Hi,
Some Commons contributors like to ask impossible requirements, and threaten to delete files if these are not met. We have now a case of famous pictures from the government of Israel and Israel Defense Forces. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#Files_and_pages_that_we... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beba_Idels... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abba_Hushi... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aharon_Mes... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Avraham_Sh...
These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia. These files have already been deleted and restored 3 times. When the URAA issue was not convincing enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition, publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in Israel.
After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a delete-only account: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Use... There, more contributors argue on this issue.
By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons. Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is gone.
Instead of looking for a reason to destroy these files, they should try to find a reason to keep them.
Regards,
Yann
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia.
Lots of famous pictures are copyrighted. They can't be hosted on Commons just because they're famous.
These files have already been deleted and restored 3 times.
That would be because you undeleted them without taking them to Deletion Review. And now you are taking the discussion to yet another inappropriate forum. Why are you opposed to using Deletion Review?
When the URAA issue was not convincing enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition, publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in Israel.
Images on Commons must be public domain in both the source country and the US. The images are definitely copyrighted in the US. The question is whether they are copyrighted due to following US formalities or due to the URAA. Without details about how they were published, it is impossible to determine which is the case.
After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a
delete-only account:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Use... There, more contributors argue on this issue.
By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons. Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is gone.
Deleting copyrighted images from Commons doesn't "threaten the project as a whole". If you want to argue that they should be kept on the URAA technicality, you should present a case at Deletion Review, preferably with some evidence to support your case. Wheel warring over a small handful of images does more to damage the project (by eroding trust good will between participants) than deleting these images does.
I realize it is frustrating having to deal with the United States' absurd copyright laws, but unfortunately, those are the laws we are stuck with for the time being. Even if these files are ultimately kept on Commons, they will still be vulnerable to deletion by complaint of the copyright owner (presumably the government of Israel), regardless of which circumstances they are copyrighted under. You might argue that the government of Israel would never assert its US copyright over the images, but there is no way we can be sure of that. Personally, I don't really care if we keep the images or not, but we have deletion discussion forums for a reason. Commons operates by consensus, not by unilateral force of will. In the future I hope you will choose to utilize those forums rather than acting out-of-process.
Cheers, Ryan Kaldari
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
Images on Commons must be public domain in both the source country and
the US. The images are definitely copyrighted in the US. The question is whether they are copyrighted due to following US formalities or due to the URAA. Without details about how they were published, it is impossible to determine which is the case.
After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a
delete-only account:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Use... There, more contributors argue on this issue.
By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons. Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is gone.
Deleting copyrighted images from Commons doesn't "threaten the project as a whole". If you want to argue that they should be kept on the URAA technicality, you should present a case at Deletion Review, preferably with some evidence to support your case. Wheel warring over a small handful of images does more to damage the project (by eroding trust good will between participants) than deleting these images does.
I realize it is frustrating having to deal with the United States' absurd copyright laws, but unfortunately, those are the laws we are stuck with for the time being. Even if these files are ultimately kept on Commons, they will still be vulnerable to deletion by complaint of the copyright owner (presumably the government of Israel), regardless of which circumstances they are copyrighted under. You might argue that the government of Israel would never assert its US copyright over the images, but there is no way we can be sure of that. Personally, I don't really care if we keep the images or not, but we have deletion discussion forums for a reason. Commons operates by consensus, not by unilateral force of will. In the future I hope you will choose to utilize those forums rather than acting out-of-process.
Cheers, Ryan Kaldari
Did you actually read the deletion discussions? Every single discussion vote for every file at issue was "keep." And yet in each the result was "delete." How do you explain that? If "Commons operates by consensus", that is.
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Did you actually read the deletion discussions? Every single discussion vote for every file at issue was "keep." And yet in each the result was "delete." How do you explain that? If "Commons operates by consensus", that is.
No, I didn't read the deletion discussions. It sounds like a good case for Deletion Review.
Ryan
Then it will be impossible to upload any image to the commons, except by artists & photographers. I expect USA to expand copyrights to an additional 100 years, in a hundred years, making entrance of Copyrighted works into Public Domain impossible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Copyright_term.svg
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:11 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
Images on Commons must be public domain in both the source country and the US. The images are definitely copyrighted in the US. The question is whether they are copyrighted due to following US formalities or due to the URAA.
Commons is supposed to host images that we can guarantee are Free. It is by hosting images that we wish were free, or images that we could imagine to be Free, or images that we don't know to be copyrighted, that we harm the project. An image for which there is a reasonable doubt is an image that does not belong on Commons, period.
As for the question of consensus, it is perfectly proper to ignore opinions based on wishful thinking or ignorance. This is a technical issue, and knowledgeable technocrats rightfully have precedence over dilettantes and militants.
To conclude, I fully sympathise and concur with those of us who find national laws and copyright durations to be excessively tilted against users. I bring to their attention that by twisting and ignoring these laws, we play into the hand of their defenders: firstly by offering them the argument that their regulations do not in fact stifle expression; and secondly by exposing ourselves to legal action that can be brought to bear whenever convenient to their interests. -- Rama
On 17 June 2014 08:17, Neel Gupta freedom.ne0@gmail.com wrote:
Then it will be impossible to upload any image to the commons, except by artists & photographers. I expect USA to expand copyrights to an additional 100 years, in a hundred years, making entrance of Copyrighted works into Public Domain impossible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Copyright_term.svg
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:11 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
Images on Commons must be public domain in both the source country and the US. The images are definitely copyrighted in the US. The question is whether they are copyrighted due to following US formalities or due to the URAA.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
First SOPA, now This ! US Copyright laws restricting Wikimedia servers from hosting what could be Public Domain around the World. ...At this point, I think it would be a good idea to start a discussion on whether to move the Wikimedia servers out of US jurisdiction.
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
Commons is supposed to host images that we can guarantee are Free. It is by hosting images that we wish were free, or images that we could imagine to be Free, or images that we don't know to be copyrighted, that we harm the project. An image for which there is a reasonable doubt is an image that does not belong on Commons, period.
As for the question of consensus, it is perfectly proper to ignore opinions based on wishful thinking or ignorance. This is a technical issue, and knowledgeable technocrats rightfully have precedence over dilettantes and militants.
To conclude, I fully sympathise and concur with those of us who find national laws and copyright durations to be excessively tilted against users. I bring to their attention that by twisting and ignoring these laws, we play into the hand of their defenders: firstly by offering them the argument that their regulations do not in fact stifle expression; and secondly by exposing ourselves to legal action that can be brought to bear whenever convenient to their interests. -- Rama
On 17 June 2014 08:17, Neel Gupta freedom.ne0@gmail.com wrote:
Then it will be impossible to upload any image to the commons, except by artists & photographers. I expect USA to expand copyrights to an additional 100 years, in a hundred years, making entrance of Copyrighted works into Public Domain impossible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Copyright_term.svg
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:11 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
Images on Commons must be public domain in both the source country and the US. The images are definitely copyrighted in the US. The question is whether they are copyrighted due to following US formalities or due to the URAA.
Hoi, Given the investment in so many data centres in the USA and the lack of investment in cache servers around the world this is highly unlikely to be even feasible. Thanks, GerardM
On 18 June 2014 14:33, Neel Gupta freedom.ne0@gmail.com wrote:
First SOPA, now This ! US Copyright laws restricting Wikimedia servers from hosting what could be Public Domain around the World. ...At this point, I think it would be a good idea to start a discussion on whether to move the Wikimedia servers out of US jurisdiction.
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
Commons is supposed to host images that we can guarantee are Free. It is by hosting images that we wish were free, or images that we could imagine to be Free, or images that we don't know to be copyrighted, that we harm the project. An image for which there is a reasonable doubt is an image that does not belong on Commons, period.
As for the question of consensus, it is perfectly proper to ignore opinions based on wishful thinking or ignorance. This is a technical issue, and knowledgeable technocrats rightfully have precedence over dilettantes and militants.
To conclude, I fully sympathise and concur with those of us who find national laws and copyright durations to be excessively tilted against users. I bring to their attention that by twisting and ignoring these laws, we play into the hand of their defenders: firstly by offering them the argument that their regulations do not in fact stifle expression; and secondly by exposing ourselves to legal action that can be brought to bear whenever convenient to their interests. -- Rama
On 17 June 2014 08:17, Neel Gupta freedom.ne0@gmail.com wrote:
Then it will be impossible to upload any image to the commons, except by artists & photographers. I expect USA to expand copyrights to an additional 100 years, in a hundred years, making entrance of Copyrighted works into Public Domain impossible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Copyright_term.svg
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:11 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
Images on Commons must be public domain in both the source country and the US. The images are definitely copyrighted in the US. The question is whether they are copyrighted due to following US formalities or due to the URAA.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Just a thought as bad this is, WMF could just run a server in a juristiction where copyright isnt an issue but WMF does need to act in a socially responsible way and with the highest standards of respect for our goals, our community and the laws.
Maybe it would be possible to have a limited fair use type provision on Commons for important images where they are out of copyright in the country of origin, but not in the US, with a minimum requirement of the work being used in two different language wikipedias. It'll be complicated to enforce and will take a lot of discussion to work out the policy and processes....
On 18 June 2014 20:39, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Given the investment in so many data centres in the USA and the lack of investment in cache servers around the world this is highly unlikely to be even feasible. Thanks, GerardM
On 18 June 2014 14:33, Neel Gupta freedom.ne0@gmail.com wrote:
First SOPA, now This ! US Copyright laws restricting Wikimedia servers from hosting what could be Public Domain around the World. ...At this point, I think it would be a good idea to start a discussion on whether to move the Wikimedia servers out of US jurisdiction.
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
Commons is supposed to host images that we can guarantee are Free. It is by hosting images that we wish were free, or images that we could imagine to be Free, or images that we don't know to be copyrighted, that we harm the project. An image for which there is a reasonable doubt is an image that does not belong on Commons, period.
As for the question of consensus, it is perfectly proper to ignore opinions based on wishful thinking or ignorance. This is a technical issue, and knowledgeable technocrats rightfully have precedence over dilettantes and militants.
To conclude, I fully sympathise and concur with those of us who find national laws and copyright durations to be excessively tilted against users. I bring to their attention that by twisting and ignoring these laws, we play into the hand of their defenders: firstly by offering them the argument that their regulations do not in fact stifle expression; and secondly by exposing ourselves to legal action that can be brought to bear whenever convenient to their interests. -- Rama
On 17 June 2014 08:17, Neel Gupta freedom.ne0@gmail.com wrote:
Then it will be impossible to upload any image to the commons, except by artists & photographers. I expect USA to expand copyrights to an additional 100 years, in a hundred years, making entrance of Copyrighted works into Public Domain impossible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Copyright_term.svg
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:11 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
Images on Commons must be public domain in both the source country and the US. The images are definitely copyrighted in the US. The question is whether they are copyrighted due to following US formalities or due to the URAA.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
The concept of an "Uncommons" as defined as either a new set of rules, or as an alternate to WMF-hosted websites is not going to solve our current problem of lacking images to support our educational goals. We should be discussing how we can continue our mission to disseminate the sum of all knowledge when we are handicapped by copyright laws, period.
Fruitful discussions deteriorated when the issue of the "URAA-restored copyrights" [1] launched the Commons discussion in 2012 [2] which led to mass deletions. Since then we have seen some undeletions, but in general the whole drama of it has become too complicated to explain to the people we care most about, which is our dwindling body of contributors across projects. I tend to contribute well within our current Commons hosting parameters, but every now and then I step out of my comfort zone and feel as Fae has described in his mail above.
I really like Gerard's idea of somehow linking images on WikiData, which will help significantly with discovery by readers and also serve as self-explanatory templates for multi-language users. However, though I firmly agree that we should proceed along those lines, this still won't solve the core problem, because even on WikiData we cannot make interwiki links to *all* images we need and I personally believe we shouldn't try.
I think that the only real solution for our educational mission going forward is to let WikiData take a similar approach to what Europeana is doing for European museums. There are lots of specific organizations on the internet working on exactly the same copyright problems we are, but they have a huge advantage that we don't have, which is that they are focussed on a finite set of images. We often end up talking in circles because we want locally hosted images for "everything". If we take a collaborative approach, we can either include a link to a file, serve our readers a reduced preview of a file or serve a full-fledged image-viewer-enabled version of a file, all depending on whether the physical location of the file is in the Wikiverse or not. If we set this up, we might make it possible to "cross-load" individual files from Wikipedia and vetted external projects via WikiData to Commons rather than force people to upload with the default Commons uploader.
What I think we need is a good illustration of the scale of the problem, which admittedly is hard to show. Personally I was very upset when images of artworks by Leo Gestel were deleted last year [3], even though I was not the uploader who put all the work into all of those artwork templates on those files. My niche interest on Wikipedia is 17th-century painters, but I have also worked on colleagues of Leo Gestel whose works cannot be shown at all in their Wikipedia articles, just because they "forgot" to date their paintings. I have noticed a "copyright gap" occurring when Wikipedians give up trying to illustrate such articles.
When that happens, we all lose. Not only are we missing the Commons images, we are missing work on the corresponding Wikipedia articles. I made a comparison of Wikipedia artists matched against a dataset of painters which illustrates a small piece of this "copyright gap".[4] Another interesting gap occurs when you look at the work of painters vs. artists who ventured beyond two dimensions, such as sculptors, furniture makers, porcelain artists, and instrument makers. We cover painters and printmakers so much better, thanks to Bridgeman vs. Corel, as long as we ignore the fine print.[5] The OTRS system for image release by an artist's direct heirs is the only alternate route, and there is no alternate available for orphan works that I know of.[6]
In general, Wikipedia has much better coverage of "really dead" people as opposed to "not so dead" people. Discussion regarding the problems of BLP's is often made without realizing that they are actually edge cases compared to the large group of people born after 1800 and who died before Wikipedia began. This is a combination of the copyright gap and the frustrations of experienced contributors who have had their hands slapped on Commons and other projects.
[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:URAA-restored_copyrights [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/All_files_copyr... [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Post-1923_works... [4] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WP_entities_for_artists_vs_PCF_March... [5] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2009/01#Brid... [6] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
Just a thought as bad this is, WMF could just run a server in a juristiction where copyright isnt an issue but WMF does need to act in a socially responsible way and with the highest standards of respect for our goals, our community and the laws.
Maybe it would be possible to have a limited fair use type provision on Commons for important images where they are out of copyright in the country of origin, but not in the US, with a minimum requirement of the work being used in two different language wikipedias. It'll be complicated to enforce and will take a lot of discussion to work out the policy and processes....
On 18 June 2014 20:39, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Given the investment in so many data centres in the USA and the lack of investment in cache servers around the world this is highly unlikely to be even feasible. Thanks, GerardM
On 18 June 2014 14:33, Neel Gupta freedom.ne0@gmail.com wrote:
First SOPA, now This ! US Copyright laws restricting Wikimedia servers from hosting what could be Public Domain around the World. ...At this point, I think it would be a good idea to start a discussion on whether to move the Wikimedia servers out of US jurisdiction.
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
Commons is supposed to host images that we can guarantee are Free. It is by hosting images that we wish were free, or images that we could imagine to be Free, or images that we don't know to be copyrighted, that we harm the project. An image for which there is a reasonable doubt is an image that does not belong on Commons, period.
As for the question of consensus, it is perfectly proper to ignore opinions based on wishful thinking or ignorance. This is a technical issue, and knowledgeable technocrats rightfully have precedence over dilettantes and militants.
To conclude, I fully sympathise and concur with those of us who find national laws and copyright durations to be excessively tilted against users. I bring to their attention that by twisting and ignoring these laws, we play into the hand of their defenders: firstly by offering them the argument that their regulations do not in fact stifle expression; and secondly by exposing ourselves to legal action that can be brought to bear whenever convenient to their interests. -- Rama
On 17 June 2014 08:17, Neel Gupta freedom.ne0@gmail.com wrote:
Then it will be impossible to upload any image to the commons, except by artists & photographers. I expect USA to expand copyrights to an additional 100 years, in a hundred years, making entrance of Copyrighted works into Public Domain impossible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Copyright_term.svg
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:11 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
Images on Commons must be public domain in both the source country and the US. The images are definitely copyrighted in the US. The question is whether they are copyrighted due to following US formalities or due to the URAA.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
-- GN. Vice President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
I'm not sure why you actually bother, to be honest. I'd just host all the disputed images on the Hebrew Wikipedia and avoid Commons altogether. The sea lawyer bullshit on regular projects is bad enough; on Commons its an art form. Seriously -- why bother?
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Some Commons contributors like to ask impossible requirements, and threaten to delete files if these are not met. We have now a case of famous pictures from the government of Israel and Israel Defense Forces.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#Files_and_pages_that_we...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beba_Idels...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abba_Hushi...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aharon_Mes...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Avraham_Sh...
These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia. These files have already been deleted and restored 3 times. When the URAA issue was not convincing enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition, publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in Israel.
After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a delete-only account:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Use... There, more contributors argue on this issue.
By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons. Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is gone.
Instead of looking for a reason to destroy these files, they should try to find a reason to keep them.
Regards,
Yann
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Suite of the drama.
A request for a topic ban against LGA, who made these deletion requests, was started by Hanay, a user from the Hebrew Wikipedia. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Use...
Now she is blocked for one week for "canvassing", because she informed the Hebrew Wikipedia of the request. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blo...
This affair is going to degenerate in a full war between Commons and some Wikipedias, if a solution is not found.
Regards,
Yann
2014-06-17 5:05 GMT+05:30 Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com:
Hi,
Some Commons contributors like to ask impossible requirements, and threaten to delete files if these are not met. We have now a case of famous pictures from the government of Israel and Israel Defense Forces. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#Files_and_pages_that_we... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beba_Idels... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abba_Hushi... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aharon_Mes... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Avraham_Sh...
These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia. These files have already been deleted and restored 3 times. When the URAA issue was not convincing enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition, publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in Israel.
After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a delete-only account: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Use... There, more contributors argue on this issue.
By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons. Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is gone.
Instead of looking for a reason to destroy these files, they should try to find a reason to keep them.
Regards,
Yann
I don't see notices sent to users on commons to vote on he.wp user topic bans or policies. So, really, classifying this as a war misrepresents the unilateral nature of the he.wp uprising against URAA compliance.
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Suite of the drama.
A request for a topic ban against LGA, who made these deletion requests, was started by Hanay, a user from the Hebrew Wikipedia. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Use...
Now she is blocked for one week for "canvassing", because she informed the Hebrew Wikipedia of the request. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blo...
This affair is going to degenerate in a full war between Commons and some Wikipedias, if a solution is not found.
Regards,
Yann
2014-06-17 5:05 GMT+05:30 Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com:
Hi,
Some Commons contributors like to ask impossible requirements, and threaten to delete files if these are not met. We have now a case of famous pictures from the government of Israel and Israel Defense Forces. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#Files_and_pages_that_we... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beba_Idels... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abba_Hushi... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aharon_Mes... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Avraham_Sh...
These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia. These files have already been deleted and restored 3 times. When the URAA issue was not convincing enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition, publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in Israel.
After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a delete-only account: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Use... There, more contributors argue on this issue.
By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons. Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is gone.
Instead of looking for a reason to destroy these files, they should try to find a reason to keep them.
Regards,
Yann
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
2014-06-21 2:27 GMT+05:30 Daniel Schwen lists@schwen.de:
I don't see notices sent to users on commons to vote on he.wp user topic bans or policies. So, really, classifying this as a war misrepresents the unilateral nature of the he.wp uprising against URAA compliance.
Commons is here to serve Wikipedia projects, not to antagonize them, like it is the case. I think users of the Hebrew Wikipedia has the right to know and to say what they think about what affects them.
Yann
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Suite of the drama.
A request for a topic ban against LGA, who made these deletion requests, was started by Hanay, a user from the Hebrew Wikipedia. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Use...
Now she is blocked for one week for "canvassing", because she informed the Hebrew Wikipedia of the request. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blo...
This affair is going to degenerate in a full war between Commons and some Wikipedias, if a solution is not found.
Regards,
Yann
2014-06-17 5:05 GMT+05:30 Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com:
Hi,
Some Commons contributors like to ask impossible requirements, and threaten to delete files if these are not met. We have now a case of famous pictures from the government of Israel and Israel Defense Forces. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#Files_and_pages_that_we... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beba_Idels... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abba_Hushi... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aharon_Mes... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Avraham_Sh...
These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia. These files have already been deleted and restored 3 times. When the URAA issue was not convincing enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition, publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in Israel.
After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a delete-only account: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Use... There, more contributors argue on this issue.
By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons. Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is gone.
Instead of looking for a reason to destroy these files, they should try to find a reason to keep them.
Regards,
Yann
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
If by "antagonizing" you mean abide by the law and by "serve" you mean act on wishful thinking then... sure.
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
2014-06-21 2:27 GMT+05:30 Daniel Schwen lists@schwen.de:
I don't see notices sent to users on commons to vote on he.wp user topic bans or policies. So, really, classifying this as a war misrepresents the unilateral nature of the he.wp uprising against URAA compliance.
Commons is here to serve Wikipedia projects, not to antagonize them, like it is the case. I think users of the Hebrew Wikipedia has the right to know and to say what they think about what affects them.
Yann
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Suite of the drama.
A request for a topic ban against LGA, who made these deletion requests, was started by Hanay, a user from the Hebrew Wikipedia. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Use...
Now she is blocked for one week for "canvassing", because she informed the Hebrew Wikipedia of the request. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blo...
This affair is going to degenerate in a full war between Commons and some Wikipedias, if a solution is not found.
Regards,
Yann
2014-06-17 5:05 GMT+05:30 Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com:
Hi,
Some Commons contributors like to ask impossible requirements, and threaten to delete files if these are not met. We have now a case of famous pictures from the government of Israel and Israel Defense Forces. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#Files_and_pages_that_we... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beba_Idels... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abba_Hushi... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aharon_Mes... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Avraham_Sh...
These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia. These files have already been deleted and restored 3 times. When the URAA issue was not convincing enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition, publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in Israel.
After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a delete-only account: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Use... There, more contributors argue on this issue.
By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons. Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is gone.
Instead of looking for a reason to destroy these files, they should try to find a reason to keep them.
Regards,
Yann
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Hoi. Blocking because people do not agree with you is very much antagonising. The intention is that Commons serves other projects so why is someone blocked when they make sure people take notice of what is happening at Commons?
I fins it is rather offensive all these !@#$%%. It gives the impression that there is no conversation possible and that it has degenerated into a power play. Thanks, Gerard
On 20 June 2014 23:23, Daniel Schwen lists@schwen.de wrote:
If by "antagonizing" you mean abide by the law and by "serve" you mean act on wishful thinking then... sure.
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
2014-06-21 2:27 GMT+05:30 Daniel Schwen lists@schwen.de:
I don't see notices sent to users on commons to vote on he.wp user topic bans or policies. So, really, classifying this as a war misrepresents the unilateral nature of the he.wp uprising against URAA compliance.
Commons is here to serve Wikipedia projects, not to antagonize them, like it is the case. I think users of the Hebrew Wikipedia has the right to know and to say what they think about what affects them.
Yann
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Suite of the drama.
A request for a topic ban against LGA, who made these deletion requests, was started by Hanay, a user from the Hebrew Wikipedia.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Use...
Now she is blocked for one week for "canvassing", because she informed the Hebrew Wikipedia of the request.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blo...
This affair is going to degenerate in a full war between Commons and some Wikipedias, if a solution is not found.
Regards,
Yann
2014-06-17 5:05 GMT+05:30 Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com:
Hi,
Some Commons contributors like to ask impossible requirements, and threaten to delete files if these are not met. We have now a case of famous pictures from the government of Israel and Israel Defense Forces.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#Files_and_pages_that_we...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beba_Idels...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abba_Hushi...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aharon_Mes...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Avraham_Sh...
These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia. These files have already been deleted and restored 3 times. When the URAA issue was not convincing enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition, publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in Israel.
After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a delete-only account:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Use...
There, more contributors argue on this issue.
By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons. Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is gone.
Instead of looking for a reason to destroy these files, they should try to find a reason to keep them.
Regards,
Yann
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Blocking because people do not agree with you is very much antagonising. The
You are right Gerard, but that is not what happened.
Hoi, Canvassing was the word used.. and did I not follow up the sentence you quoted with informing other communities what is happening at Commons? That is why I understand this block happened. Thanks, Gerard
On 20 June 2014 23:36, Daniel Schwen lists@schwen.de wrote:
Blocking because people do not agree with you is very much antagonising.
The
You are right Gerard, but that is not what happened.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 20 June 2014 22:28, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Blocking because people do not agree with you is very much antagonising. The intention is that Commons serves other projects so why is someone blocked when they make sure people take notice of what is happening at Commons? I fins it is rather offensive all these !@#$%%. It gives the impression that there is no conversation possible and that it has degenerated into a power play.
I've noted before: If Commons doesn't want to be regarded as a problem by other projects, it really needs to start behaving less like one.
- d.
Commons is not there to serve other projects. Commons is a project of its own standing, and the other projects are there to serve it just as much as it is there to serve other projects.
It is really dispiriting to see how certain people see Commonists as some sort of second-class contributors. That is wrong in every sense of the word -- it is an error and an injustice. -- Rama
On 20 June 2014 23:45, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 June 2014 22:28, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Blocking because people do not agree with you is very much antagonising.
The
intention is that Commons serves other projects so why is someone blocked when they make sure people take notice of what is happening at Commons? I fins it is rather offensive all these !@#$%%. It gives the impression
that
there is no conversation possible and that it has degenerated into a
power
play.
I've noted before: If Commons doesn't want to be regarded as a problem by other projects, it really needs to start behaving less like one.
- d.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Hoi, The notion that Commonists are second class contributors is plain wrong. It has not been said, certainly not by me. Commons as a project provides a service to all projects in a similar way that Wikidata does. When you compare those two to the "other" projects, the others are insular what they do from a community point of view is largely irrelevant in the wider community.
It is exactly the fact that Commons and Wikidata are sharing their resources that gives them the potential to be a more social project, more inclusive. It already has the shared relevance, when its community "gets it" that its actions have a wider, more global effect, it may become more sociable and thereby more effective. Thanks. GerardM
On 21 June 2014 06:34, Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
Commons is not there to serve other projects. Commons is a project of its own standing, and the other projects are there to serve it just as much as it is there to serve other projects.
It is really dispiriting to see how certain people see Commonists as some sort of second-class contributors. That is wrong in every sense of the word -- it is an error and an injustice. -- Rama
On 20 June 2014 23:45, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 June 2014 22:28, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Blocking because people do not agree with you is very much
antagonising. The
intention is that Commons serves other projects so why is someone
blocked
when they make sure people take notice of what is happening at Commons? I fins it is rather offensive all these !@#$%%. It gives the impression
that
there is no conversation possible and that it has degenerated into a
power
play.
I've noted before: If Commons doesn't want to be regarded as a problem by other projects, it really needs to start behaving less like one.
- d.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 21 June 2014 05:34, Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
Commons is not there to serve other projects. Commons is a project of its own standing, and the other projects are there to serve it just as much as it is there to serve other projects.
This further supports the proposal that an actual service project is needed.
- d.
This is partially true.
Commons has its own life and its own indipendence *but* it serves also other projects.
And this is happened as soon the other projects decided to centralize all medias in Commons.
What the communiy of Commons decides has an impact in other projects and the community of Commons cannot forget it.
In the other hand the community of Commons can ask to have a clear and evident indipendence as soon the same community asks to other projects to reingrate their own medias in their own projects.
Regards
On 21.06.2014 08:46, David Gerard wrote:
On 21 June 2014 05:34, Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
Commons is not there to serve other projects. Commons is a project of its own standing, and the other projects are there to serve it just as much as it is there to serve other projects.
This further supports the proposal that an actual service project is needed.
- d.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 21 June 2014 07:46, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
This further supports the proposal that an actual service project is needed.
In the case of the Israeli stuff not really. They've got a specific problem that doesn't really need a full blown service project to address. Specifically we appear to suffer from a lack of Israeli editors able to write to the Israeli government asking what the Israeli government's position is on overseas copyrights on government works is. On paper Wikimedia Israel would be ideally suited for the task.
Hi Rama,
Sorry, but you have it all wrong.
1. Wikimedia is a repository for other Wikimedia projects. It is its primary mission.
2. But this does not make Commons contributors second-class. On the opposite, importing and managing files for other projects make them first-class IMHO. ;oD
Yann
2014-06-21 10:04 GMT+05:30 Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com:
Commons is not there to serve other projects. Commons is a project of its own standing, and the other projects are there to serve it just as much as it is there to serve other projects.
It is really dispiriting to see how certain people see Commonists as some sort of second-class contributors. That is wrong in every sense of the word -- it is an error and an injustice. -- Rama
On 20 June 2014 23:45, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 June 2014 22:28, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Blocking because people do not agree with you is very much antagonising. The intention is that Commons serves other projects so why is someone blocked when they make sure people take notice of what is happening at Commons? I fins it is rather offensive all these !@#$%%. It gives the impression that there is no conversation possible and that it has degenerated into a power play.
I've noted before: If Commons doesn't want to be regarded as a problem by other projects, it really needs to start behaving less like one.
- d.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
It makes as much sense to say that Commons is a repository for other Wikimedia projects, than to say that Wikipedia is here to provide encyclopedic context to the media of Wikimedia Commons.
Where the real asymetry lies is in the feeling of superiority of certain users of others projects who see Commons as a "service project", and from there construct the notion that jackbooting in and ordering people around is remotely legitimate (and, to be practical, has a chance to work). There is a small number of users, always the same, who regularly attempt to push an agenda of lax copyright standards for Commons; when this fails they try to impose their proposed policies by drumming up support from people with vested interests from other projects, and notorious authoritarians. Has anybody ever seen an influx of Commonists flocking to wp.he to "treat it as a problem"?
That is where the real problem is. The issue is not hosting these media, they can be hosted locally on the projects that use them as "Free-but-not-on-Commons", or as "Fair use". The issue is beating Commons into submission, as an aim in itself. Well, pardon us if we object.
-- Rama
On 21 June 2014 19:19, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Rama,
Sorry, but you have it all wrong.
- Wikimedia is a repository for other Wikimedia projects. It is its
primary mission.
- But this does not make Commons contributors second-class. On the
opposite, importing and managing files for other projects make them first-class IMHO. ;oD
Yann
2014-06-21 10:04 GMT+05:30 Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com:
Commons is not there to serve other projects. Commons is a project of its own standing, and the other projects are there to serve it just as much
as
it is there to serve other projects.
It is really dispiriting to see how certain people see Commonists as some sort of second-class contributors. That is wrong in every sense of the
word
-- it is an error and an injustice. -- Rama
On 20 June 2014 23:45, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 June 2014 22:28, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Blocking because people do not agree with you is very much
antagonising.
The intention is that Commons serves other projects so why is someone blocked when they make sure people take notice of what is happening at
Commons?
I fins it is rather offensive all these !@#$%%. It gives the
impression
that there is no conversation possible and that it has degenerated into a power play.
I've noted before: If Commons doesn't want to be regarded as a problem by other projects, it really needs to start behaving less like one.
- d.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Hoi, Much of the "ordering around" is the consequence of LOSING the images when Commons decides to no longer make media files available. Even when a project allows for things like "fair use", the images are lost to them when Commons decides to remove access.
When the information is Wikidatified, the image in a project will still refer to that Wiki project and it WILL state that Commons has removed it from the media files that are generally available. It is then for the people to grant a local right to use that image.
In this way Commons does what it thinks best and the local projects gained the ability to do whatever fits their policies. Thanks, GerardM
On 22 June 2014 08:38, Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
It makes as much sense to say that Commons is a repository for other Wikimedia projects, than to say that Wikipedia is here to provide encyclopedic context to the media of Wikimedia Commons.
Where the real asymetry lies is in the feeling of superiority of certain users of others projects who see Commons as a "service project", and from there construct the notion that jackbooting in and ordering people around is remotely legitimate (and, to be practical, has a chance to work). There is a small number of users, always the same, who regularly attempt to push an agenda of lax copyright standards for Commons; when this fails they try to impose their proposed policies by drumming up support from people with vested interests from other projects, and notorious authoritarians. Has anybody ever seen an influx of Commonists flocking to wp.he to "treat it as a problem"?
That is where the real problem is. The issue is not hosting these media, they can be hosted locally on the projects that use them as "Free-but-not-on-Commons", or as "Fair use". The issue is beating Commons into submission, as an aim in itself. Well, pardon us if we object.
-- Rama
On 21 June 2014 19:19, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Rama,
Sorry, but you have it all wrong.
- Wikimedia is a repository for other Wikimedia projects. It is its
primary mission.
- But this does not make Commons contributors second-class. On the
opposite, importing and managing files for other projects make them first-class IMHO. ;oD
Yann
2014-06-21 10:04 GMT+05:30 Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com:
Commons is not there to serve other projects. Commons is a project of
its
own standing, and the other projects are there to serve it just as much
as
it is there to serve other projects.
It is really dispiriting to see how certain people see Commonists as
some
sort of second-class contributors. That is wrong in every sense of the
word
-- it is an error and an injustice. -- Rama
On 20 June 2014 23:45, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 June 2014 22:28, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Blocking because people do not agree with you is very much
antagonising.
The intention is that Commons serves other projects so why is someone blocked when they make sure people take notice of what is happening at
Commons?
I fins it is rather offensive all these !@#$%%. It gives the
impression
that there is no conversation possible and that it has degenerated into a power play.
I've noted before: If Commons doesn't want to be regarded as a problem by other projects, it really needs to start behaving less like one.
- d.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
The image isnt directly lost to the other projects Commons has a policy of allowing temporary restoration for transfer to another project under fair use provisions,
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests#Temporary_unde...
as Gerard kind of identifies the issue is in the communication when deletions occurs to project whos contributors may not be active on Commons and are therefore unable to contribute to the deletion discussion process.
So the question then is how can we improve this communitcation between projects, my thoughts are;
- notification on article talk pages of articles where the media is in use, with a link to the discussion so they can participate - when a discussion is closed then a notification to the talk page giving the result and advising of options of delreview or transfer locally.
Personally I wouldnt like to see the communication of Commons activities put in the hands of a third project(WikiData) thats only going to make more points of arguments
On 22 June 2014 14:59, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Much of the "ordering around" is the consequence of LOSING the images when Commons decides to no longer make media files available. Even when a project allows for things like "fair use", the images are lost to them when Commons decides to remove access.
When the information is Wikidatified, the image in a project will still refer to that Wiki project and it WILL state that Commons has removed it from the media files that are generally available. It is then for the people to grant a local right to use that image.
In this way Commons does what it thinks best and the local projects gained the ability to do whatever fits their policies. Thanks, GerardM
On 22 June 2014 08:38, Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
It makes as much sense to say that Commons is a repository for other Wikimedia projects, than to say that Wikipedia is here to provide encyclopedic context to the media of Wikimedia Commons.
Where the real asymetry lies is in the feeling of superiority of certain users of others projects who see Commons as a "service project", and from there construct the notion that jackbooting in and ordering people around is remotely legitimate (and, to be practical, has a chance to work). There is a small number of users, always the same, who regularly attempt to push an agenda of lax copyright standards for Commons; when this fails they try to impose their proposed policies by drumming up support from people with vested interests from other projects, and notorious authoritarians. Has anybody ever seen an influx of Commonists flocking to wp.he to "treat it as a problem"?
That is where the real problem is. The issue is not hosting these media, they can be hosted locally on the projects that use them as "Free-but-not-on-Commons", or as "Fair use". The issue is beating Commons into submission, as an aim in itself. Well, pardon us if we object.
-- Rama
On 21 June 2014 19:19, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Rama,
Sorry, but you have it all wrong.
- Wikimedia is a repository for other Wikimedia projects. It is its
primary mission.
- But this does not make Commons contributors second-class. On the
opposite, importing and managing files for other projects make them first-class IMHO. ;oD
Yann
2014-06-21 10:04 GMT+05:30 Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com:
Commons is not there to serve other projects. Commons is a project of
its
own standing, and the other projects are there to serve it just as
much as
it is there to serve other projects.
It is really dispiriting to see how certain people see Commonists as
some
sort of second-class contributors. That is wrong in every sense of the
word
-- it is an error and an injustice. -- Rama
On 20 June 2014 23:45, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 June 2014 22:28, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Blocking because people do not agree with you is very much
antagonising.
The intention is that Commons serves other projects so why is someone blocked when they make sure people take notice of what is happening at
Commons?
I fins it is rather offensive all these !@#$%%. It gives the
impression
that there is no conversation possible and that it has degenerated into a power play.
I've noted before: If Commons doesn't want to be regarded as a problem by other projects, it really needs to start behaving less like one.
- d.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
You are reverting the burden of responsibility. If files are improperly uploaded on Commons, the issue is not Commons removing them, it is the uploading that causes the problem. Which in itself would not be a big deal -- you can politely ask a Commons admin to help you upload the file on your local Wikimedia project, and be done with it.
The problem becomes serious only because some people around here insist on shifting blame, starting political controversies out of these punctual issues, and have this ludicrous notion that they somehow can bring people in line by shouting and issuing vague and empty threats. Given the degree on autonomy that project have, and given the voluntary nature of our activities, this autoritarian approach will always yield more resistance and therefore cannot work. Therefore, be it only out of practical sense, I urge the concerned people to change their approach. -- Rama
On 22 June 2014 09:45, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
The image isnt directly lost to the other projects Commons has a policy of allowing temporary restoration for transfer to another project under fair use provisions,
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests#Temporary_unde...
as Gerard kind of identifies the issue is in the communication when deletions occurs to project whos contributors may not be active on Commons and are therefore unable to contribute to the deletion discussion process.
So the question then is how can we improve this communitcation between projects, my thoughts are;
- notification on article talk pages of articles where the media is in
use, with a link to the discussion so they can participate
- when a discussion is closed then a notification to the talk page
giving the result and advising of options of delreview or transfer locally.
Personally I wouldnt like to see the communication of Commons activities put in the hands of a third project(WikiData) thats only going to make more points of arguments
On 22 June 2014 14:59, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Much of the "ordering around" is the consequence of LOSING the images when Commons decides to no longer make media files available. Even when a project allows for things like "fair use", the images are lost to them when Commons decides to remove access.
When the information is Wikidatified, the image in a project will still refer to that Wiki project and it WILL state that Commons has removed it from the media files that are generally available. It is then for the people to grant a local right to use that image.
In this way Commons does what it thinks best and the local projects gained the ability to do whatever fits their policies. Thanks, GerardM
On 22 June 2014 08:38, Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
It makes as much sense to say that Commons is a repository for other Wikimedia projects, than to say that Wikipedia is here to provide encyclopedic context to the media of Wikimedia Commons.
Where the real asymetry lies is in the feeling of superiority of certain users of others projects who see Commons as a "service project", and from there construct the notion that jackbooting in and ordering people around is remotely legitimate (and, to be practical, has a chance to work). There is a small number of users, always the same, who regularly attempt to push an agenda of lax copyright standards for Commons; when this fails they try to impose their proposed policies by drumming up support from people with vested interests from other projects, and notorious authoritarians. Has anybody ever seen an influx of Commonists flocking to wp.he to "treat it as a problem"?
That is where the real problem is. The issue is not hosting these media, they can be hosted locally on the projects that use them as "Free-but-not-on-Commons", or as "Fair use". The issue is beating Commons into submission, as an aim in itself. Well, pardon us if we object.
-- Rama
On 21 June 2014 19:19, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Rama,
Sorry, but you have it all wrong.
- Wikimedia is a repository for other Wikimedia projects. It is its
primary mission.
- But this does not make Commons contributors second-class. On the
opposite, importing and managing files for other projects make them first-class IMHO. ;oD
Yann
2014-06-21 10:04 GMT+05:30 Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com:
Commons is not there to serve other projects. Commons is a project of
its
own standing, and the other projects are there to serve it just as
much as
it is there to serve other projects.
It is really dispiriting to see how certain people see Commonists as
some
sort of second-class contributors. That is wrong in every sense of
the word
-- it is an error and an injustice. -- Rama
On 20 June 2014 23:45, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 June 2014 22:28, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
> Blocking because people do not agree with you is very much
antagonising.
> The > intention is that Commons serves other projects so why is someone > blocked > when they make sure people take notice of what is happening at
Commons?
> I fins it is rather offensive all these !@#$%%. It gives the
impression
> that > there is no conversation possible and that it has degenerated into
a
> power > play.
I've noted before: If Commons doesn't want to be regarded as a
problem
by other projects, it really needs to start behaving less like one.
- d.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
-- GN. Vice President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
PS: my last rely to GerardM, not to Gnangarra.
On 22 June 2014 09:52, Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
You are reverting the burden of responsibility. If files are improperly uploaded on Commons, the issue is not Commons removing them, it is the uploading that causes the problem. Which in itself would not be a big deal -- you can politely ask a Commons admin to help you upload the file on your local Wikimedia project, and be done with it.
The problem becomes serious only because some people around here insist on shifting blame, starting political controversies out of these punctual issues, and have this ludicrous notion that they somehow can bring people in line by shouting and issuing vague and empty threats. Given the degree on autonomy that project have, and given the voluntary nature of our activities, this autoritarian approach will always yield more resistance and therefore cannot work. Therefore, be it only out of practical sense, I urge the concerned people to change their approach. -- Rama
On 22 June 2014 09:45, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
The image isnt directly lost to the other projects Commons has a policy of allowing temporary restoration for transfer to another project under fair use provisions,
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests#Temporary_unde...
as Gerard kind of identifies the issue is in the communication when deletions occurs to project whos contributors may not be active on Commons and are therefore unable to contribute to the deletion discussion process.
So the question then is how can we improve this communitcation between projects, my thoughts are;
- notification on article talk pages of articles where the media is
in use, with a link to the discussion so they can participate
- when a discussion is closed then a notification to the talk page
giving the result and advising of options of delreview or transfer locally.
Personally I wouldnt like to see the communication of Commons activities put in the hands of a third project(WikiData) thats only going to make more points of arguments
On 22 June 2014 14:59, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Much of the "ordering around" is the consequence of LOSING the images when Commons decides to no longer make media files available. Even when a project allows for things like "fair use", the images are lost to them when Commons decides to remove access.
When the information is Wikidatified, the image in a project will still refer to that Wiki project and it WILL state that Commons has removed it from the media files that are generally available. It is then for the people to grant a local right to use that image.
In this way Commons does what it thinks best and the local projects gained the ability to do whatever fits their policies. Thanks, GerardM
On 22 June 2014 08:38, Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
It makes as much sense to say that Commons is a repository for other Wikimedia projects, than to say that Wikipedia is here to provide encyclopedic context to the media of Wikimedia Commons.
Where the real asymetry lies is in the feeling of superiority of certain users of others projects who see Commons as a "service project", and from there construct the notion that jackbooting in and ordering people around is remotely legitimate (and, to be practical, has a chance to work). There is a small number of users, always the same, who regularly attempt to push an agenda of lax copyright standards for Commons; when this fails they try to impose their proposed policies by drumming up support from people with vested interests from other projects, and notorious authoritarians. Has anybody ever seen an influx of Commonists flocking to wp.he to "treat it as a problem"?
That is where the real problem is. The issue is not hosting these media, they can be hosted locally on the projects that use them as "Free-but-not-on-Commons", or as "Fair use". The issue is beating Commons into submission, as an aim in itself. Well, pardon us if we object.
-- Rama
On 21 June 2014 19:19, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Rama,
Sorry, but you have it all wrong.
- Wikimedia is a repository for other Wikimedia projects. It is its
primary mission.
- But this does not make Commons contributors second-class. On the
opposite, importing and managing files for other projects make them first-class IMHO. ;oD
Yann
2014-06-21 10:04 GMT+05:30 Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com:
Commons is not there to serve other projects. Commons is a project
of its
own standing, and the other projects are there to serve it just as
much as
it is there to serve other projects.
It is really dispiriting to see how certain people see Commonists as
some
sort of second-class contributors. That is wrong in every sense of
the word
-- it is an error and an injustice. -- Rama
On 20 June 2014 23:45, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote: > > On 20 June 2014 22:28, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > Blocking because people do not agree with you is very much
antagonising.
> > The > > intention is that Commons serves other projects so why is someone > > blocked > > when they make sure people take notice of what is happening at
Commons?
> > I fins it is rather offensive all these !@#$%%. It gives the
impression
> > that > > there is no conversation possible and that it has degenerated
into a
> > power > > play. > > > > I've noted before: If Commons doesn't want to be regarded as a
problem
> by other projects, it really needs to start behaving less like one. > > > - d. > > _______________________________________________ > Commons-l mailing list > Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
-- GN. Vice President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Hoi, The current thinking is that while Commons will be "Wikidatified", it will have its own database. Consequently even the STATEMENTS about any discussion (ie the results) will be local to Commons. The discussions will be in "Flow" or whatever. So no worries mate.
When a file is used, explicitly all the projects have a vested interest in a file. When a project has room for its own policies re media files, it makes sense to build on top of what has been decided on a global level.. IE there is a reason why it is no longer globally available and the local project decides on "fair use". This would be local information that is in addition to the information that is globally available.
Finally, the authorisation of usage is not low hanging fruit. The first order of business is to make sure that the meta data about media files becomes available in all our languages. This will enable the finding of images easier. Thanks, GerardM
On 22 June 2014 09:45, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
The image isnt directly lost to the other projects Commons has a policy of allowing temporary restoration for transfer to another project under fair use provisions,
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests#Temporary_unde...
as Gerard kind of identifies the issue is in the communication when deletions occurs to project whos contributors may not be active on Commons and are therefore unable to contribute to the deletion discussion process.
So the question then is how can we improve this communitcation between projects, my thoughts are;
- notification on article talk pages of articles where the media is in
use, with a link to the discussion so they can participate
- when a discussion is closed then a notification to the talk page
giving the result and advising of options of delreview or transfer locally.
Personally I wouldnt like to see the communication of Commons activities put in the hands of a third project(WikiData) thats only going to make more points of arguments
On 22 June 2014 14:59, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Much of the "ordering around" is the consequence of LOSING the images when Commons decides to no longer make media files available. Even when a project allows for things like "fair use", the images are lost to them when Commons decides to remove access.
When the information is Wikidatified, the image in a project will still refer to that Wiki project and it WILL state that Commons has removed it from the media files that are generally available. It is then for the people to grant a local right to use that image.
In this way Commons does what it thinks best and the local projects gained the ability to do whatever fits their policies. Thanks, GerardM
On 22 June 2014 08:38, Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
It makes as much sense to say that Commons is a repository for other Wikimedia projects, than to say that Wikipedia is here to provide encyclopedic context to the media of Wikimedia Commons.
Where the real asymetry lies is in the feeling of superiority of certain users of others projects who see Commons as a "service project", and from there construct the notion that jackbooting in and ordering people around is remotely legitimate (and, to be practical, has a chance to work). There is a small number of users, always the same, who regularly attempt to push an agenda of lax copyright standards for Commons; when this fails they try to impose their proposed policies by drumming up support from people with vested interests from other projects, and notorious authoritarians. Has anybody ever seen an influx of Commonists flocking to wp.he to "treat it as a problem"?
That is where the real problem is. The issue is not hosting these media, they can be hosted locally on the projects that use them as "Free-but-not-on-Commons", or as "Fair use". The issue is beating Commons into submission, as an aim in itself. Well, pardon us if we object.
-- Rama
On 21 June 2014 19:19, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Rama,
Sorry, but you have it all wrong.
- Wikimedia is a repository for other Wikimedia projects. It is its
primary mission.
- But this does not make Commons contributors second-class. On the
opposite, importing and managing files for other projects make them first-class IMHO. ;oD
Yann
2014-06-21 10:04 GMT+05:30 Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com:
Commons is not there to serve other projects. Commons is a project of
its
own standing, and the other projects are there to serve it just as
much as
it is there to serve other projects.
It is really dispiriting to see how certain people see Commonists as
some
sort of second-class contributors. That is wrong in every sense of
the word
-- it is an error and an injustice. -- Rama
On 20 June 2014 23:45, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 June 2014 22:28, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
> Blocking because people do not agree with you is very much
antagonising.
> The > intention is that Commons serves other projects so why is someone > blocked > when they make sure people take notice of what is happening at
Commons?
> I fins it is rather offensive all these !@#$%%. It gives the
impression
> that > there is no conversation possible and that it has degenerated into
a
> power > play.
I've noted before: If Commons doesn't want to be regarded as a
problem
by other projects, it really needs to start behaving less like one.
- d.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
-- GN. Vice President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 22 June 2014 07:59, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote: ...
When the information is Wikidatified, the image in a project will still refer to that Wiki project and it WILL state that Commons has removed it from the media files that are generally available. It is then for the people to grant a local right to use that image.
My understanding is that a "wikidatafication" of Commons is highly unlikely to happen in 2014, and no plan current gives a date for when this would be implemented.
Happy to be corrected, preferably by linking to a committed schedule.
Fae
Hoi, The planning and development for the "Wikidatification" for media files is already under way. Thanks, GerardM
On 22 June 2014 10:23, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 June 2014 07:59, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote: ...
When the information is Wikidatified, the image in a project will still refer to that Wiki project and it WILL state that Commons has removed it from the media files that are generally available. It is then for the
people
to grant a local right to use that image.
My understanding is that a "wikidatafication" of Commons is highly unlikely to happen in 2014, and no plan current gives a date for when this would be implemented.
Happy to be corrected, preferably by linking to a committed schedule.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Back to topic:
The purpose of commons is to be an *Exhibition *for public domain digital media, & the purpose of Wikipedia is to be an *Encyclopedia*. The problem arises when commons can't keep the donated digital media, because US laws prohibit it. This problem is enlarged because every Wikipedia regional site uses commons as a digital media library, and moves all the PD works to commons, which then deletes half of them due to copyright incompatibility.
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
It makes as much sense to say that Commons is a repository for other Wikimedia projects, than to say that Wikipedia is here to provide encyclopedic context to the media of Wikimedia Commons.
Where the real asymetry lies is in the feeling of superiority of certain users of others projects who see Commons as a "service project", and from there construct the notion that jackbooting in and ordering people around is remotely legitimate (and, to be practical, has a chance to work). There is a small number of users, always the same, who regularly attempt to push an agenda of lax copyright standards for Commons; when this fails they try to impose their proposed policies by drumming up support from people with vested interests from other projects, and notorious authoritarians. Has anybody ever seen an influx of Commonists flocking to wp.he to "treat it as a problem"?
That is where the real problem is. The issue is not hosting these media, they can be hosted locally on the projects that use them as "Free-but-not-on-Commons", or as "Fair use". The issue is beating Commons into submission, as an aim in itself. Well, pardon us if we object.
-- Rama
On 21 June 2014 19:19, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Rama,
Sorry, but you have it all wrong.
- Wikimedia is a repository for other Wikimedia projects. It is its
primary mission.
- But this does not make Commons contributors second-class. On the
opposite, importing and managing files for other projects make them first-class IMHO. ;oD
Yann
2014-06-21 10:04 GMT+05:30 Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com:
Commons is not there to serve other projects. Commons is a project of
its
own standing, and the other projects are there to serve it just as much
as
it is there to serve other projects.
It is really dispiriting to see how certain people see Commonists as
some
sort of second-class contributors. That is wrong in every sense of the
word
-- it is an error and an injustice. -- Rama
On 20 June 2014 23:45, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I've noted before: If Commons doesn't want to be regarded as a problem by other projects, it really needs to start behaving less like one.
- d.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 24 June 2014 15:24, Neel Gupta freedom.ne0@gmail.com wrote: ...
because US laws prohibit it. This problem is enlarged because every Wikipedia regional site uses commons as a digital media library, and moves all the PD works to commons, which then deletes half of them due to copyright incompatibility.
Citation needed for "half of them".
As a case study example of how conscientious volunteers are on Commons, please take a look at the deletion request below. This involved a large number of US public domain posters from the Library of Congress, some of which were assessed as having potential copyright claims in Germany, despite being 100 years old. These were carefully reviewed, death dates of artists checked where possible, and the files to be deleted moved (by a bot) to the English Wikipedia where the U.S. public domain status is sufficient for them stay available for use on Wikipedia. Note that some of these will be undeleted on Commons in a few years, once the 70 years after the artists death date is due. * DR: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_on_User:Ma... * Files moved to Wikipedia and so still available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:World_War_I_posters_in_the_Library_of_...
This case study example was not a result of lobbying off-wiki, this was Commons contributors doing their best to keep images available for reuse. Moving files off Commons to a project where they can stay available under weaker copyright policies is one of our best practices.
Fae
Hoi, HELL NO
Commons is not an exhibition.. that implies that things can be found by people looking for "i. Anyway according to the main page "a database of 21,617,796 freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute". Thanks, GerardM
On 24 June 2014 16:24, Neel Gupta freedom.ne0@gmail.com wrote:
Back to topic:
The purpose of commons is to be an *Exhibition *for public domain digital media, & the purpose of Wikipedia is to be an *Encyclopedia*. The problem arises when commons can't keep the donated digital media, because US laws prohibit it. This problem is enlarged because every Wikipedia regional site uses commons as a digital media library, and moves all the PD works to commons, which then deletes half of them due to copyright incompatibility.
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
It makes as much sense to say that Commons is a repository for other Wikimedia projects, than to say that Wikipedia is here to provide encyclopedic context to the media of Wikimedia Commons.
Where the real asymetry lies is in the feeling of superiority of certain users of others projects who see Commons as a "service project", and from there construct the notion that jackbooting in and ordering people around is remotely legitimate (and, to be practical, has a chance to work). There is a small number of users, always the same, who regularly attempt to push an agenda of lax copyright standards for Commons; when this fails they try to impose their proposed policies by drumming up support from people with vested interests from other projects, and notorious authoritarians. Has anybody ever seen an influx of Commonists flocking to wp.he to "treat it as a problem"?
That is where the real problem is. The issue is not hosting these media, they can be hosted locally on the projects that use them as "Free-but-not-on-Commons", or as "Fair use". The issue is beating Commons into submission, as an aim in itself. Well, pardon us if we object.
-- Rama
On 21 June 2014 19:19, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Rama,
Sorry, but you have it all wrong.
- Wikimedia is a repository for other Wikimedia projects. It is its
primary mission.
- But this does not make Commons contributors second-class. On the
opposite, importing and managing files for other projects make them first-class IMHO. ;oD
Yann
2014-06-21 10:04 GMT+05:30 Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com:
Commons is not there to serve other projects. Commons is a project of
its
own standing, and the other projects are there to serve it just as
much as
it is there to serve other projects.
It is really dispiriting to see how certain people see Commonists as
some
sort of second-class contributors. That is wrong in every sense of the
word
-- it is an error and an injustice. -- Rama
On 20 June 2014 23:45, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I've noted before: If Commons doesn't want to be regarded as a problem by other projects, it really needs to start behaving less like one.
- d.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
From https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope
"Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content (images, sound and video clips) to all. It acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation,..."
1. "Media file repository" (primary) comes before "projects of the Wikimedia Foundation" (secondary) 2. It means other projects can use files form Commons. Nowhere it states that Commons has to take whatever Wikipedias feel like storing there.
That said, it does feel like some people are using the very fine toothbrush to find and delete images that are not 100% obviously allowed.
Magnus
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, HELL NO
Commons is not an exhibition.. that implies that things can be found by people looking for "i. Anyway according to the main page "a database of 21,617,796 freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute". Thanks, GerardM
On 24 June 2014 16:24, Neel Gupta freedom.ne0@gmail.com wrote:
Back to topic:
The purpose of commons is to be an *Exhibition *for public domain digital media, & the purpose of Wikipedia is to be an *Encyclopedia*. The problem arises when commons can't keep the donated digital media, because US laws prohibit it. This problem is enlarged because every Wikipedia regional site uses commons as a digital media library, and moves all the PD works to commons, which then deletes half of them due to copyright incompatibility.
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
It makes as much sense to say that Commons is a repository for other Wikimedia projects, than to say that Wikipedia is here to provide encyclopedic context to the media of Wikimedia Commons.
Where the real asymetry lies is in the feeling of superiority of certain users of others projects who see Commons as a "service project", and from there construct the notion that jackbooting in and ordering people around is remotely legitimate (and, to be practical, has a chance to work). There is a small number of users, always the same, who regularly attempt to push an agenda of lax copyright standards for Commons; when this fails they try to impose their proposed policies by drumming up support from people with vested interests from other projects, and notorious authoritarians. Has anybody ever seen an influx of Commonists flocking to wp.he to "treat it as a problem"?
That is where the real problem is. The issue is not hosting these media, they can be hosted locally on the projects that use them as "Free-but-not-on-Commons", or as "Fair use". The issue is beating Commons into submission, as an aim in itself. Well, pardon us if we object.
-- Rama
On 21 June 2014 19:19, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Rama,
Sorry, but you have it all wrong.
- Wikimedia is a repository for other Wikimedia projects. It is its
primary mission.
- But this does not make Commons contributors second-class. On the
opposite, importing and managing files for other projects make them first-class IMHO. ;oD
Yann
2014-06-21 10:04 GMT+05:30 Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com:
Commons is not there to serve other projects. Commons is a project of
its
own standing, and the other projects are there to serve it just as
much as
it is there to serve other projects.
It is really dispiriting to see how certain people see Commonists as
some
sort of second-class contributors. That is wrong in every sense of
the word
-- it is an error and an injustice. -- Rama
On 20 June 2014 23:45, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I've noted before: If Commons doesn't want to be regarded as a
problem
by other projects, it really needs to start behaving less like one.
- d.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014, Magnus Manske wrote:
- It means other projects can use files form Commons. Nowhere it states
that Commons has to take whatever Wikipedias feel like storing there.
That said, it does feel like some people are using the very fine toothbrush to find and delete images that are not 100% obviously allowed.
The problem is that people from other projects are uploading files in a good faith understanding that Commons will look after them, as they work on the principle that unless something is provably unfree then it is acceptable to host.
Unfortunately, Commons actually operates on the principle that if there a possibility that someone somewhere may in future claim that a file is unfree, with or without proof, and with or without merit to the claim, then it cannot be held unless we have proof (of a higher standard than required by professional copyright lawyers) that the file is completely free in the US and the source country, now and at all conceivable future times, then it must be deleted. There is also a great reluctance to engage with anyone who has a lesser understanding of copyright than the self-educated and self-appointed experts on Commons, and with anyone who has a lesser grasp of English than they do. There is an equal reluctance to let anyone using the images know that there are questions about a file.
Until this attitude changes, Commons is not and cannot be a reliable host of media for other projects, and usage as such must be deprecated and an alternative, reliable service project initiated.
---- Chris McKenna
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery
On 24 June 2014 17:25, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
The problem is that people from other projects are uploading files in a good faith understanding that Commons will look after them, as they work on the principle that unless something is provably unfree then it is acceptable to host. Unfortunately, Commons actually operates on the principle that if there a possibility that someone somewhere may in future claim that a file is unfree, with or without proof, and with or without merit to the claim, then it cannot be held unless we have proof (of a higher standard than required by professional copyright lawyers) that the file is completely free in the US and the source country, now and at all conceivable future times, then it must be deleted. There is also a great reluctance to engage with anyone who has a lesser understanding of copyright than the self-educated and self-appointed experts on Commons, and with anyone who has a lesser grasp of English than they do. There is an equal reluctance to let anyone using the images know that there are questions about a file. Until this attitude changes, Commons is not and cannot be a reliable host of media for other projects, and usage as such must be deprecated and an alternative, reliable service project initiated.
+1. Commons is behaving like damage that needs to be routed around.
- d.
Commons isnt damaged that needs to be routed around, the laws are an ass and problems will follow where ever, except to maybe a handful of countries who don't give a fluffy duck about copyright.
the problem is communication between projects, thats fixable
On 25 June 2014 00:29, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 June 2014 17:25, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
The problem is that people from other projects are uploading files in a
good
faith understanding that Commons will look after them, as they work on
the
principle that unless something is provably unfree then it is acceptable
to
host. Unfortunately, Commons actually operates on the principle that if there a possibility that someone somewhere may in future claim that a file is unfree, with or without proof, and with or without merit to the claim,
then
it cannot be held unless we have proof (of a higher standard than
required
by professional copyright lawyers) that the file is completely free in
the
US and the source country, now and at all conceivable future times, then
it
must be deleted. There is also a great reluctance to engage with anyone
who
has a lesser understanding of copyright than the self-educated and self-appointed experts on Commons, and with anyone who has a lesser
grasp of
English than they do. There is an equal reluctance to let anyone using
the
images know that there are questions about a file. Until this attitude changes, Commons is not and cannot be a reliable
host of
media for other projects, and usage as such must be deprecated and an alternative, reliable service project initiated.
+1. Commons is behaving like damage that needs to be routed around.
- d.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
The question of deleted images on Commons is exactly isomorphic to the various Wikipedias refusing to host copy-pasted material taken from Cthulhu knows where. And I have never heard anybody suggest that Wikipedia would be more "reliable" is it accepted such material. I fail to see why it should be otherwise when Commons is concerned.
Oh and David Gerard, would you please stop your two-pence Darth Vader act? "Ksshhh Ksshhh, doesn't want to be regarded as a problem, Kssshhh, it needs to behave less like one, Kssshhh ksshhh". Seriously, it's embarassing. -- Rama
On 24 June 2014 18:36, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
Commons isnt damaged that needs to be routed around, the laws are an ass and problems will follow where ever, except to maybe a handful of countries who don't give a fluffy duck about copyright.
the problem is communication between projects, thats fixable
On 25 June 2014 00:29, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 June 2014 17:25, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
The problem is that people from other projects are uploading files in a
good
faith understanding that Commons will look after them, as they work on
the
principle that unless something is provably unfree then it is
acceptable to
host. Unfortunately, Commons actually operates on the principle that if there
a
possibility that someone somewhere may in future claim that a file is unfree, with or without proof, and with or without merit to the claim,
then
it cannot be held unless we have proof (of a higher standard than
required
by professional copyright lawyers) that the file is completely free in
the
US and the source country, now and at all conceivable future times,
then it
must be deleted. There is also a great reluctance to engage with anyone
who
has a lesser understanding of copyright than the self-educated and self-appointed experts on Commons, and with anyone who has a lesser
grasp of
English than they do. There is an equal reluctance to let anyone using
the
images know that there are questions about a file. Until this attitude changes, Commons is not and cannot be a reliable
host of
media for other projects, and usage as such must be deprecated and an alternative, reliable service project initiated.
+1. Commons is behaving like damage that needs to be routed around.
- d.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
-- GN. Vice President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 24 June 2014 20:24, Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
Oh and David Gerard, would you please stop your two-pence Darth Vader act? "Ksshhh Ksshhh, doesn't want to be regarded as a problem, Kssshhh, it needs to behave less like one, Kssshhh ksshhh". Seriously, it's embarassing.
Rather than making personal attacks, please explain your understanding of what the actual issue is here, and why it keeps coming up and coming up.
- d.
On 24 June 2014 20:43, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Rather than making personal attacks, please explain your understanding of what the actual issue is here, and why it keeps coming up and coming up.
There are in fact 3 issues here.
1)Argentinian copyright resulting in works that are PD in Argentina and countries that follow the rule of the shorter term with respect to Argentina
This one keeps coming up because the US and quite a few other countries don't follow the rule of the shorter term and even those that do don't follow it consistently.
2)Israeli government images that are PD in Israel but have an unclear status elsewhere. Think crown copyright expired.
This one keeps communing up since for whatever reason the Israeli community is unable to ask their government if the government regards the works as being PD globally. The Brits managed this years ago
3)Private Israeli images which are under life+50 terms.
This one doesn't keep coming up since the number of post 1948 images who's authors died prior to 1964 is fairly small. I expect this an similar issues to become a major problem around 2030 assuming no further changes in copyright law.
There could be other similar questions, for instance the issue of what "anonymous work" means (a naive understanding will equate that to not knowing who the author is, which is wrong, there have been lawsuits brought by right holders on such matters). In general, copyright law is complicated, and international copyright law is very complicated. In some cases there will be material deleted, and it will be frustrating, and I sympathise, but that's life for you.
The issue keeps coming up because of a culture of seeing Commons as a second-rate project subordinated to the interests of other projects, and culture of forum shopping when not satisfied with the answers received in the usual fora on Commons. It will stop occurring when everybody will have accepted that it is not Commons that causes these questions, and that a certain amount of frustration is unavoidable given the context. -- Rama
On 24 June 2014 22:44, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 June 2014 20:43, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Rather than making personal attacks, please explain your understanding of what the actual issue is here, and why it keeps coming up and coming up.
There are in fact 3 issues here.
1)Argentinian copyright resulting in works that are PD in Argentina and countries that follow the rule of the shorter term with respect to Argentina
This one keeps coming up because the US and quite a few other countries don't follow the rule of the shorter term and even those that do don't follow it consistently.
2)Israeli government images that are PD in Israel but have an unclear status elsewhere. Think crown copyright expired.
This one keeps communing up since for whatever reason the Israeli community is unable to ask their government if the government regards the works as being PD globally. The Brits managed this years ago
3)Private Israeli images which are under life+50 terms.
This one doesn't keep coming up since the number of post 1948 images who's authors died prior to 1964 is fairly small. I expect this an similar issues to become a major problem around 2030 assuming no further changes in copyright law.
-- geni
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Also, there is the reluctance of commons administrators to host media attributed to other entities like, God, Earth, Spirit, Church, Temple, etc. see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/201...
This issue keeps comming up because Commons is seen and prides itself in hosting media files for all other Wikimedia projects. There wouldn't be any issue if every Wikimedia project hosted it's own media files, rather than moving them to commons.
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
There could be other similar questions, for instance the issue of what "anonymous work" means (a naive understanding will equate that to not knowing who the author is, which is wrong, there have been lawsuits brought by right holders on such matters). In general, copyright law is complicated, and international copyright law is very complicated. In some cases there will be material deleted, and it will be frustrating, and I sympathise, but that's life for you.
The issue keeps coming up because of a culture of seeing Commons as a second-rate project subordinated to the interests of other projects, and culture of forum shopping when not satisfied with the answers received in the usual fora on Commons. It will stop occurring when everybody will have accepted that it is not Commons that causes these questions, and that a certain amount of frustration is unavoidable given the context. -- Rama
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 26 June 2014 05:31, Neel Gupta freedom.ne0@gmail.com wrote:
Also, there is the reluctance of commons administrators to host media attributed to other entities like, God, Earth, Spirit, Church, Temple, etc. see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/201...
This issue keeps comming up because Commons is seen and prides itself in hosting media files for all other Wikimedia projects. There wouldn't be any issue if every Wikimedia project hosted it's own media files, rather than moving them to commons.
There is no reluctance, all that is needed is a credible release statement from the copyright holder. If no human creativity was involved, then there can be no copyright on the works, however one rarely sees publishers who actually do claim to be publishing the 'word of God', or similar, in a rush to legally waive all copyright for their publications.
One can starkly see this apparent double standard when it comes to the writings (or "teachings") of spiritualists who claim that their words (or recorded performances) are directly controlled by entities such as the long dead, or extra-terrestrial "masters", for which there can be no legal copyright, were they to instruct their lawyers to take the same claims as literally true; it seems odd that their publishers still claim copyright and are keen to take money on behalf of named copyright holders that claim to not own the very same works.
In these situations it would be unfair to expect Commons administrators to ignore copyright claims of publishers, when the courts do not.
Fae
Hoi, The operational word in your mail is "copyright holder". When the party or parties who you INSIST have a copyright deny that they do like the Israeli government does, your whole argument becomes a puddle. Thanks, GerardM
On 26 June 2014 07:21, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 June 2014 05:31, Neel Gupta freedom.ne0@gmail.com wrote:
Also, there is the reluctance of commons administrators to host media attributed to other entities like, God, Earth, Spirit, Church, Temple,
etc.
see
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/201...
This issue keeps comming up because Commons is seen and prides itself in hosting media files for all other Wikimedia projects. There wouldn't be
any
issue if every Wikimedia project hosted it's own media files, rather than moving them to commons.
There is no reluctance, all that is needed is a credible release statement from the copyright holder. If no human creativity was involved, then there can be no copyright on the works, however one rarely sees publishers who actually do claim to be publishing the 'word of God', or similar, in a rush to legally waive all copyright for their publications.
One can starkly see this apparent double standard when it comes to the writings (or "teachings") of spiritualists who claim that their words (or recorded performances) are directly controlled by entities such as the long dead, or extra-terrestrial "masters", for which there can be no legal copyright, were they to instruct their lawyers to take the same claims as literally true; it seems odd that their publishers still claim copyright and are keen to take money on behalf of named copyright holders that claim to not own the very same works.
In these situations it would be unfair to expect Commons administrators to ignore copyright claims of publishers, when the courts do not.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 26 June 2014 07:02, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The operational word in your mail is "copyright holder". When the party or parties who you INSIST have a copyright deny that they do like the Israeli government does, your whole argument becomes a puddle. Thanks, GerardM
Gerard,
I have said nothing about the Israeli government, neither has anyone else in this thread.
Your chosen wording ("you INSIST") makes it appear like I have said something, somewhere, against the Israeli government. Please provide a diff or kindly stop trolling by posting chaff like this. You have a significant track record over the last two months of making completely unnecessary aggressive personal comments about me on Wikimedia-L, and now you have followed me to this list. Stop.
Fae
Hoi, No Fae, your argument is centred around the notion that copyrights exist even when they do not. The Israeli example is well known in this list and the Israeli government insists that it claims to copyright.
Your argument fails as copyright is claimed to exist by the insistence on providing a license when the basic fact of that copyright is denied by the "owner" of that copyright.. In the case of the Israeli government it is a law defining body who says so. Thanks, GerardM
On 26 June 2014 10:42, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 June 2014 07:02, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The operational word in your mail is "copyright holder". When the party
or
parties who you INSIST have a copyright deny that they do like the
Israeli
government does, your whole argument becomes a puddle. Thanks, GerardM
Gerard,
I have said nothing about the Israeli government, neither has anyone else in this thread.
Your chosen wording ("you INSIST") makes it appear like I have said something, somewhere, against the Israeli government. Please provide a diff or kindly stop trolling by posting chaff like this. You have a significant track record over the last two months of making completely unnecessary aggressive personal comments about me on Wikimedia-L, and now you have followed me to this list. Stop.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 26 June 2014 07:02, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The operational word in your mail is "copyright holder". When the party or parties who you INSIST have a copyright deny that they do like the Israeli government does, your whole argument becomes a puddle. Thanks, GerardM
The Israeli government has denied no such thing. All it has stated is that it doesn't hold the copyrights within Israel. We have no documentation of it expressing a position on its overseas copyrights. Is there any part of this you don't understand?
Hoi, I heard it the first time and it does not hold water. For me this argument is in between splitting hairs and sophistry. Thanks, GerardM
On 26 June 2014 12:11, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 June 2014 07:02, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The operational word in your mail is "copyright holder". When the party or parties who you INSIST have a copyright deny that they do like the Israeli government does, your whole argument becomes a puddle. Thanks, GerardM
The Israeli government has denied no such thing. All it has stated is that it doesn't hold the copyrights within Israel. We have no documentation of it expressing a position on its overseas copyrights. Is there any part of this you don't understand?
-- geni
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 26 June 2014 11:22, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I heard it the first time and it does not hold water. For me this argument is in between splitting hairs and sophistry. Thanks, GerardM
Can you provide any statute or caselaw to support that assertion?
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014, geni wrote:
On 26 June 2014 11:22, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I heard it the first time and it does not hold water. For me this argument is in between splitting hairs and sophistry. Thanks, GerardM
Can you provide any statute or caselaw to support that assertion?
-- geni
THIS is the crux of the issue. You are insisting on statue or caselaw to prove that these files are Free beyond ALL conceivable doubt because the copyright outside Israel is legally ambiguous but in practice any copyright that may or may not exist is extremely unlikely to be enforced.
The Wikimedia Foundation lawyers have said that it is OK to host, and the majority of people complaining about Commons want Commons to host, files that are free beyond reasonable doubt unless and until a _valid_ takedown request is received that removes the doubt.
In the Israeli example, the positions can be summed up as: Israeli government: We don't hold copyright on these images Commons admins: You haven't explicitly disclaimed copyright outside Israel, we demand that you do. Reasonable people: Only the copyright holder can disclaim copyright, the Israeli government say they do not hold copyright and so cannot disclaim it. Commons admins: You're wrong, now go away and get teh Israli government to disclaim the copyright they say they don't have. Reasonable people: But they can't! Commons admins: We say they can, so they must be able to. *Repeat*
---- Chris McKenna
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery
On 26 June 2014 12:22, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
THIS is the crux of the issue. You are insisting on statue or caselaw to prove that these files are Free beyond ALL conceivable doubt because the copyright outside Israel is legally ambiguous but in practice any copyright that may or may not exist is extremely unlikely to be enforced.
You? Geni is not King/Queen of Commons.
The Wikimedia Foundation lawyers have said that it is OK to host, and the
No. Please supply a link to WMF Legal's published statement saying this.
majority of people complaining about Commons want Commons to host, files that are free beyond reasonable doubt unless and until a _valid_ takedown request is received that removes the doubt.
There was an RFC, this was not the closing statement, in fact nothing like it.
Commons is not ruled by "people complaining about Commons", this would not be consensus, it would be a complainer-ocracy that would certainly run the project straight into the ground, probably being led by the "hasten the day" lobbyists.
In the Israeli example, the positions can be summed up as: Israeli government: We don't hold copyright on these images Commons admins: You haven't explicitly disclaimed copyright outside Israel, we demand that you do.
No, "Commons admins" have made no such statement.
Reasonable people: Only the copyright holder can disclaim copyright, the Israeli government say they do not hold copyright and so cannot disclaim it. Commons admins: You're wrong, now go away and get teh Israli government to disclaim the copyright they say they don't have. Reasonable people: But they can't! Commons admins: We say they can, so they must be able to. *Repeat*
No, "Reasonable people" is a bizarre polarizing statement. It divides the world into the "right thinking good people" and makes everyone else unreasonable Satanists, or something similar.
I don't see how fiction that seems intended to polarize or unfairly parody the entire Commons community is a good use of this list.
Fae
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 June 2014 12:22, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
THIS is the crux of the issue. You are insisting on statue or caselaw to prove that these files are Free beyond ALL conceivable doubt because the copyright outside Israel is legally ambiguous but in practice any
copyright
that may or may not exist is extremely unlikely to be enforced.
You? Geni is not King/Queen of Commons.
The Wikimedia Foundation lawyers have said that it is OK to host, and the
No. Please supply a link to WMF Legal's published statement saying this.
majority of people complaining about Commons want Commons to host, files that are free beyond reasonable doubt unless and until a _valid_ takedown request is received that removes the doubt.
There was an RFC, this was not the closing statement, in fact nothing like it.
Commons is not ruled by "people complaining about Commons", this would not be consensus, it would be a complainer-ocracy that would certainly run the project straight into the ground, probably being led by the "hasten the day" lobbyists.
In the Israeli example, the positions can be summed up as: Israeli government: We don't hold copyright on these images Commons admins: You haven't explicitly disclaimed copyright outside
Israel,
we demand that you do.
No, "Commons admins" have made no such statement.
Reasonable people: Only the copyright holder can disclaim copyright, the Israeli government say they do not hold copyright and so cannot disclaim
it.
Commons admins: You're wrong, now go away and get teh Israli government
to
disclaim the copyright they say they don't have. Reasonable people: But they can't! Commons admins: We say they can, so they must be able to. *Repeat*
No, "Reasonable people" is a bizarre polarizing statement. It divides the world into the "right thinking good people" and makes everyone else unreasonable Satanists, or something similar.
I don't see how fiction that seems intended to polarize or unfairly parody the entire Commons community is a good use of this list.
Fae
If anyone is misusing the list today, Fae.... It's not appropriate to accuse Gerard of "following" you to Commons, nor to accuse him of trolling or of making accusations (or "slurs") he has not made. Nor is it polite to describe widely offered criticism as fiction, parody or bizarre. It'd be great if you could participate in the discussion without resorting to attacking other posters.
I'm a it.wikisource user, and I followed and read this interesting talk; Commons data repository is extremely important in our work roadmap as you know. I reported too this talk into our village pump. In brief: the more other projects users are encouraged/forced to use Commons as the main/exclusive media repository, the more Commons has to be seen as a service for other projects, and local upload can be discouraged; the more Commons is considered an indipendent project, the more users should be encouraged to choose freely between Commons or local upload.
Alex
2014-06-26 16:15 GMT+02:00 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 June 2014 12:22, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
THIS is the crux of the issue. You are insisting on statue or caselaw to prove that these files are Free beyond ALL conceivable doubt because the copyright outside Israel is legally ambiguous but in practice any
copyright
that may or may not exist is extremely unlikely to be enforced.
You? Geni is not King/Queen of Commons.
The Wikimedia Foundation lawyers have said that it is OK to host, and
the
No. Please supply a link to WMF Legal's published statement saying this.
majority of people complaining about Commons want Commons to host, files that are free beyond reasonable doubt unless and until a _valid_
takedown
request is received that removes the doubt.
There was an RFC, this was not the closing statement, in fact nothing like it.
Commons is not ruled by "people complaining about Commons", this would not be consensus, it would be a complainer-ocracy that would certainly run the project straight into the ground, probably being led by the "hasten the day" lobbyists.
In the Israeli example, the positions can be summed up as: Israeli government: We don't hold copyright on these images Commons admins: You haven't explicitly disclaimed copyright outside
Israel,
we demand that you do.
No, "Commons admins" have made no such statement.
Reasonable people: Only the copyright holder can disclaim copyright, the Israeli government say they do not hold copyright and so cannot
disclaim it.
Commons admins: You're wrong, now go away and get teh Israli government
to
disclaim the copyright they say they don't have. Reasonable people: But they can't! Commons admins: We say they can, so they must be able to. *Repeat*
No, "Reasonable people" is a bizarre polarizing statement. It divides the world into the "right thinking good people" and makes everyone else unreasonable Satanists, or something similar.
I don't see how fiction that seems intended to polarize or unfairly parody the entire Commons community is a good use of this list.
Fae
If anyone is misusing the list today, Fae.... It's not appropriate to accuse Gerard of "following" you to Commons, nor to accuse him of trolling or of making accusations (or "slurs") he has not made. Nor is it polite to describe widely offered criticism as fiction, parody or bizarre. It'd be great if you could participate in the discussion without resorting to attacking other posters.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 26 June 2014 15:15, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
If anyone is misusing the list today, Fae.... It's not appropriate to accuse Gerard of "following" you to Commons, nor to accuse him of trolling or of making accusations (or "slurs") he has not made. Nor is it polite to describe widely offered criticism as fiction, parody or bizarre. It'd be great if you could participate in the discussion without resorting to attacking other posters.
Hi Nathan,
Interesting feedback, thanks. Certainly it was inappropriate to make an accusation that Gerard followed me to Commons. It probably is a coincidence that this is the first time I can recall that he has ever replied to an email of mine on this list.
I am unsure how to interpret your feedback that I am misusing this list, against the following, could you explain a little further please?
1. "The Wikimedia Foundation lawyers have said that it is OK to host" - I would really appreciate a link to this legal advice, as it solves the problem entirely, as we can use it were there any future legal case. A similar claim was made during the RFC but nobody was able to supply a link to evidence at that time.
2. " Commons admins: You're wrong, now go away and get teh Israli government to disclaim the copyright they say they don't have. Reasonable people: But they can't!" - If this was not intended to be a parody, could someone provide a link to these statements, or where it was agreed that Commons admins are not reasonable people.
3. "When the party or parties who you INSIST have a copyright deny that they do like the Israeli government does, your whole argument becomes a puddle." - Could someone provide a link to where I "insisted" in this way?
4. "I have said nothing about the Israeli government, neither has anyone else in this thread." - I may have missed something, but my statement here was true from what I can see of posts on this thread.
Thanks, Fae
On 26 June 2014 12:22, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
THIS is the crux of the issue. You are insisting on statue or caselaw to prove that these files are Free beyond ALL conceivable doubt because the copyright outside Israel is legally ambiguous but in practice any copyright that may or may not exist is extremely unlikely to be enforced.
The Wikimedia Foundation lawyers have said that it is OK to host, and the majority of people complaining about Commons want Commons to host, files that are free beyond reasonable doubt unless and until a _valid_ takedown request is received that removes the doubt.
In the Israeli example, the positions can be summed up as: Israeli government: We don't hold copyright on these images Commons admins: You haven't explicitly disclaimed copyright outside Israel, we demand that you do. Reasonable people: Only the copyright holder can disclaim copyright, the Israeli government say they do not hold copyright and so cannot disclaim it. Commons admins: You're wrong, now go away and get teh Israli government to disclaim the copyright they say they don't have. Reasonable people: But they can't! Commons admins: We say they can, so they must be able to. *Repeat*
The obvious problem with the ah "Reasonable people's" argument is that the British government has done exactly that so "can't" clearly isn't correct. That aside the position is based on a falsehood. There is no real question that the isreali does in fact hold certian copyrights in countries that don't follow the rule of the shorter term. Claiming otherwise mostly indicates a lack of familularity with copyright. What we need is a statement that they either surrender those copyrights or that they won't enforce them.
Personally I think the problem is that the Israeli government hasn't been asked (I'm more than happy to provide help with the wording of the question if that's the problem for our Israeli wikipedians) but given the complexity of Israeli politics it would be impossible to rule out other possibilities until the question is asked.
On 26 June 2014 11:11, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The Israeli government has denied no such thing. All it has stated is that it doesn't hold the copyrights within Israel. We have no documentation of it expressing a position on its overseas copyrights. Is there any part of this you don't understand?
No doubt Gerard understands what he is doing perfectly well. Trolling.
Gerard, please provide a diff for your claim against me that I have said something, somewhere, against the Israeli government. It is highly offensive, and in my view would be an excellent rationale for list moderation due to it being a public and personal slur against another contributor.
Fae
Hoi Fae, Please indicate where I claim that you have said anything against the Israeli government. I have not as far as I am aware.
You assume that I have something against you personally. I do not know you except for the arguments that you use. I observe that you easily find offence and it is becoming obvious that you believe that I try to victimise you.. Now why would I? What is there for me to gain? I try and stay on subject and argue my points. Some of the points I made, particularly the ones where I pointed out to you that you do not move on and away from your former office I will agree that they address you personally. However, I do argue that you can and should do better .. I even pointed out how you could do that and why.
Fae, please look at the way you have been arguing. You have indicated several times now that you want me to shut up. Going so far that I should not come back unless I came up with a project showing and proving my point.. I did exactly that. Where you assume that I am trolling and victimising you, I would like for you to consider your behaviour towards me. Thanks, GerardM
On 26 June 2014 12:29, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 June 2014 11:11, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The Israeli government has denied no such thing. All it has stated is
that
it doesn't hold the copyrights within Israel. We have no documentation
of it
expressing a position on its overseas copyrights. Is there any part of
this
you don't understand?
No doubt Gerard understands what he is doing perfectly well. Trolling.
Gerard, please provide a diff for your claim against me that I have said something, somewhere, against the Israeli government. It is highly offensive, and in my view would be an excellent rationale for list moderation due to it being a public and personal slur against another contributor.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 3:11 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 June 2014 07:02, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The operational word in your mail is "copyright holder". When the party or parties who you INSIST have a copyright deny that they do like the Israeli government does, your whole argument becomes a puddle. Thanks, GerardM
The Israeli government has denied no such thing. All it has stated is that it doesn't hold the copyrights within Israel. We have no documentation of it expressing a position on its overseas copyrights. Is there any part of this you don't understand?
OK, both sides of this debate are now entirely fictional! The Israeli government has not disclaimed any copyrights on these images. The images are public domain in Israel and copyrighted in US. As to whether Israel would choose to assert its US copyrights, no one knows besides the government of Israel. Perhaps someone should ask them, instead of everyone presuming to speak for them.
Ryan Kaldari
I know this may sound like a rather silly question to ask but arent all WMF projects regardless of language hosted on US servers and therefore subject to US copyright
On 27 June 2014 07:30, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 3:11 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 June 2014 07:02, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The operational word in your mail is "copyright holder". When the party or parties who you INSIST have a copyright deny that they do like the Israeli government does, your whole argument becomes a puddle. Thanks, GerardM
The Israeli government has denied no such thing. All it has stated is that it doesn't hold the copyrights within Israel. We have no documentation of it expressing a position on its overseas copyrights. Is there any part of this you don't understand?
OK, both sides of this debate are now entirely fictional! The Israeli government has not disclaimed any copyrights on these images. The images are public domain in Israel and copyrighted in US. As to whether Israel would choose to assert its US copyrights, no one knows besides the government of Israel. Perhaps someone should ask them, instead of everyone presuming to speak for them.
Ryan Kaldari
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
I know this may sound like a rather silly question to ask but arent all WMF projects regardless of language hosted on US servers and therefore subject to US copyright
Haha, yes, of course they are! The rationale for demanding to go back to the dark ages of local file hosting is the hope that copyright laws would be _ignored_ on those projects. This sounds like a pipe dream to me. :-) Daniel
Which is why I suggested... "...At this point, I think it would be a good idea to start a discussion on whether to move the Wikimedia servers out of US jurisdiction."
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
I know this may sound like a rather silly question to ask but arent all WMF projects regardless of language hosted on US servers and therefore subject to US copyright
-- GN. Vice President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Neel Gupta freedom.ne0@gmail.com wrote:
Which is why I suggested...
"...At this point, I think it would be a good idea to start a discussion on whether to move the Wikimedia servers out of US jurisdiction."
That discussion already came and went: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Israel/Letter_to_the_BoT_regarding... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Argentina/Open_letter_regarding_UR... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/URAA_Statement
Ryan Kaldari
Hoi, Thanks for using understandable English. GerardM
On 24 June 2014 21:24, Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
The question of deleted images on Commons is exactly isomorphic to the various Wikipedias refusing to host copy-pasted material taken from Cthulhu knows where. And I have never heard anybody suggest that Wikipedia would be more "reliable" is it accepted such material. I fail to see why it should be otherwise when Commons is concerned.
Oh and David Gerard, would you please stop your two-pence Darth Vader act? "Ksshhh Ksshhh, doesn't want to be regarded as a problem, Kssshhh, it needs to behave less like one, Kssshhh ksshhh". Seriously, it's embarassing. -- Rama
On 24 June 2014 18:36, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
Commons isnt damaged that needs to be routed around, the laws are an ass and problems will follow where ever, except to maybe a handful of countries who don't give a fluffy duck about copyright.
the problem is communication between projects, thats fixable
On 25 June 2014 00:29, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 June 2014 17:25, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
The problem is that people from other projects are uploading files in
a good
faith understanding that Commons will look after them, as they work on
the
principle that unless something is provably unfree then it is
acceptable to
host. Unfortunately, Commons actually operates on the principle that if
there a
possibility that someone somewhere may in future claim that a file is unfree, with or without proof, and with or without merit to the claim,
then
it cannot be held unless we have proof (of a higher standard than
required
by professional copyright lawyers) that the file is completely free in
the
US and the source country, now and at all conceivable future times,
then it
must be deleted. There is also a great reluctance to engage with
anyone who
has a lesser understanding of copyright than the self-educated and self-appointed experts on Commons, and with anyone who has a lesser
grasp of
English than they do. There is an equal reluctance to let anyone using
the
images know that there are questions about a file. Until this attitude changes, Commons is not and cannot be a reliable
host of
media for other projects, and usage as such must be deprecated and an alternative, reliable service project initiated.
+1. Commons is behaving like damage that needs to be routed around.
- d.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
-- GN. Vice President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Hi,
2014-06-25 0:54 GMT+05:30 Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com:
The question of deleted images on Commons is exactly isomorphic to the various Wikipedias refusing to host copy-pasted material taken from Cthulhu knows where. And I have never heard anybody suggest that Wikipedia would be more "reliable" is it accepted such material. I fail to see why it should be otherwise when Commons is concerned.
Oh and David Gerard, would you please stop your two-pence Darth Vader act? "Ksshhh Ksshhh, doesn't want to be regarded as a problem, Kssshhh, it needs to behave less like one, Kssshhh ksshhh". Seriously, it's embarassing. -- Rama
Rama, yes, it is embarrassing, when an admin like you behave like this.
On 24 June 2014 18:36, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
Commons isnt damaged that needs to be routed around, the laws are an ass and problems will follow where ever, except to maybe a handful of countries who don't give a fluffy duck about copyright.
the problem is communication between projects, thats fixable.
Mainly, yes.
Yann
I don't quite know what it means to say that the more Commons is used by other projects the more it becomes a service project (*), but it certainly make its responsibility heavier for stating that a document is under a Free licence. Hence the more Commons is used, the more rigourous it should be. -- Rama
(*) Wikipedia is more and more used as a quick reference in society; should it make it more subordinate to the interests of governments and corporations?
On 27 June 2014 08:14, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
2014-06-25 0:54 GMT+05:30 Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com:
The question of deleted images on Commons is exactly isomorphic to the
various Wikipedias refusing to host copy-pasted material taken from Cthulhu knows where. And I have never heard anybody suggest that Wikipedia would be more "reliable" is it accepted such material. I fail to see why it should be otherwise when Commons is concerned.
Oh and David Gerard, would you please stop your two-pence Darth Vader act? "Ksshhh Ksshhh, doesn't want to be regarded as a problem, Kssshhh, it needs to behave less like one, Kssshhh ksshhh". Seriously, it's embarassing. -- Rama
Rama, yes, it is embarrassing, when an admin like you behave like this.
On 24 June 2014 18:36, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
Commons isnt damaged that needs to be routed around, the laws are an ass and problems will follow where ever, except to maybe a handful of countries who don't give a fluffy duck about copyright.
the problem is communication between projects, thats fixable.
Mainly, yes.
Yann
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Hoi, What you are saying is that when Commons is used more, *you* will be less likely to consider the position of others. This is EXACTLY the kind of argument/position we can do without. What is called for is a willingness to listen and consider view points. With a blanket statement like this you close the door to dialogue. Thanks, GerardM
On 27 June 2014 18:04, Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
I don't quite know what it means to say that the more Commons is used by other projects the more it becomes a service project (*), but it certainly make its responsibility heavier for stating that a document is under a Free licence. Hence the more Commons is used, the more rigourous it should be. -- Rama
(*) Wikipedia is more and more used as a quick reference in society; should it make it more subordinate to the interests of governments and corporations?
On 27 June 2014 08:14, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
2014-06-25 0:54 GMT+05:30 Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com:
The question of deleted images on Commons is exactly isomorphic to the
various Wikipedias refusing to host copy-pasted material taken from Cthulhu knows where. And I have never heard anybody suggest that Wikipedia would be more "reliable" is it accepted such material. I fail to see why it should be otherwise when Commons is concerned.
Oh and David Gerard, would you please stop your two-pence Darth Vader act? "Ksshhh Ksshhh, doesn't want to be regarded as a problem, Kssshhh, it needs to behave less like one, Kssshhh ksshhh". Seriously, it's embarassing. -- Rama
Rama, yes, it is embarrassing, when an admin like you behave like this.
On 24 June 2014 18:36, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
Commons isnt damaged that needs to be routed around, the laws are an ass and problems will follow where ever, except to maybe a handful of countries who don't give a fluffy duck about copyright.
the problem is communication between projects, thats fixable.
Mainly, yes.
Yann
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 27 June 2014 18:02, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, What you are saying is that when Commons is used more, *you* will be less likely to consider the position of others. This is EXACTLY the kind of argument/position we can do without. What is called for is a willingness to listen and consider view points. With a blanket statement like this you close the door to dialogue. Thanks, GerardM
On 27 June 2014 18:04, Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
I don't quite know what it means to say that the more Commons is used by other projects the more it becomes a service project (*), but it certainly make its responsibility heavier for stating that a document is under a Free licence. Hence the more Commons is used, the more rigourous it should be. -- Rama
Gerard,
Rama made a general and impersonal statement, your comment makes it a personal ad hominim one ("*you*"), and attempts to marginalize Rama's point while putting yourself in superior position of speaking for the community ("we").
Please don't do that, it's appears pointlessly aggressive and inflamatory.
Fae
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014, Magnus Manske wrote:
- It means other projects can use files form Commons. Nowhere it states
that Commons has to take whatever Wikipedias feel like storing there.
That said, it does feel like some people are using the very fine toothbrush to find and delete images that are not 100% obviously allowed.
The problem is that people from other projects are uploading files in a good faith understanding that Commons will look after them, as they work on the principle that unless something is provably unfree then it is acceptable to host.
Unfortunately, Commons actually operates on the principle that if there a possibility that someone somewhere may in future claim that a file is unfree, with or without proof, and with or without merit to the claim, then it cannot be held unless we have proof (of a higher standard than required by professional copyright lawyers) that the file is completely free in the US and the source country, now and at all conceivable future times, then it must be deleted. There is also a great reluctance to engage with anyone who has a lesser understanding of copyright than the self-educated and self-appointed experts on Commons, and with anyone who has a lesser grasp of English than they do. There is an equal reluctance to let anyone using the images know that there are questions about a file.
Until this attitude changes, Commons is not and cannot be a reliable host of media for other projects, and usage as such must be deprecated and an alternative, reliable service project initiated.
Chris McKenna
Precisely, and well said. Projects should encourage contributors to upload files locally, discourage and discontinue processes for moving files to Commons, and begin working on the problem of making files across projects searchable so that deprecating Commons as a project repository does not become a long term barrier to file usage.
Commons is an independent project, not responsible to other WMF projects? Fine. Let Commons users visit other projects, locate files that meet their rules, and copy them to Commons themselves. That way people like Yann and others need not familiarize themselves with Commons rules or worry about files being deleted; if Commons wants the files they can get them, or not.
~Nathan
Hi,
2014-06-24 22:04 GMT+05:30 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014, Magnus Manske wrote:
- It means other projects can use files form Commons. Nowhere it states
that Commons has to take whatever Wikipedias feel like storing there.
That said, it does feel like some people are using the very fine toothbrush to find and delete images that are not 100% obviously allowed.
The problem is that people from other projects are uploading files in a good faith understanding that Commons will look after them, as they work on the principle that unless something is provably unfree then it is acceptable to host.
Unfortunately, Commons actually operates on the principle that if there a possibility that someone somewhere may in future claim that a file is unfree, with or without proof, and with or without merit to the claim, then it cannot be held unless we have proof (of a higher standard than required by professional copyright lawyers) that the file is completely free in the US and the source country, now and at all conceivable future times, then it must be deleted. There is also a great reluctance to engage with anyone who has a lesser understanding of copyright than the self-educated and self-appointed experts on Commons, and with anyone who has a lesser grasp of English than they do. There is an equal reluctance to let anyone using the images know that there are questions about a file.
Until this attitude changes, Commons is not and cannot be a reliable host of media for other projects, and usage as such must be deprecated and an alternative, reliable service project initiated.
Chris McKenna
Precisely, and well said. Projects should encourage contributors to upload files locally, discourage and discontinue processes for moving files to Commons, and begin working on the problem of making files across projects searchable so that deprecating Commons as a project repository does not become a long term barrier to file usage.
Commons is an independent project, not responsible to other WMF projects? Fine.
No, that's not fine. I am for encouraging upload to Commons, not locally, but at the same time, because people take time and resources to upload these files, Commons review should ensure that these files are not deleted for spurious reasons, like it happens some times.
Let Commons users visit other projects, locate files that meet their rules, and copy them to Commons themselves. That way people like Yann and others need not familiarize themselves with Commons rules or worry about files being deleted; if Commons wants the files they can get them, or not.
FYI, I am one oldest contributor to Commons, and I have been admin there for about 9 years (I don't remember exactly).
~Nathan
Yann
On 24 June 2014 16:42, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
That said, it does feel like some people are using the very fine toothbrush to find and delete images that are not 100% obviously allowed.
The conversation happens here over and over. It goes something like:
Other projects: "Commons is being too difficult to work with. We have a problem here." Querulous Commons admins banned from several other projects: "WHY DO YOU HATE FREEDOM? WE DON'T WORK FOR YOU!!" Other projects: "No, you clearly don't."
If Commons doesn't want to be regarded as a problem, it needs to behave less like one.
- d.
There is no denying that Commons does provide a significant service to other WMF projects, regardless of the definition and perception of what Commons is meant to be
What we keep coming back to are
1. That when a file is deleted on Commons if there is an option for it to be transferred to another project then we should be doing it, but this isnt happening automatically and very rarely manually. 1. the reason being is Commons admins dont know they can, 2. think that its not their responsibility to find out if there are alternative options 3. arent language proficient to upload or seek help on other projects to ensure its a valid action 2. When Commons does discuss the status of a file people who are using the file aren't necessarily being adequately made aware of the discussions 1. there is no notification that causes watchlist activity on other projects when listing a file 2. the first time they find out about the discussion is either a dead link in an article, or a bot edit removing the file link. This just creates a hostile environment before meaningful discussion starts which further worsened by being responded to with "take it to delreview if you dont like it" 3. If a contributor from another WMF project does comment they feel as if they are being dismissed as an SPA, and not being heard because they arent active participants at Commons. 1. unfortunately they also experience being bitten, 2. discussion being tagged as not vote or some other "if you came from outside commons go away we'll deal with it"
What we need to be looking at is fixing this communication problem, both before a decision is reached to encourage input and after its occurred to ensure best possible outcomes for all parties. We have been here before and will continue to keep coming back to this until we take steps to improve communication which results in meaningful success when and where possible
One of the first things on Commons we could do is assume the deletion reason is valid ie URAA, fairuse etcso lets bypass Delreview and have a page for deleted file transfers requests. Where a simple request could be placed with just the file:name, destination, licensing on project and a tag to indicate it has been deleted on Commons and transferred on request with relevant links.
Additionally when bots remove the links to a deleted file they could place a boiler notice on the article talk page directing them to the discussion and that page so they can understand what has occurred and what they do next.
or we can........ suggestions, thoughts, speak up lets fix this and start discussing important things like which pub to meet at in London
On 24 June 2014 23:27, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, HELL NO
Commons is not an exhibition.. that implies that things can be found by people looking for "i. Anyway according to the main page "a database of 21,617,796 freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute". Thanks, GerardM
On 24 June 2014 16:24, Neel Gupta freedom.ne0@gmail.com wrote:
Back to topic:
The purpose of commons is to be an *Exhibition *for public domain digital media, & the purpose of Wikipedia is to be an *Encyclopedia*. The problem arises when commons can't keep the donated digital media, because US laws prohibit it. This problem is enlarged because every Wikipedia regional site uses commons as a digital media library, and moves all the PD works to commons, which then deletes half of them due to copyright incompatibility.
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
It makes as much sense to say that Commons is a repository for other Wikimedia projects, than to say that Wikipedia is here to provide encyclopedic context to the media of Wikimedia Commons.
Where the real asymetry lies is in the feeling of superiority of certain users of others projects who see Commons as a "service project", and from there construct the notion that jackbooting in and ordering people around is remotely legitimate (and, to be practical, has a chance to work). There is a small number of users, always the same, who regularly attempt to push an agenda of lax copyright standards for Commons; when this fails they try to impose their proposed policies by drumming up support from people with vested interests from other projects, and notorious authoritarians. Has anybody ever seen an influx of Commonists flocking to wp.he to "treat it as a problem"?
That is where the real problem is. The issue is not hosting these media, they can be hosted locally on the projects that use them as "Free-but-not-on-Commons", or as "Fair use". The issue is beating Commons into submission, as an aim in itself. Well, pardon us if we object.
-- Rama
On 21 June 2014 19:19, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Rama,
Sorry, but you have it all wrong.
- Wikimedia is a repository for other Wikimedia projects. It is its
primary mission.
- But this does not make Commons contributors second-class. On the
opposite, importing and managing files for other projects make them first-class IMHO. ;oD
Yann
2014-06-21 10:04 GMT+05:30 Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com:
Commons is not there to serve other projects. Commons is a project of
its
own standing, and the other projects are there to serve it just as
much as
it is there to serve other projects.
It is really dispiriting to see how certain people see Commonists as
some
sort of second-class contributors. That is wrong in every sense of
the word
-- it is an error and an injustice. -- Rama
On 20 June 2014 23:45, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I've noted before: If Commons doesn't want to be regarded as a
problem
by other projects, it really needs to start behaving less like one.
- d.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l