This week the creation of racial categories like "Nordic race A" was
discussed on Commons. On digging further there is a fundamental problem
with the way modern portraits of living people are being misused to
"illustrate" these 1930s race myths. Rather than using available real
Earthfire and rustbuckets, can we please stop calling for people to be
fired for doing their job, especially right after admitting that there is
obviously more going on that we don't know about yet. No one's going to
"start replacing employees" based on mailing list messages, so this kind of
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 4:50 PM Pine W wrote:
> > I think that it's time for some people in WMF to move on. Without having
> > access to WMF internal discussions
So what you're saying is that you don't have lots of information on how
it's decided  but you still feel informed enough to at
… and people immediately went ballistic. Calm down and discuss the topic!
The news reporting seems to be that Snøhetta has been awarded a full
design project, while the page at Meta says it should act as some form
of facilitator. It could be interesting to know what is correct, as
There are several reports of face recognition going mainstream, often
in less than optimum circumstances, and often violating copyright and
Forwarding from a PC as simple text:
18.01.2020, 23:48, "Фархад Фаткуллин / Farhad Fatkullin" :
> As one of the participants at Oslo workshops (two groups of Wikimedia
> movement participants took part in on-site hands-on exercises on Jan.14-15 &
> 15-16), I would say both statements are
People on another forum says portraits are personal data and use of
them is a breach of Art. 6 GDPR Lawfulness of processing. This creates
a problem in most European countries. This is a breach of privacy
laws, and not a copyright issue.
Not sure how to interpret the local copyright law on
[writing at my personal capacity.]
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 8:20 PM Pine W wrote:
> * I realize that a lot of time and money has been spent in the strategy
> process to this point. I hope that there will be consensus on at least some
> of the recommendations.
True consensus based
Interesting to see -- thanks for the pointer John!
I like what I've seen of Snøhetta + their work, would love to hear more.
On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 1:56 PM John Erling Blad wrote:
> … and people immediately went ballistic. Calm down and discuss the topic!
> The news reporting seems to be that
On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 3:55 PM John Erling Blad wrote:
> People on another forum says portraits are personal data and use of
> them is a breach of Art. 6 GDPR Lawfulness of processing. This creates
> a problem in most European countries. This is a breach of privacy
> laws, and not a copyright
Thanks for that.
Pardon me if I've missed something, but that seems to imply, but not directly
state, that AI training is a derivative work; could you clarify that?
On Jan 18, 2020, at 2:58 PM, Ryan Merkley wrote:
> [My comments are my own, and don’t reflect or suggest any official
[My comments are my own, and don’t reflect or suggest any official position
The NBC story linked below come out about a year ago. Around the same time,
when I was CEO at Creative Commons, we published a statement and updated FAQs
that attempted to respond to questions being asked
Mail list logo