There's a collaborative documentary on the open source / free culture
movement in the works:
http://www.digitaltippingpoint.com/
Interestingly enough, they're using CC-BY-SA (rather than the usual
NC/ND), and making their video footage available for remixing. What is
currently available can be found at:
http://www.archive.org/details.php?identifier=digitaltippingpoint
Specifically, the list of items:
http://www.archive.org/browse.php?field=/metadata/subject&mediatype=movies&…
Lots of good stuff there, some of which might also be useful to add to
Wikimedia projects directly. I hope they do make a documentary as
well -- an up-to-date resourcre for evangelism would be very useful.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik
Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
Those who have a need to upload files beyond the current size limit
may now contact me by e-mail to do so. I have set up an FTP server
where these files can be uploaded, and will transfer them manually to
the Wikimedia servers using my shell account. However, I'm currently
only handing out the FTP access data on request.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik
Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
Hi,
I may just fall entirely out of the spot, but... is there a group of
people working on a press release for the 1000000 of commons ?
I looked around a bit and found only this
*http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/Communique_sur_le_million_de_Commons
(in french, from the french association)
*http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_logo_mosaic/ConstructionNotes
(this gorgious new logo)
When is thd 1M expected ?
ant
On 14/11/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Commons exists to be a repository for free culture *and* to serve as
> an inter-wiki storage medium for *free* media. it is not a place to
> dump stuff, nor is it a place which exists independently of other
> wikis.
> Copyright violations are not a minor or trivial problem. They are a
> serious problem, for which we are obligated to act when they are
> properly brought to our attention. This is all nothing new.
> If there are Wikimedians who are advocating housing copyrighted media
> in Commons, speak up now, because we need to get clear on why that is
> not cool immediately.
There isn't anyone advocating that; this discussion started with a
Commons admin threatening to block all es:wp users from Commons to
stop copyvios from es:wp, because the Commons admins can't keep up,
evidently because their admin process is strict enough that pretty
much no-one even bothers trying.
- d.
While we are on the topic of too much work and not enough people to do it:
Tonight I felt particularly motivated and decided to make myself useful
deleting superseded images. Trusting the people who had posted those
images there I made my way through the first dozen or so of the list, when
I suddenly decided it might be a good idea, just to be on the safe side,
to perform a check-usage on those images. Turns out some of those images
weren't only used on one or two Wikipedias, but more than a dozen. So I
ended up undeleting most of the images, because I really got better things
to do than first check all those images if they're still in use somewhere,
and then making I don't know how many edits in as many Wikipedias changing
the links.
So I think if we ever won't to work off the backlog we have accumulated we
either "train" the normal users to fix the links when they add the images
there or we find some possibility to do it automatically using bots
running parallely on all WPs or something.
I don't know if that's possible to implement, but I for myself have better
things to do than do all of this by hand.
Lennert B
Simetrical wrote:
> On 11/13/06, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> If security is a major issue, might it be feasible to maintain a
>> whitelist of certificates (to allow applets from trusted authority to
>> be uploaded directly), and to flag all other applets as
>> "non-embeddable" until a sysop flips a switch, so they can be reviewed
>> for security? We could add a big fat warning on the file description
>> page.
>
> It makes more sense to me to use the system we use for JavaScript,
> i.e., only sysops can add it to begin with. Allowing applets from
> trusted authorities is an interesting idea, but what does "trusted"
> mean? Trusted to not take up too many CPU cycles, to avoid playing
> sound unless the user permits it explicitly, to not include material
> that would be vulgar and thus attractive to vandals?
>
> I definitely don't think anything whatsoever should be available to
> non-sysops at all unless uploaded by a sysop, no matter how large the
> warning message. People are *way* too used to ignoring warning
> messages.
>
Here's a related idea: if we can't get "confirmed email required before
uploads enabled" for Commons, could we get uploads disabled for
non-sysops? Surely images in general are similarly "dangerous" (if not
for system & vandalism reasons, for copyright reasons)?
(Cross-posting to Commons-l)
--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
So we know why we're getting a lot of copyvio / unlicensed material
from Eswiki users... It's not a trivial problem but at least we
understand it.
We're getting a lot of 'misplaced articles' Portuguese in the gallery
namespace on commons. Most of the ones I've seen seem to be various
advertisements and a lot of garage bands from Brazil.
Anyone know if there is some systematic cause of these which we could amend?
I just wanted to say this is nothing new, and I don't see this ending
soon. Like look at
http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Bots&oldid=339247
that happened a while ago, but esentially is still just commons and
another wikimedia project having a spitting contest. The problem is
you can't get in touch with the majority of uploaders, and you don't
have enough people to get in touch with the ones you can. That is very
hard to fix.
[[user:Bawolff]]
dear spanish wikipedia admins/users
There has been a thread on commons-l recently relating to you and i think it would be a good idea to bring you into the loop so this can be resolved without interproject conflict.
The initial posting on the thread was the following by Artur Fijalkowski [wiki.warx(a)gmail.com]
>From some time I've observed very strange thing:
>
>Most of uploaded on commons copyvios is made by users who has
>spanish-like nicks, write in looking in this manner language, etc.
>
>Because I see very large time coincidence with closing upload on
>es.wiki, I have (I hope) very good method of solving that:
>
>I'm going to ban every user who will look like from es.wiki to me,
>without any warning after first upload.
>
>Maybe than complains of such users will force them to open upload :)
This was followed by the following reply by Lennert Böhm [lennert.boehm(a)gmx.de]
>But isn't Commons supposed to be the repository of images of all the
>Wikis, so that at some point in the future, all files will (are supposed
>to) be uploaded to Commons? Finally there's a Wikipedia that does that and
>you are trying to make them regret their decision?
>I don't believe this to be a good way of action.
This was followed by the following reply by Lukasz Garczewski [tor(a)oak.pl]
>Lennert Böhm napisał(a):
>> But isn't Commons supposed to be the repository of images of all the
>> Wikis, so that at some point in the future, all files will (are supposed
>> to) be uploaded to Commons? Finally there's a Wikipedia that does that and
>> you are trying to make them regret their decision?
>> I don't believe this to be a good way of action.
>
>Me either.
>
>However, Artur has a poin there, or rather - he has hinted at a very
>serious problem we're facing right now.
>
>On one hand using Commons should be easy and fun (it's still a wiki,
>right?). On thee other, however, if we make it to easy we may not be
>able to cope with the amount of copyvios.
>
>I am 100% for moving all uploads to Commons, but I believe we have to
>have a procedure for that. I.e. some things should be done well *before*
>local uploads are disabled on a given wiki.
>
>Some of those might include:
>* translating most of the interface
>* translating key project and help pages (the commons community should
>complie a list of those)
>* translating key templates
>* having at least N active Commons admins speaking the language of the
>wiki in question at level 2 or higher (where N is... well... I don't
>know, you tell me ;))
>
>I'm not sure if that's all. Any other ideas?
>
>The main idea is: yes, let's do this. But let's do it one step at a
>time, based on a common process.
As you can see from theese posts the commons admins are rather unhappy about you essentially dumping your copyvio problems on them when they are ill equipped to handle it.
the way i see it there are three ways out of the situation.
1: spanish wikipedia reenables uploads and goes back to dealing with most of thier own copyvio problems.
2: the spanish wikipedia users/admins make a significant effort to help deal with the copyvio problems with spanish users on commons.
3: commons adopts and extreme zero tolerance policy towards anyone who appears spanish
Of the ways out the third option is the least favorable, but it is also the only option that can be implemented without your help.
On 11/10/06, commons-l-request(a)wikimedia.org <
commons-l-request(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 16:58:32 -0500
> From: Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Commons-l Digest, Vol 17, Issue 14
> To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" <commons-l(a)wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <98dd099a0610291358w27b32633kf10caee0a2b32e7d(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 10/29/06, J JIH <jus168jih(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Please explain how the template is probably misleading at best for most
> > people. The content of [[s:en:Template:PD-UN]] has been based on USA
> > copyright law and prolonged discussions at English Wikisource when so
> many
> > UN Security Council Resolutions have arised the copyright concern. If
> you
> > can think of better content, please be more specific. Users outside the
> USA
> > must also be aware of the laws in their countries as countries that are
> > party to Protocol 2 of the Universal Copyright Convention done at Paris
> on
> > 24 July 1971 require copyright protection for works published for the
> first
> > time by the United Nations.
>
> I think most people who see something that is a PD-UN template will
> assume that there is some special reason that the UN material is PD.
> As the template explains in a round-about way, this isn't true. You
> might as well not have a PD-UN template, or have it say very
> explicitly "UN material is subject to US copyright. Please see
> such-and-such a page about US copyright law to determine if this is in
> the public domain."
>
> Having PD templates seems to imply special PD categories -- 90% of
> them say, "This work is PD because of this reason." It's better, in my
> opinion, to not have PD templates which say, "This is PD because of
> one of the four reasons, none of which have anything specifically to
> do with the UN." It makes it hard for anyone else to know WHY it is
> PD, for one thing (which reason is it?), and it is probably extra-hard
> on people whose English isn't that great (since it is a rather
> complicate way to explain, "UN material is the same as any other
> copyrighted material in the US."
>
> Just my take on it, but I'm not leading any campaign against it.
>
> FF
>
I have an excellent news from English Wikisource. After a major copyright
dispute for one year about UN resolutions, they are now found to be in the
public domain. Please see the revised [[s:en:Template:PD-UN]] and it is much
better, isn't it? I will prepare to add a trilingual tag from Chinese,
English, and French Wikisource to Commons soon.
Jusjih