Hi,
Has the foundation ever expressed an opinion on using external free
image repositories in WMF projects? The licensing policy only says
that the content should be free, but without the specific limitations
that are present on Commons. I was wondering if it would be acceptable
for a project to serve (without hosting) content that is PD in another
country (presumably the country with the project's language as an
official language) but not in the US.
And if it would be, how could we ensure that the project would indeed
be for free images only?
Thanks,
Strainu
Hey guys!
Just a reminder that there will be an office hours session at 19:00 UTC
today to discuss the new Article Feedback Tool. This is the last session
before the prototype is deployed, so if you have any last-minute requests
or issues, or want to find out precisely what is going on, this is probably
a good one to come to :).
--
Oliver Keyes
Community Liason, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
> In other words, Wikipedia does not have space for what you find
> interesting. Sorry.
A summary of generally accepted knowledge is a foundation for creative
new information. Wikipedia is a tool, a tool meant to be used and
transcended.
Fred
It isn't so much about having my stuff edited as it is that there seems
to be a mindset among en.wp editors that stuff needs to be deleted
unless they personally think it is important. We have a virtually
infinite space in which to write and add to the body of knowledge, so
why act as though it needs to be made smaller by applying some arbitrary
criterion?
I do not have that much free time to be arguing over trivialities - I'm
trying to record history as it has happened from my perspective. If you
don't like my objectivity then go do your own research and do some
editing - don't go for a 1984 style darconian rewrite/deletion.
Right now I'm spending all my free time wrestling with the article on
"light bulb sockets", which I did not originate. It is difficult to talk
about the sockets without bringing in all sorts of technical reasons why
they are the way they are. I didn't throw out the originator's material
- I've expanded it based on my experiences in the theatrical lighting
industry. I'm sure someone will eventually want to edit the material and
take the time to organize it a bit more. That is ok - it is what
collaboration is all about.
On 12/15/2011 8:46 AM, foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 06:37:58 -0700 (MST)
> From: "Fred Bauder"<fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Vendetta?
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <46228.66.243.192.69.1323956278.squirrel(a)webmail.fairpoint.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
>> > Hmmm... do some of the editors have such a problem with entries that are
>> > in progress that they decide to propose them for deletion rather than
>> > attempt to support the efforts of the original author by adding to the
>> > content or make any effort to improve the article rather than remove it?
>> >
>> > Isn't WP supposed to help people by expanding our knowledge and
>> > improving the transmission of information?
>> >
>> > I've just been subjected to a rather bizarre bunch of activity by
>> > Mythpage88, who seems anxious to delete everything I've written over the
>> > years in WP on the basis that it isn't "notable".
>> >
>> > The work I've documented is a vital part of the arts history in the
>> > Silicon Valley during the 1990's - a time when the Internet was making a
>> > tremendous impact on original work in performing arts. For example:
>> > Virtual Valley might have been sponsored by Pacific Bell and San Jose
>> > Metro, but it was the very first time that non-profits had with the
>> > ability to use the Internet.
>> >
>> > Why shouldn't this be documented on WP? If you think something is an
>> > "Ad" then rewrite it - don't delete it just because you can!
>> >
> Can you point us to a dialogue you have had with Mythpage88?
>
> What's bugging him?
>
> Fred
>
Chairman Issa's office sent me this link... live streaming and markup of
the SOPA bill: http://keepthewebopen.com/sopa
___________________
Philippe Beaudette
Head of Reader Relations
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
415-839-6885, x 6643
philippe(a)wikimedia.org
Just a reminder that this is happening shortly.
Thanks!
Steven
On Dec 12, 2011 8:35 PM, "Steven Walling" <swalling(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Just a quick announcement that this Thursday, December 15th, we'll have an
> IRC office hours with Sue Gardner at 18:00 UTC. Time conversion links and
> more on in the usual place on Meta.[1] We haven't set a topic yet, though
> with the fundraiser, questions about the SOPA bill in the U.S., and more
> I'm sure there will be lots to discuss.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> --
> Steven Walling
> Community Organizer at Wikimedia Foundation
> wikimediafoundation.org
>
> 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours
>
Hmmm... do some of the editors have such a problem with entries that are
in progress that they decide to propose them for deletion rather than
attempt to support the efforts of the original author by adding to the
content or make any effort to improve the article rather than remove it?
Isn't WP supposed to help people by expanding our knowledge and
improving the transmission of information?
I've just been subjected to a rather bizarre bunch of activity by
Mythpage88, who seems anxious to delete everything I've written over the
years in WP on the basis that it isn't "notable".
The work I've documented is a vital part of the arts history in the
Silicon Valley during the 1990's - a time when the Internet was making a
tremendous impact on original work in performing arts. For example:
Virtual Valley might have been sponsored by Pacific Bell and San Jose
Metro, but it was the very first time that non-profits had with the
ability to use the Internet.
Why shouldn't this be documented on WP? If you think something is an
"Ad" then rewrite it - don't delete it just because you can!
There are two steps that strike me as obvious. Inform the committee of the
community's concerns and go to the press.
Here in the UK when a union gets a majority vote for strike action it
sometimes focuses management's attention and prompts concessions.
Going straight from such a vote to taking action would in my view lose a
useful opportunity to let those promoting SOPA from dropping or amending it
before we take action.
WSC
Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:12:34 -0800
> From: Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] How SOPA will hurt the free web and
> Wikipedia
> To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <4EE94982.2060005(a)wikimedia.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Before anyone blanks the en.wiki Main Page, please remember that the
> bill is still in committee. It could still be heavily modified or
> rejected completely before going to the floor. If it does go to the
> floor, it probably wouldn't be until January, so there's still some time
> for other, less-dramatic approaches in the meantime.
>
> Ryan Kaldari
>
>
>
> > It's been a requested feature for a while, Someone finally
> > got around to writing it
Who has asked for such a silly feature?
Every uploader sees the image he/she is uploading and has made the necessary rotation beforehand.
But perhaps the same people that organized the Indian desaster or the image filter acclamation were in charge.
Or someone posing as "Women from the South" have been asked to request the change (Yes I belive thats a possibility after this years experiance with the WMF)
> * How many existing uploads, used on the wikis, were
> previously wrongly rotated and were fixed by the feature?
Guess: Zero - the uploader had already stored the image in the correct orientation.
> * How many existing uploads, used on the wikis, were
> previously correctly rotated and were messed up by the feature?
Thousends - see the backlog of the bot. And there are more to come for months.
> i.e., was there strong reason to apply it to past images, not
> just new ones?
Don't ask, you need no reason if you work directly with the WMF.
--
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter.
We are a community of 7 million users fighting spam.
SPAMfighter has removed 5153 of my spam emails to date.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len
The Professional version does not have this message
Le 11 décembre 2011 19:02, MZMcBride <z(a)mzmcbride.com> a écrit :
> Hi.
>
> The "Terms of use" rewrite is starting to wind down. The current draft is
> here: <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use>.
>From the point of view of Continental Europe, where creators enjoy
advanced copyright laws which protect their attribution right, I think
this implementation of the - creator belittling - US copyright law on
Wikimedia projects is a disgrace. What the licensing section of this
draft terms of use is saying is that the WMF simply disregards the
attribution rights which are granted by law in their countries. It is
humiliating.
By the clever use of attribution licenses, there was a way to
conciliate continental European laws and US or British laws. The WMF
decides not to do so, and to stubbornly push the US-copyright law
point of view. It is a pity.
Perhaps the WMF should not have relied on a US lawyer alone. Perhaps a
team associating a US lawyer with a continental Europe lawyer would
have been better.