The 15th birthday of Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia movement, is less than one month away! The world will celebrate with us on January 15, 2016, and we need your help making local Wikipedia 15 logos available for more cultures, regions, and languages.
You see, instead of one single Wikipedia 15 birthday mark, we've worked with Wikimedians around the world to create dozens. From the International Space Stations to Fondue (thanks Switzerland!), these simple line drawings show the HUGE range of subjects you can learn about on Wikipedia.
If you are interested in helping with localised logo creation, you can find more information on Meta-Wiki: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_15/Translation#marks
Thank you in advance for your help!
-The Wikimedia Foundation Communications team
PS. We apologize for sending this only in English. Please help translate to your language: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_15/MassMessages/Help_with_logo_lo…
Hello Friends, hello mrs. tretikov,
unfortunately, I was reported the causa of DANIELE GANSER vs. Wikipedia
So, I feel obliged to inform you about the strange behavior of special
admins `Phi and copilot`in
the german wikipedia. For ensurance the reputation of wikipedia, it will
to defend the personality rights of Daniele Ganser.
Please check the problem and clear the keeping of the internal rules of
For further information, please see this video:
Die dunkle Seite der Wikipedia, Ein Film von Markus Fiedler und
(The dark Site of Wikipedia)
by the now 300.000 clicks!
I will trust in Your Seriosity and will look forward to your answer.
Yes I agree with what Stas says, which is why I posted my invitation. Also,
we have many more items without images on Wikidata than Wikipedia articles
with images, so we also need illustrations for things that don't have a
page on Wikipedia yet such as everyday items (cookie types), minor
paintings, minor monuments, or minor politicians, etc. As far as fair-use
images go you can't link to them with the P18 (image) property because that
only points to Commons. I have in the past linked to a Matisse painting on
the English Wikipedia with P973 (described at url) link. For people who are
interested in linking WLM or other monument images, they may want to start
with the handy nearby feature in Wikidata (left side of the screen).
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 10:45 PM, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev(a)wikimedia.org>
> > For example, this
> > article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Frost_House has a nice
> > public domain photo that someone contributed back in 2010, but it's not
> > referenced from Wikidata https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7964895
> > Why couldn't these all be referenced automatically?
> Many articles contain multiple images, which may or may not be the one
> we want to see as "main image" for the item. E.g. this article:
> https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Battista_Schellino has a number
> of images, but none of them are suitable to be "image" for
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3766751. So some human involvement is
> And, of course, there are copyright questions. Wikidata technically does
> not contain the images, only links to them, so it may or may not be
> important, but those links should be to Commons, and not every image in
> Wikipedia articles are from commons, some are local on wikis and can not
> be imported to Commons for various reasons.
> Stas Malyshev
> Wikidata mailing list
I have an excess "Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 SP XR Di LD Aspherical (IF)" lens
for Pentax. If you are a regular contributor to Wikimedia Commons, I might
be willing to give this to you as your Christmas / New Year's present.
Please email me off-list if you would like the lens, with:
1. Evidence that you already use a Pentax camera to contribute to Commons,
2. Evidence that you have a history of providing good-quality images, and
3. An explanation of how your contributions to Commons would improve if you
receive this lens
Sorry if this is not the right forum to ask this, but I wish to seek
assistance on my thoughts below and i will be very grateful if i am
directed to the right forum if this is not. Just to create certain on this
matter before i proceed to uploading contents.
I have quite a number of pictures about the history of my country (Ghana)
which were taken over 50 years ago. Now i am looking forward to uploading
these contents but have encountered the following obstacles:
1. The real copyright holder of some of the pictures is dead and i have
been thinking of how to go about this. How do we upload such content on who
do we say is the copyrightholder, because once i upload contents of someone
else i must prove the release of copyright by the owner and under which
license the owner wants it shared.
2.The real copyright holder is very old and ill and not even in the
country. We have spoken to a close contact who has confirmed use but we are
still working on a Skype chat or hangout to discuss the release of rights
with the hope that the recorded video chat could be a source of proof.
Kindly advice what to do.
*Felix Nartey | DSE CAL Bank Ltd. | Co-manager GBG TEMA
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/106882654487622047846/posts> **| Community
Manager WMGH <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Ghana> | About me
<http://about.me/felix.nartey> | +233 242 844987 **| **Check out!!
There are at long last indications that UK copyright law is moving in
the direction of the WMF and Commons policy  that "faithful copies of
public domain works are themselves in the public domain" - in other
words that faithful photographic reproductions of old, out of copyright
artworks such as paintings do not create an enforceable new copyright
for the photographer. The UK Intellectual Property Office has recently
updated its copyright advice notice  to include the following:
Are digitised copies of older images protected by copyright?
''Simply creating a copy of an image won't result in a new copyright in
the new item. However, there is a degree of uncertainty regarding
whether copyright can exist in digitised copies of older images for
which copyright has expired. Some people argue that a new copyright may
arise in such copies if specialist skills have been used to optimise
detail, and/or the original image has been touched up to remove
blemishes, stains or creases.''
''However, according to the Court of Justice of the European Union which
has effect in UK law, copyright can only subsist in subject matter that
is original in the sense that it is the author's own 'intellectual
creation'. Given this criteria, it seems unlikely that what is merely a
retouched, digitised image of an older work can be considered as
'original'. This is because there will generally be minimal scope for a
creator to exercise free and creative choices if their aim is simply to
make a faithful reproduction of an existing work.''
This official advice from a UK Government agency is useful as it
recommends a strikingly different approach from the one that has been
taken over many years by the UK courts, namely that a new copyright can
very easily be created merely by the 'skill and labour' involved in
taking any sort of photograph (the copyright practitioner's text,
Copinger & Skone James, says that "in terms of what is original for the
purpose of determining whether copyright subsists in a photograph, the
requirement of originality is low and may be satisfied by little more
than the opportunistic pointing of the camera and the pressing of the
Although the IPO advice is not binding on the UK courts, it will be of
useful persuasive value. It's interesting that the official view being
taken is that the European Court of Justice has effectively replaced the
very low bar of "Was sufficient skill and labour applied?" with the
higher one of "Is it the author's own intellectual creation?''. The
2009 CJEU decision in Infopaq  is gaining traction.
Communia have published a blog post  that is worth reading.
Chair, Wikimedia UK