It would be nice if all of the chapters send to their governments a petition to allow a
global standardized use of media just for wikimedia projects, it is a big problem that
every country has different laws on copyright and public domain media, and that wikimedia
has to comply with U.S law just because the servers are in there, we as a community should
ask a global standardized media handling law for wikimedia which might or might not
include giving special licenses for wikimedia projects, trying to keep in line with the
foundation ideals, I know it sounds a bit crazy, but hey it's the biggest compilation
of human knowlege, it should be following laws (copyright and public domain in this case)
that all of human kind reach in consensus, not just the laws of the place where the
servers are.
Dennis Pierri
On 27/02/2014, at 19:23, Osmar Valdebenito <osmar(a)wikimedia.org.ar> wrote:
Wikimedia Argentina is formed by a group of volunteers
from the Wikimedia
movement. That includes several long-time contributors to Commons that have
discussed with us in the past months the situation about URAA. This open
letter is not something written by a group of strangers or people that
haven't participated in the discussions of the community; probably not all
of them have been able to participate before as much as we want in this
particular topic, but that doesn't mean their opinions are less valuable
than those that take a more active role within the discussions. Some of
them have seen in the past weeks their talk pages flooded with DR notices
against Argentine free pictures, uploaded even several years ago and they
have argued, trying to save them. Saying that they don't know how Wikimedia
Commons work to this group of volunteers is also really offensive.
I understand you could feel upset for the strong words of our letter
regarding the particular URAA situation, especially when most of the
contributors work hardly every day to maintain this project and a lot of
them have had a constructive approach to this discussion. If you feel our
letter has been disrespectful for the rest of the Commons community, our
sincere apologies for that.
However, we still believe in what we wrote on the letter. When you see
that, even after the BoT statement there are still new DR coming up [1] and
more files being deleted [2], then it is clear that something wrong is
happening. The BoT has called to stop the massive deletions unless there
are DMCA notices and this has been regarded as a "mere opinion" instead of
a statement from the authorities responsible of the project (it would be
great, anyway, to have a less ambiguous statement).
You may not agree with the BoT statement or the large majority on the
proposal to restore the deleted images on Commons [3], but there should
have been more prudence within some administrators and freeze the deletions
until we find a consensus for this situation. And it hasn't been the case,
clearly. This is what we criticize; this is the kind of attitudes that
de-motivates many editors. When one of the strictest interpretations of law
is applied without consideration of anything else, is what we labeled
"legal fetichism".
Maybe you don't agree with that opinion and that's ok, but it is a feeling
that a lot of people share, including even Commons contributors. Not only
those that wrote this open letter but also many of those that have voted
for the "massive restoration" proposal.
[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Carlos_Tr…
[2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Le%C3%B3n…
[3]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_i…
*Osmar Valdebenito G.*
Director Ejecutivo
A. C. Wikimedia Argentina
2014-02-27 0:28 GMT-03:00 Avenue <avenue42(a)gmail.com>om>:
Look, I have no problem with the open letters
from WM Venezuela, España or
Israel. I might not agree 100% with everything in them, but they are
generally on top of the issues, and they focus on the problems they law
poses for us and our need for better solutions - all worth bringing to a
wider audience.
But the letter from WM Argentina is very different. It condemns the actions
of "certain Wikimedia Commons administrators" who have deleted
URAA-affected files (without naming them or linking to any of the relevant
deletions), and makes various claims about how Commons policy and practice
has changed and is inconsistent with statements by the WMF Board and Legal
team.
If you want to make these sorts of claims in an open letter, you should be
ready to back them up. But WM Argentina cannot do so IMO, because many of
their claims are untrue. Our practice is consistent with the WMF Board and
Legal team statements, and it isn't true that the "burden of proof has been
inverted" - the burden of proof has always been on those who want us to
keep hosting a file. These sorts of mistakes could easily have been avoided
if they had talked directly to experienced Commons editors first.
I'm a Commons admin, but I'm fairly inactive these days and I don't believe
I have deleted any URAA-affected files, so I don't think I am one of the
"certain" Commons admins they refer to. But I do find defamation of
hard-working members of my community offensive. If WM Argentina wants to
"respectfully call the Wikimedia Commons community to reflect" on
something, that does not seem the best way to start.
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 6:03 AM, Carlos M. Colina <maorx(a)wikimedia.org.ve
wrote:
Wait, aren't the chapters composed from
people from the wikimedia
community?
Also, didn't you guys stop by a second to think the chapter thoroughly
discussed the contents of the letter with its members, which may vote in
favor or against publishing it?
And if it is on Meta, is open to discussion, no?
Finally, in Venezuela we say "el que se pica es porque ají come". No
need
to take it personally if you are not among those
"certain" Commons
admins,
right?
Sent from Samsung Mobile
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
