  We havent even yet got to the issue about Wikidata items
> > > including trademarked logos and copyrighted works for which Commons
> cant
> > > have images under fairuse
> > >
> > > Commons has fallen behind when it comes to the capability of taking
> > photos
> > > of ones self (selfies) the default position when Commons started was
> that
> > > taking a high quality photograph of yourself wasnt possible there must
> > have
> > > been someone else pushing the button. What happens is 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects

2020-02-25 Thread Gnangarra
YEs Commons does have it all laid out at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS so that everyone can follow
those steps.

On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 15:08, Gnangarra  wrote:

> to quote Gerard
>
> There is no law that insists on the existing rules and regulations as put
>> forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly unfit
>
> for purpose.
>
>
> OTRS is very much a legal process because its related to Copyright laws,
> both in the US and in the country in which they reside.  Every
> transaction(image upload) is a person giving away their rights in regards
> to that work OTRS needs to ensure that the person is fully aware of the
> consequences of that action.  OTRS holds an absolute record of that action
> of when it took place, it protects all parties should there be an issue in
> the future in particular the WMF and our volunteers who were involved in
> the process.
>
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 13:57, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> Thank you for demonstrating the extend OTRS is not fit for purpose. I
>> understand that OTRS is governed by rules and regulations but a reference
>> is made to "legal". There is no law that insists on the existing rules and
>> regulations as put forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly unfit
>> for purpose.
>>
>> Particularly the line: "- it must not say the use is to, for, or on
>> Wikipedia" is problematic because either this is a list as stated what
>> OTRS
>> adheres to or, it is not. It is a negative and as such it reads that it is
>> NOT about any Wikipedia and its vagaries.
>>
>> Yet again it is brought to the attention that the negative attitude is to
>> be acceptable because of a perceived workload. Apparently it is easier to
>> say no than to say yes and that is in itself mystifying.
>>
>> OTRS has not moved on with the time and as such it does not even know
>> selfies... An issue not confined to OTRS is that understanding of
>> copyright
>> and licensing is dim anyway. When a copyright holder provides us with
>> material, it is licensed by the copyright holder to be available under a
>> WMF permitted license. When the copyright holder provides it under a
>> secondary license elsewhere or when our material is used elsewhere with a
>> more restrictive license, it does not follow that we are in breach of
>> copyright. I have fought such "delete on sight" battles and the only
>> result
>> is no response on the image that was to be speedily deleted. The rule
>> should be; when material is provided to us, the license is checked at the
>> time and any and all issues NOT involving the copyright holder are to be
>> seen as irrelevant.
>>
>> OTRS is a Wikimedia Foundation sanctioned function. It insists to function
>> as is and therefore *a new mandate is required* because as is, it does the
>> worst possible service. There is no Wikipedia, there are 300+, there are
>> other projects that require a functioning Commons and as it is, it is not
>> fit for purpose.
>>
>> You may remember when English Wikipedia had egg on its face because of the
>> deletion of what became a Nobel prize winner. There are MANY science
>> awards
>> and we want a picture for all awardees in addition, in the Scholia tool we
>> want pictures of any and all people that authored a paper.
>> Thanks,
>>   GerardM
>>
>> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 02:06, Gnangarra  wrote:
>>
>> > For legal reasons OTRS requires very specific wording, it declines
>> > permissions that fail to meet that very strict wording.
>> >
>> > The person must;
>> >
>> >- establish their authority to license the image
>> >- the license must be a free license PD or CC-by
>> >- it must not say the use is to, for, or on Wikipedia
>> >- it needs a URL to associate the permission with
>> >
>> > If the media meets these requirements than it will be accept, if it
>> doesnt
>> > it gets rejected. Scope is something that gets decided on on Commons.
>> >
>> > Wikidata has had an impact on scope, quite literally everything is now
>> > within scope.  We havent even yet got to the issue about Wikidata items
>> > including trademarked logos and copyrighted works for which Commons cant
>> > have images under fairuse
>> >
>> > Commons has fallen behind when it comes to the capability of taking
>> photos
>> > of ones self (selfies) the default position when Commons started was
>> that
>> > taking a high quality photograph of yourself wasnt possible there must
>> have
>> > been someone else pushing the button. What happens is Commons asks for
>> the
>> > subject to obtain permission from the photographer and submit that to
>> OTRS,
>> > the systems falls over because the photographer cant prove that the
>> photo
>> > they took of themselves was taken by themselves because the underlying
>> > assumption is that that isnt possible.  The vast majority of agents on
>> the
>> > commons permission queue are people from commons who have learnt the
>> > policies and have the tools to do the work.
>> >
>> > OTRS permission 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects

2020-02-25 Thread Gnangarra
to quote Gerard

There is no law that insists on the existing rules and regulations as put
> forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly unfit

for purpose.


OTRS is very much a legal process because its related to Copyright laws,
both in the US and in the country in which they reside.  Every
transaction(image upload) is a person giving away their rights in regards
to that work OTRS needs to ensure that the person is fully aware of the
consequences of that action.  OTRS holds an absolute record of that action
of when it took place, it protects all parties should there be an issue in
the future in particular the WMF and our volunteers who were involved in
the process.

On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 13:57, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Thank you for demonstrating the extend OTRS is not fit for purpose. I
> understand that OTRS is governed by rules and regulations but a reference
> is made to "legal". There is no law that insists on the existing rules and
> regulations as put forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly unfit
> for purpose.
>
> Particularly the line: "- it must not say the use is to, for, or on
> Wikipedia" is problematic because either this is a list as stated what OTRS
> adheres to or, it is not. It is a negative and as such it reads that it is
> NOT about any Wikipedia and its vagaries.
>
> Yet again it is brought to the attention that the negative attitude is to
> be acceptable because of a perceived workload. Apparently it is easier to
> say no than to say yes and that is in itself mystifying.
>
> OTRS has not moved on with the time and as such it does not even know
> selfies... An issue not confined to OTRS is that understanding of copyright
> and licensing is dim anyway. When a copyright holder provides us with
> material, it is licensed by the copyright holder to be available under a
> WMF permitted license. When the copyright holder provides it under a
> secondary license elsewhere or when our material is used elsewhere with a
> more restrictive license, it does not follow that we are in breach of
> copyright. I have fought such "delete on sight" battles and the only result
> is no response on the image that was to be speedily deleted. The rule
> should be; when material is provided to us, the license is checked at the
> time and any and all issues NOT involving the copyright holder are to be
> seen as irrelevant.
>
> OTRS is a Wikimedia Foundation sanctioned function. It insists to function
> as is and therefore *a new mandate is required* because as is, it does the
> worst possible service. There is no Wikipedia, there are 300+, there are
> other projects that require a functioning Commons and as it is, it is not
> fit for purpose.
>
> You may remember when English Wikipedia had egg on its face because of the
> deletion of what became a Nobel prize winner. There are MANY science awards
> and we want a picture for all awardees in addition, in the Scholia tool we
> want pictures of any and all people that authored a paper.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 02:06, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > For legal reasons OTRS requires very specific wording, it declines
> > permissions that fail to meet that very strict wording.
> >
> > The person must;
> >
> >- establish their authority to license the image
> >- the license must be a free license PD or CC-by
> >- it must not say the use is to, for, or on Wikipedia
> >- it needs a URL to associate the permission with
> >
> > If the media meets these requirements than it will be accept, if it
> doesnt
> > it gets rejected. Scope is something that gets decided on on Commons.
> >
> > Wikidata has had an impact on scope, quite literally everything is now
> > within scope.  We havent even yet got to the issue about Wikidata items
> > including trademarked logos and copyrighted works for which Commons cant
> > have images under fairuse
> >
> > Commons has fallen behind when it comes to the capability of taking
> photos
> > of ones self (selfies) the default position when Commons started was that
> > taking a high quality photograph of yourself wasnt possible there must
> have
> > been someone else pushing the button. What happens is Commons asks for
> the
> > subject to obtain permission from the photographer and submit that to
> OTRS,
> > the systems falls over because the photographer cant prove that the photo
> > they took of themselves was taken by themselves because the underlying
> > assumption is that that isnt possible.  The vast majority of agents on
> the
> > commons permission queue are people from commons who have learnt the
> > policies and have the tools to do the work.
> >
> > OTRS permission behaves as expected because there is a very narrow
> > definition of whats acceptable, anything that doesnt fit gets rejected.
> The
> > very real need to be pro-active in ensuring the permissions queue doesnt
> > get overwhelmed and backlogged  contributes to the fact that the grey is
> > treated as black -- 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects

2020-02-25 Thread Peter Southwood
This does seem unreasonable. Do they have an explanation at Commons?
This is happening without standardising in one label Wikipedia, so it is 
jumping to quite a conclusion to assume that the issue is related.
For the record, I am also opposed to rebranding to Wikipedia, but I do not 
think this issue is necessarily related.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 6:10 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other 
projects

Hoi,
Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support
Wikipedia.

At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards. We
are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The best
suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at
Commons.

When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia, it
is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects. The
projects who operate to different standards who have notability criteria
different from English Wikipedia.
Thanks,
  GerardM
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 



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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects

2020-02-25 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Thank you for demonstrating the extend OTRS is not fit for purpose. I
understand that OTRS is governed by rules and regulations but a reference
is made to "legal". There is no law that insists on the existing rules and
regulations as put forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly unfit
for purpose.

Particularly the line: "- it must not say the use is to, for, or on
Wikipedia" is problematic because either this is a list as stated what OTRS
adheres to or, it is not. It is a negative and as such it reads that it is
NOT about any Wikipedia and its vagaries.

Yet again it is brought to the attention that the negative attitude is to
be acceptable because of a perceived workload. Apparently it is easier to
say no than to say yes and that is in itself mystifying.

OTRS has not moved on with the time and as such it does not even know
selfies... An issue not confined to OTRS is that understanding of copyright
and licensing is dim anyway. When a copyright holder provides us with
material, it is licensed by the copyright holder to be available under a
WMF permitted license. When the copyright holder provides it under a
secondary license elsewhere or when our material is used elsewhere with a
more restrictive license, it does not follow that we are in breach of
copyright. I have fought such "delete on sight" battles and the only result
is no response on the image that was to be speedily deleted. The rule
should be; when material is provided to us, the license is checked at the
time and any and all issues NOT involving the copyright holder are to be
seen as irrelevant.

OTRS is a Wikimedia Foundation sanctioned function. It insists to function
as is and therefore *a new mandate is required* because as is, it does the
worst possible service. There is no Wikipedia, there are 300+, there are
other projects that require a functioning Commons and as it is, it is not
fit for purpose.

You may remember when English Wikipedia had egg on its face because of the
deletion of what became a Nobel prize winner. There are MANY science awards
and we want a picture for all awardees in addition, in the Scholia tool we
want pictures of any and all people that authored a paper.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 02:06, Gnangarra  wrote:

> For legal reasons OTRS requires very specific wording, it declines
> permissions that fail to meet that very strict wording.
>
> The person must;
>
>- establish their authority to license the image
>- the license must be a free license PD or CC-by
>- it must not say the use is to, for, or on Wikipedia
>- it needs a URL to associate the permission with
>
> If the media meets these requirements than it will be accept, if it doesnt
> it gets rejected. Scope is something that gets decided on on Commons.
>
> Wikidata has had an impact on scope, quite literally everything is now
> within scope.  We havent even yet got to the issue about Wikidata items
> including trademarked logos and copyrighted works for which Commons cant
> have images under fairuse
>
> Commons has fallen behind when it comes to the capability of taking photos
> of ones self (selfies) the default position when Commons started was that
> taking a high quality photograph of yourself wasnt possible there must have
> been someone else pushing the button. What happens is Commons asks for the
> subject to obtain permission from the photographer and submit that to OTRS,
> the systems falls over because the photographer cant prove that the photo
> they took of themselves was taken by themselves because the underlying
> assumption is that that isnt possible.  The vast majority of agents on the
> commons permission queue are people from commons who have learnt the
> policies and have the tools to do the work.
>
> OTRS permission behaves as expected because there is a very narrow
> definition of whats acceptable, anything that doesnt fit gets rejected. The
> very real need to be pro-active in ensuring the permissions queue doesnt
> get overwhelmed and backlogged  contributes to the fact that the grey is
> treated as black -- close it, delete it, move on.
>
> In an ideal scenario a closer relationship with google via flickr to make
> it possible for Wikidata to link in there as well would be a potential
> solution to those areas where copyright is an issue as  it would still
> enable the ability of having an image accessible via a link.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 05:00, Michael Maggs  wrote:
>
> > This has nothing to do with Commons only supporting Wikipedia. Commons
> > supports ALL of the Wikimedia projects, and always has.
> >
> > As is quite clearly set out in the Commons SCOPE policy, “a file that is
> > used in good faith on a Wikimedia project is always considered
> > educational”, and hence is in scope. Of course, that includes Wikidata.
> >
> > Under the same policy, Commons does not editorialise on behalf of any of
> > the projects, and an image that is acceptable to Wikidata is by 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects

2020-02-25 Thread Gnangarra
For legal reasons OTRS requires very specific wording, it declines
permissions that fail to meet that very strict wording.

The person must;

   - establish their authority to license the image
   - the license must be a free license PD or CC-by
   - it must not say the use is to, for, or on Wikipedia
   - it needs a URL to associate the permission with

If the media meets these requirements than it will be accept, if it doesnt
it gets rejected. Scope is something that gets decided on on Commons.

Wikidata has had an impact on scope, quite literally everything is now
within scope.  We havent even yet got to the issue about Wikidata items
including trademarked logos and copyrighted works for which Commons cant
have images under fairuse

Commons has fallen behind when it comes to the capability of taking photos
of ones self (selfies) the default position when Commons started was that
taking a high quality photograph of yourself wasnt possible there must have
been someone else pushing the button. What happens is Commons asks for the
subject to obtain permission from the photographer and submit that to OTRS,
the systems falls over because the photographer cant prove that the photo
they took of themselves was taken by themselves because the underlying
assumption is that that isnt possible.  The vast majority of agents on the
commons permission queue are people from commons who have learnt the
policies and have the tools to do the work.

OTRS permission behaves as expected because there is a very narrow
definition of whats acceptable, anything that doesnt fit gets rejected. The
very real need to be pro-active in ensuring the permissions queue doesnt
get overwhelmed and backlogged  contributes to the fact that the grey is
treated as black -- close it, delete it, move on.

In an ideal scenario a closer relationship with google via flickr to make
it possible for Wikidata to link in there as well would be a potential
solution to those areas where copyright is an issue as  it would still
enable the ability of having an image accessible via a link.









On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 05:00, Michael Maggs  wrote:

> This has nothing to do with Commons only supporting Wikipedia. Commons
> supports ALL of the Wikimedia projects, and always has.
>
> As is quite clearly set out in the Commons SCOPE policy, “a file that is
> used in good faith on a Wikimedia project is always considered
> educational”, and hence is in scope. Of course, that includes Wikidata.
>
> Under the same policy, Commons does not editorialise on behalf of any of
> the projects, and an image that is acceptable to Wikidata is by design
> acceptable to Commons.
>
> If the Wikidata community considers that an item on an individual is not
> acceptable (for  example because it has been added solely for
> self-promotion), Wikidata can - under its own rules - delete it, and hence
> the link to the image on Commons.
>
> Commons would then delete the image as not in use (and not otherwise
> educational).
>
> None of this relies in any way on the specific definition of ‘notable’ as
> used on the Wikipedias; that’s simply not relevant.
>
> The problem here seems to be an additional hurdle that has apparently been
> added to the guidance given to OTRS volunteers.  OTRS has so far as I know
> no mandate to decline images that fall within Commons Scope, and if they
> are indeed doing that, the guidance should be changed.
>
> Michael
>
> > On 25 Feb 2020, at 16:11, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hoi,
> > Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support
> > Wikipedia.
> >
> > At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards. We
> > are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The
> best
> > suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at
> > Commons.
> >
> > When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia,
> it
> > is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects. The
> > projects who operate to different standards who have notability criteria
> > different from English Wikipedia.
> > Thanks,
> >  GerardM
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



-- 
GN.

*Power of Diverse 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects

2020-02-25 Thread Michael Maggs
This has nothing to do with Commons only supporting Wikipedia. Commons supports 
ALL of the Wikimedia projects, and always has. 

As is quite clearly set out in the Commons SCOPE policy, “a file that is used 
in good faith on a Wikimedia project is always considered educational”, and 
hence is in scope. Of course, that includes Wikidata. 

Under the same policy, Commons does not editorialise on behalf of any of the 
projects, and an image that is acceptable to Wikidata is by design acceptable 
to Commons. 

If the Wikidata community considers that an item on an individual is not 
acceptable (for  example because it has been added solely for self-promotion), 
Wikidata can - under its own rules - delete it, and hence the link to the image 
on Commons. 

Commons would then delete the image as not in use (and not otherwise 
educational).  

None of this relies in any way on the specific definition of ‘notable’ as used 
on the Wikipedias; that’s simply not relevant. 

The problem here seems to be an additional hurdle that has apparently been 
added to the guidance given to OTRS volunteers.  OTRS has so far as I know no 
mandate to decline images that fall within Commons Scope, and if they are 
indeed doing that, the guidance should be changed.

Michael

> On 25 Feb 2020, at 16:11, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
> 
> Hoi,
> Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support
> Wikipedia.
> 
> At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards. We
> are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The best
> suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at
> Commons.
> 
> When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia, it
> is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects. The
> projects who operate to different standards who have notability criteria
> different from English Wikipedia.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 


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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects

2020-02-25 Thread Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l
 I see. If I am reading it right I think that in that case I would never tried 
a direct OTRS , mostly because I know how the system is designed and its 
possible rigid reaction. IMHO it's not designed to minimize these points of 
stress but to encourage them. It looks more like a play when some people are 
confortable with a certain role. I am not interested in that play, so I try to 
skip it as much as possible.
I have noticed for example people like these discussions about notability on 
Wikidata, but not the solution. In practice I see millions of items with 
acceptable IDs which will be completed by images and these discussions are 
already old. Just to be clear... I hate poorly created items, since I mostly 
teach who to manually improve them and even I don't care so much, so why people 
from other projects should bother inventing apocalyptic scenarios just makes me 
smile. They will stop when they will find something else to complain. Still, I 
don't know you but to me It looks more of a social thing than a fucntional one. 
There is really nothing more to discuss if you look into that, we need 
bibliometric items for precise application within the scope of Wikidata, and 
they require images. 
I am not going to write the more time-consuming steps I would have used to 
prepare or encourage or process that import, I simply would have assumed that 
the most direct way for that situation was just pointless to try. There is 
always some issues with one file in a batch or the phrasing of a sentence, 
there is always a confusion between notability guidelines... there is always a 
person who would precisely do what will escalate the situation. So, if the 
chance are more than 50% to go bad... why bother? 

I prefer to find ways to make the longer road more time efficient and 
meaningful. Of course if you don't go that way you are not presenting things in 
a nice clear single passage so you cannot often take the spotlight... but I am 
not committed to that aspect, so It's not an issue for me. I still meet a lot 
of very interesting people on the way.
Still, you have my support to remove that rigidi interpretation of notability 
on OTRS. If I can help to more people sapre time, I totally support it.

Alessadro





   Il martedì 25 febbraio 2020, 18:21:18 CET, Gerard Meijssen 
 ha scritto:  
 
 Hoi,This is the chat (too long) at Wikidata 
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Images_for_Wikidata_-_%22Global_Young_Academy%22This
 is the chat at Commons 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#OTRS_&_WikidataThanks,
     GerardM
On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 17:45, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l 
 wrote:

 Can you provide some links?
I keep asking images for Wikidata items since years and I do not recall any 
issue at all. I have the feeling that as long everything is formally correct 
(all categories prepared and linked via wikidata infobox) nobody digs into that 
very much.
It's true however that I have a cynical approach. In general, I think that 
whoever spends his/her time on this and not on deleting unused low resolution 
old images or cropping files or improving categorization is probably more 
focused on chasing users than actually cleaning up. As soon as you assume that 
this is the core source of the behavior, you can teach newbies quite well how 
to avoid it. It's not "good faith" but... it kinda works.
Alessandro

    Il martedì 25 febbraio 2020, 17:11:44 CET, Gerard Meijssen 
 ha scritto:  

 Hoi,
Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support
Wikipedia.

At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards. We
are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The best
suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at
Commons.

When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia, it
is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects. The
projects who operate to different standards who have notability criteria
different from English Wikipedia.
Thanks,
      GerardM
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects

2020-02-25 Thread Paulo Santos Perneta
I'm not that familiar with the photosubmissions OTRS queue, and I've no
idea if we have that rule internally on OTRS.
But it surely seems a weird rule. Anything that is on scope to Commons -
which is the case for anything used in Wikdiata too - should be accepted in
photosubmission, period.
That claimed attachment to Wikipedia, a project very well known for often
having a communities with draconian and unhelpful rules of notability,
doesn't seem productive in the least. If that rule exists at all, it should
be dropped and the images accepted.

"some people have turned Wikidata into a dumping ground for scientific
papers and a phone book for scientists" - O RLY?

Best,
Paulo


Gerard Meijssen  escreveu no dia terça,
25/02/2020 à(s) 17:21:

> Hoi,
> This is the chat (too long) at Wikidata
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Images_for_Wikidata_-_%22Global_Young_Academy%22
> This is the chat at Commons
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#OTRS_&_Wikidata
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 17:45, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> >  Can you provide some links?
> > I keep asking images for Wikidata items since years and I do not recall
> > any issue at all. I have the feeling that as long everything is formally
> > correct (all categories prepared and linked via wikidata infobox) nobody
> > digs into that very much.
> > It's true however that I have a cynical approach. In general, I think
> that
> > whoever spends his/her time on this and not on deleting unused low
> > resolution old images or cropping files or improving categorization is
> > probably more focused on chasing users than actually cleaning up. As soon
> > as you assume that this is the core source of the behavior, you can teach
> > newbies quite well how to avoid it. It's not "good faith" but... it kinda
> > works.
> > Alessandro
> >
> > Il martedì 25 febbraio 2020, 17:11:44 CET, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >
> >  Hoi,
> > Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support
> > Wikipedia.
> >
> > At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards. We
> > are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The
> best
> > suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at
> > Commons.
> >
> > When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia,
> it
> > is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects. The
> > projects who operate to different standards who have notability criteria
> > different from English Wikipedia.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects

2020-02-25 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
This is the chat (too long) at Wikidata
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Images_for_Wikidata_-_%22Global_Young_Academy%22
This is the chat at Commons
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#OTRS_&_Wikidata
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 17:45, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

>  Can you provide some links?
> I keep asking images for Wikidata items since years and I do not recall
> any issue at all. I have the feeling that as long everything is formally
> correct (all categories prepared and linked via wikidata infobox) nobody
> digs into that very much.
> It's true however that I have a cynical approach. In general, I think that
> whoever spends his/her time on this and not on deleting unused low
> resolution old images or cropping files or improving categorization is
> probably more focused on chasing users than actually cleaning up. As soon
> as you assume that this is the core source of the behavior, you can teach
> newbies quite well how to avoid it. It's not "good faith" but... it kinda
> works.
> Alessandro
>
> Il martedì 25 febbraio 2020, 17:11:44 CET, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>  Hoi,
> Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support
> Wikipedia.
>
> At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards. We
> are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The best
> suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at
> Commons.
>
> When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia, it
> is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects. The
> projects who operate to different standards who have notability criteria
> different from English Wikipedia.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects

2020-02-25 Thread Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l
 Can you provide some links?
I keep asking images for Wikidata items since years and I do not recall any 
issue at all. I have the feeling that as long everything is formally correct 
(all categories prepared and linked via wikidata infobox) nobody digs into that 
very much.
It's true however that I have a cynical approach. In general, I think that 
whoever spends his/her time on this and not on deleting unused low resolution 
old images or cropping files or improving categorization is probably more 
focused on chasing users than actually cleaning up. As soon as you assume that 
this is the core source of the behavior, you can teach newbies quite well how 
to avoid it. It's not "good faith" but... it kinda works.
Alessandro

Il martedì 25 febbraio 2020, 17:11:44 CET, Gerard Meijssen 
 ha scritto:  
 
 Hoi,
Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support
Wikipedia.

At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards. We
are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The best
suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at
Commons.

When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia, it
is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects. The
projects who operate to different standards who have notability criteria
different from English Wikipedia.
Thanks,
      GerardM
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


[Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects

2020-02-25 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support
Wikipedia.

At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards. We
are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The best
suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at
Commons.

When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia, it
is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects. The
projects who operate to different standards who have notability criteria
different from English Wikipedia.
Thanks,
  GerardM
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,