Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting has started

[Yann Forget]

Hi,

The FB page owners are Ricky Setiawan and Jens Liebenau.

 Ricky Setiawan is Member of the Board of Trustees at Wikimedia Indonesia.

https://www.facebook.com/Wikimedia.Commons/info/?tab=page_owners

Regards,

Yann

2016-05-16 10:18 GMT+02:00 Yann Forget <yan...@gmail.com>:

> Hi,
>
> Actually I don't control the FB page.
> I was just interested to spread awareness of Wikimedia Commons on Facebook.
>
> Regards,
>
> Yann
>
> 2016-05-16 9:07 GMT+02:00 Steinsplitter Wiki <steinsplitter-w...@live.com>
> :
>
>> As far i can see there are two volunteers listed at
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Social_media/Facebook  , i
>> talked with Yann - it wasn't him.
>>
>> The second volunteer is Rodrigo.Argenton, and i am wondering who granted
>> him access - looking at his block log i don't feel comfortable at all [1].
>>
>> Opinion: A page on meta schould be created and who operates which account.
>>
>> --Steinsplitter
>>
>> [1]
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block=User%3ARodrigo.Argenton
>>
>> > From: jameso...@gmail.com
>> > Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 14:31:52 -0700
>> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2
>> votinghas started
>> >
>> > Actually those uploading images on the Wikimedia Commons FB page are
>> > volunteers
>> > <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Social_media/Facebook> (I
>> don't
>> > think they're all listed there but probably the right place to start),
>> I'd
>> > encourage you to talk to them directly if you think there is a problem
>> with
>> > their uploads instead of jumping to conclusions and assuming it must be
>> the
>> > "evil WMF" doing it and using a great thread like this to try and score
>> > some points against them.
>> >
>> > For those interested:
>> >
>> > I know that the verified channels which the Communication team posts on
>> > frequently (Especially the Wikimedia <https://twitter.com/wikipedia> &
>> > Wikipedia <https://twitter.com/wikipedia> twitter and the Wikipedia FB
>> page
>> > <https://www.facebook.com/wikipedia>) purposely follow a set of Best
>> > Practices
>> > <
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_media/Best_practices#On_Wikimedia_Foundation_and_Wikipedia_branded_accounts
>> >
>> > that include very explictly "Do not post media that is not either owned
>> or
>> > co-owned by the Wikimedia Foundation (such as photos we take), in the
>> > public domain or licensed under CC0". They do occasionally post other CC
>> > images but only after getting explicit approval/permission from the
>> > copyright holder including how to attribute etc.
>> >
>> > On a personal basis I think the inability to post most CC images on SM
>> > sites is a massive problem for the licenses as a whole (and for many
>> free
>> > licenses). This is not only because SM sites are such a large part of
>> > modern life right now (and so we are cutting off an important audience
>> who
>> > we WANT using free images rather then repeatedly using more closed
>> > copyrighted material, though they are still doing that now ALSO against
>> the
>> > SM Terms of Use) but it's also because it's so befuddling to people that
>> > they generally ignore it encouraging people to ignore the licenses in
>> > general. Not only the general public but those who know the licences
>> well
>> > think of them as designed to ALLOW sharing so the idea that they can't
>> > share them is shocking to them (so they DO share them). In fact,
>> contrary
>> > to your accusation, I don't know of ANY other organizations that ensure
>> > they are following the SM site Terms of Use and the CC licenses when
>> > posting. I've even seen Creative Commons itself, on it's official
>> Twitter
>> > and Facebook accounts, posting CC images against the terms.
>> >
>> > James Alexander
>> > User:Jamesofur [Personal capacity, Staff account: Jalexander-WMF]
>> >
>> > On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Toby Dollmann <toby.dollm...@gmail.com
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Peter,
>> > >
>> > > You are right.and truly we are spoiled for choice
>> > >
>> > > It is very satisfying to observe that some entries from professional
>> >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting has started

[Yann Forget]

Hi,

Actually I don't control the FB page.
I was just interested to spread awareness of Wikimedia Commons on Facebook.

Regards,

Yann

2016-05-16 9:07 GMT+02:00 Steinsplitter Wiki <steinsplitter-w...@live.com>:

> As far i can see there are two volunteers listed at
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Social_media/Facebook  , i
> talked with Yann - it wasn't him.
>
> The second volunteer is Rodrigo.Argenton, and i am wondering who granted
> him access - looking at his block log i don't feel comfortable at all [1].
>
> Opinion: A page on meta schould be created and who operates which account.
>
> --Steinsplitter
>
> [1]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block=User%3ARodrigo.Argenton
>
> > From: jameso...@gmail.com
> > Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 14:31:52 -0700
> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2
> votinghas started
> >
> > Actually those uploading images on the Wikimedia Commons FB page are
> > volunteers
> > <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Social_media/Facebook> (I
> don't
> > think they're all listed there but probably the right place to start),
> I'd
> > encourage you to talk to them directly if you think there is a problem
> with
> > their uploads instead of jumping to conclusions and assuming it must be
> the
> > "evil WMF" doing it and using a great thread like this to try and score
> > some points against them.
> >
> > For those interested:
> >
> > I know that the verified channels which the Communication team posts on
> > frequently (Especially the Wikimedia <https://twitter.com/wikipedia> &
> > Wikipedia <https://twitter.com/wikipedia> twitter and the Wikipedia FB
> page
> > <https://www.facebook.com/wikipedia>) purposely follow a set of Best
> > Practices
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_media/Best_practices#On_Wikimedia_Foundation_and_Wikipedia_branded_accounts
> >
> > that include very explictly "Do not post media that is not either owned
> or
> > co-owned by the Wikimedia Foundation (such as photos we take), in the
> > public domain or licensed under CC0". They do occasionally post other CC
> > images but only after getting explicit approval/permission from the
> > copyright holder including how to attribute etc.
> >
> > On a personal basis I think the inability to post most CC images on SM
> > sites is a massive problem for the licenses as a whole (and for many free
> > licenses). This is not only because SM sites are such a large part of
> > modern life right now (and so we are cutting off an important audience
> who
> > we WANT using free images rather then repeatedly using more closed
> > copyrighted material, though they are still doing that now ALSO against
> the
> > SM Terms of Use) but it's also because it's so befuddling to people that
> > they generally ignore it encouraging people to ignore the licenses in
> > general. Not only the general public but those who know the licences well
> > think of them as designed to ALLOW sharing so the idea that they can't
> > share them is shocking to them (so they DO share them). In fact, contrary
> > to your accusation, I don't know of ANY other organizations that ensure
> > they are following the SM site Terms of Use and the CC licenses when
> > posting. I've even seen Creative Commons itself, on it's official Twitter
> > and Facebook accounts, posting CC images against the terms.
> >
> > James Alexander
> > User:Jamesofur [Personal capacity, Staff account: Jalexander-WMF]
> >
> > On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Toby Dollmann <toby.dollm...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Peter,
> > >
> > > You are right.and truly we are spoiled for choice
> > >
> > > It is very satisfying to observe that some entries from professional
> > > photographers are nowadays explicitly stating their CC-BY-SA licences
> fo
> > > rCommons do not enable their copyrighted works to be uploaded to
> Facebook
> > > (and by implication to similar sites).
> > >
> > > eg: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Cccefalon/fb
> > >
> > > And yet, I see that the Wikimedia volunteers on Facebook blissfully
> > > uploading "Pictures of the day" ignorant of all the legalese
> > >
> > > eg:
> > > https://www.facebook.com/Wikimedia.Commons/posts/1127382660617355:0
> > > https://www.facebook.com/Wikimedia.Commons/posts/1120943991261222:0
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting has started

[Alessandro Marchetti]

I agree about the meta discussion, but maybe not just about this account. It is 
an issue for all platform-related web accounts, in the end. If there is nothing 
else that page would be kinda of a "precedent" of the issue at meta level. I 
have been trying to learn more about it actually, but I faced on wiki platforms 
a very fragmented scenario.
The reason I am looking around is because I've tried to discuss some similar 
aspects in the mailing list of WM Italy last week. I was talking about existing 
and potential facebook groups regarding local areas (such as "region X on 
wikipedia"), which are useful to attract new editors, contacts (local 
associations, aldermen...) or contents.
Now, it seems to me that some aspects apply to the general case of social 
accounts "related" to main WMF platforms. Just an example: I pointed out for 
example how the presence amongst the volunteers or managers of users with 
advanced flag (e.g. OTRS permission in my example) would be useful in some 
circumstances.
We should really promote a request for comments on the issue. It would be very 
interesting and help to share valuable expertise. 

Il Lunedì 16 Maggio 2016 9:08, Steinsplitter Wiki 
<steinsplitter-w...@live.com> ha scritto:
 

 As far i can see there are two volunteers listed at 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Social_media/Facebook  , i talked 
with Yann - it wasn't him.

The second volunteer is Rodrigo.Argenton, and i am wondering who granted him 
access - looking at his block log i don't feel comfortable at all [1].

Opinion: A page on meta schould be created and who operates which account.

--Steinsplitter

[1] 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block=User%3ARodrigo.Argenton

> From: jameso...@gmail.com
> Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 14:31:52 -0700
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting    
> has started
> 
> Actually those uploading images on the Wikimedia Commons FB page are
> volunteers
> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Social_media/Facebook> (I don't
> think they're all listed there but probably the right place to start), I'd
> encourage you to talk to them directly if you think there is a problem with
> their uploads instead of jumping to conclusions and assuming it must be the
> "evil WMF" doing it and using a great thread like this to try and score
> some points against them.
> 
> For those interested:
> 
> I know that the verified channels which the Communication team posts on
> frequently (Especially the Wikimedia <https://twitter.com/wikipedia> &
> Wikipedia <https://twitter.com/wikipedia> twitter and the Wikipedia FB page
> <https://www.facebook.com/wikipedia>) purposely follow a set of Best
> Practices
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_media/Best_practices#On_Wikimedia_Foundation_and_Wikipedia_branded_accounts>
> that include very explictly "Do not post media that is not either owned or
> co-owned by the Wikimedia Foundation (such as photos we take), in the
> public domain or licensed under CC0". They do occasionally post other CC
> images but only after getting explicit approval/permission from the
> copyright holder including how to attribute etc.
> 
> On a personal basis I think the inability to post most CC images on SM
> sites is a massive problem for the licenses as a whole (and for many free
> licenses). This is not only because SM sites are such a large part of
> modern life right now (and so we are cutting off an important audience who
> we WANT using free images rather then repeatedly using more closed
> copyrighted material, though they are still doing that now ALSO against the
> SM Terms of Use) but it's also because it's so befuddling to people that
> they generally ignore it encouraging people to ignore the licenses in
> general. Not only the general public but those who know the licences well
> think of them as designed to ALLOW sharing so the idea that they can't
> share them is shocking to them (so they DO share them). In fact, contrary
> to your accusation, I don't know of ANY other organizations that ensure
> they are following the SM site Terms of Use and the CC licenses when
> posting. I've even seen Creative Commons itself, on it's official Twitter
> and Facebook accounts, posting CC images against the terms.
> 
> James Alexander
> User:Jamesofur [Personal capacity, Staff account: Jalexander-WMF]
> 
> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Toby Dollmann <toby.dollm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Peter,
> >
> > You are right.and truly we are spoiled for choice
> >
> > It is very satisfying to observe that some entries from professional
> > photographers are nowadays

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting has started

[John Mark Vandenberg]

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Steinsplitter Wiki
 wrote:
> As far i can see there are two volunteers listed at 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Social_media/Facebook  , i talked 
> with Yann - it wasn't him.

Umm, didnt we have a larger team of volunteers who managed the Commons
page?  IIRC, WMF removed them all, and I assume the WMF now determines
who has access to the account.

> The second volunteer is Rodrigo.Argenton, and i am wondering who granted him 
> access - looking at his block log i don't feel comfortable at all [1].
>
> [1] 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block=User%3ARodrigo.Argenton

Also blocked indefinitely on br.wikimedia.org by Teles with a curious
block message (sincronizando com bloqueio em conta principal).

https://br.wikimedia.org/wiki/Especial:Contribui%C3%A7%C3%B5es/Rodrigo.Argenton

Hopefully that can be cleared up.

Yann & Rodrigo should be able to say who posted these, as all managers
can see which manager authored each post on the page.

https://www.facebook.com/Wikimedia.Commons/posts/1127382660617355:0
https://www.facebook.com/Wikimedia.Commons/posts/1120943991261222:0

Obviously the media licensing needs to be followed carefully by
whoever is a Facebook manager.

--
John Vandenberg

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting has started

[Steinsplitter Wiki]

As far i can see there are two volunteers listed at 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Social_media/Facebook  , i talked 
with Yann - it wasn't him.

The second volunteer is Rodrigo.Argenton, and i am wondering who granted him 
access - looking at his block log i don't feel comfortable at all [1].

Opinion: A page on meta schould be created and who operates which account.

--Steinsplitter

[1] 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block=User%3ARodrigo.Argenton

> From: jameso...@gmail.com
> Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 14:31:52 -0700
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting
> has started
> 
> Actually those uploading images on the Wikimedia Commons FB page are
> volunteers
> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Social_media/Facebook> (I don't
> think they're all listed there but probably the right place to start), I'd
> encourage you to talk to them directly if you think there is a problem with
> their uploads instead of jumping to conclusions and assuming it must be the
> "evil WMF" doing it and using a great thread like this to try and score
> some points against them.
> 
> For those interested:
> 
> I know that the verified channels which the Communication team posts on
> frequently (Especially the Wikimedia <https://twitter.com/wikipedia> &
> Wikipedia <https://twitter.com/wikipedia> twitter and the Wikipedia FB page
> <https://www.facebook.com/wikipedia>) purposely follow a set of Best
> Practices
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_media/Best_practices#On_Wikimedia_Foundation_and_Wikipedia_branded_accounts>
> that include very explictly "Do not post media that is not either owned or
> co-owned by the Wikimedia Foundation (such as photos we take), in the
> public domain or licensed under CC0". They do occasionally post other CC
> images but only after getting explicit approval/permission from the
> copyright holder including how to attribute etc.
> 
> On a personal basis I think the inability to post most CC images on SM
> sites is a massive problem for the licenses as a whole (and for many free
> licenses). This is not only because SM sites are such a large part of
> modern life right now (and so we are cutting off an important audience who
> we WANT using free images rather then repeatedly using more closed
> copyrighted material, though they are still doing that now ALSO against the
> SM Terms of Use) but it's also because it's so befuddling to people that
> they generally ignore it encouraging people to ignore the licenses in
> general. Not only the general public but those who know the licences well
> think of them as designed to ALLOW sharing so the idea that they can't
> share them is shocking to them (so they DO share them). In fact, contrary
> to your accusation, I don't know of ANY other organizations that ensure
> they are following the SM site Terms of Use and the CC licenses when
> posting. I've even seen Creative Commons itself, on it's official Twitter
> and Facebook accounts, posting CC images against the terms.
> 
> James Alexander
> User:Jamesofur [Personal capacity, Staff account: Jalexander-WMF]
> 
> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Toby Dollmann <toby.dollm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Peter,
> >
> > You are right.and truly we are spoiled for choice
> >
> > It is very satisfying to observe that some entries from professional
> > photographers are nowadays explicitly stating their CC-BY-SA licences fo
> > rCommons do not enable their copyrighted works to be uploaded to Facebook
> > (and by implication to similar sites).
> >
> > eg: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Cccefalon/fb
> >
> > And yet, I see that the Wikimedia volunteers on Facebook blissfully
> > uploading "Pictures of the day" ignorant of all the legalese
> >
> > eg:
> > https://www.facebook.com/Wikimedia.Commons/posts/1127382660617355:0
> > https://www.facebook.com/Wikimedia.Commons/posts/1120943991261222:0
> >
> > Toby
> >
> > On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 12:52 AM, Peter Southwood <
> > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >
> > > How can one choose amongst those photos? They are all excellent.
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Pine W
> > > Sent: Sunday, 15 May 2016 7:21 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List; Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting
> > has
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting has started

[Toby Dollmann]

Dear James,

A few quick points

1.  I had clearly  ascribed the uploading of these images to
"volunteers" and not to the "evil WMF".

" .. I see that the Wikimedia volunteers on Facebook blissfully uploading ..."

2.  The first image I linked to explicitly prohibits (in his CC-BY-4
permissions any uploading to FB).

 .. ''It is not allowed to upload this file to Facebook''

3. My talking to other volunteers directly triggers automatic problems
for the reason that Wikimedia community written policies are usually
diametrically opposite to real world best practices. "Assume good
faith" is a licence to abuse, and our very presence on-wiki leads to
misunderstanding of legal threats being issued.

4. Additionally, legal professionals operating within EU are subject
to stringent data privacy practices to maintain integrity of their
electronic communications. This leads to immediate "checkuser" blocks
if / when we post to Wikipedia, since our messages contain visible
identification strings. For instance my corporate account was blocked
on English Wiki yesterday within 4 minutes of notice to me being
issued, ignoring the community policy called "CBAN" which requires a
minimum of 24 hours. My request for clarification from the blocking
administrator is unanswered.  So I question your advising that I
directly interact with volunteers (unless they have WMF issued counsel
advising them).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Toby_at_Cyberlawpractice

5. By when can we expect your OTRS confirmation that the copyright for
WMF images uploaded to Commons by "G(ayle) Young (WMF)" were actually
owned or co-owned by WMF as you averred ? It is curious that these WMF
images were deleted on Commons, but are freely available elsewhere on
responsible Social Media under WMF's licence.

https://wikipediasux.wordpress.com/2016/05/05/more-wikimedia-crossdressing-shemales/

regards

Toby
www.cyberlawpractice.com

On 5/16/16, James Alexander  wrote:
> Actually those uploading images on the Wikimedia Commons FB page are
> volunteers
>  (I don't
> think they're all listed there but probably the right place to start), I'd
> encourage you to talk to them directly if you think there is a problem with
> their uploads instead of jumping to conclusions and assuming it must be the
> "evil WMF" doing it and using a great thread like this to try and score
> some points against them.
>
> For those interested:
>
> I know that the verified channels which the Communication team posts on
> frequently (Especially the Wikimedia  &
> Wikipedia  twitter and the Wikipedia FB page
> ) purposely follow a set of Best
> Practices
> 
> that include very explictly "Do not post media that is not either owned or
> co-owned by the Wikimedia Foundation (such as photos we take), in the
> public domain or licensed under CC0". They do occasionally post other CC
> images but only after getting explicit approval/permission from the
> copyright holder including how to attribute etc.
>
> On a personal basis I think the inability to post most CC images on SM
> sites is a massive problem for the licenses as a whole (and for many free
> licenses). This is not only because SM sites are such a large part of
> modern life right now (and so we are cutting off an important audience who
> we WANT using free images rather then repeatedly using more closed
> copyrighted material, though they are still doing that now ALSO against the
> SM Terms of Use) but it's also because it's so befuddling to people that
> they generally ignore it encouraging people to ignore the licenses in
> general. Not only the general public but those who know the licences well
> think of them as designed to ALLOW sharing so the idea that they can't
> share them is shocking to them (so they DO share them). In fact, contrary
> to your accusation, I don't know of ANY other organizations that ensure
> they are following the SM site Terms of Use and the CC licenses when
> posting. I've even seen Creative Commons itself, on it's official Twitter
> and Facebook accounts, posting CC images against the terms.
>
> James Alexander
> User:Jamesofur [Personal capacity, Staff account: Jalexander-WMF]
>
> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Toby Dollmann 
> wrote:
>
>> Peter,
>>
>> You are right.and truly we are spoiled for choice
>>
>> It is very satisfying to observe that some entries from professional
>> photographers are nowadays explicitly stating their CC-BY-SA licences fo
>> rCommons do not enable their copyrighted works to be uploaded to Facebook
>> (and by implication to similar sites).
>>
>> eg: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Cccefalon/fb
>>
>> And yet, I see that the Wikimedia 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting has started

[Peter Southwood]

How can one choose amongst those photos? They are all excellent.
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Pine W
Sent: Sunday, 15 May 2016 7:21 PM
To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List; Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting has 
started

Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting has started:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2015. There are 
many excellent finalists.

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


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7597 / Virus Database: 4568/12234 - Release Date: 05/15/16


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