Commons *has* a community, though a small and vulnerable one, and regretfully declining community over the last years. Currently some twenty people contribute 100 edits or more a month, and some four hundred people contribute 5 edits or more a month, which is comparable to a "small" language Wikipedia. I thank Pieter Kuiper fully for admitting Commons isn't without it's own problems. I thank Ting Cheng, a community elected board member of the Wikimedia Foundation, for his lengthy elaboration recognizing an issue. I thank Dror for standing up. This Spring the WMF has initiated a year long strategy formation process asking input from all sides and parties involved around a series of questions concerning participation, reach and quality. (Strict) compliance with license(s) is considered a [[[quality]] issue by more than one regular contributor to Commons. Several image gathering projects do have several goals, most notably informing the public about free repositories of (for example) images which I will dub [[reach]] and hooking newcomers to become contributors of content, which I will dub [[participation]]. Initially dubbed [[governance of Commmons]] I would like to invite all participants in this discussion, and all participants in the [[massive upload conflict]]s to participate this year, just started, and ending summer 2010, in the overall Wikimedia Foundation strategy formation process. Help us all finding answers to all of "What should we do" and "How should we do" questions. In my belief all active participants to Commons should be give the time to reflect on the current issue, and give their opinion, if they want to, which can take a longer time than the wikibreak of Dror. Maybe it might be possible to generate a rough guideline in a year time about [[I started a project to have the public take images and upload them ultimately to Commons. How and when should I inform the community at commons about my project and under which conditions won't the community at Commons block all uploads from my project]]. After all, the Commons is a very special project. It has many more sysops than active contributors. And, as far as I know, a sysop is just a technical function, with the ability (some buttons) and not the authority to push them without 'community consent'. Governance at he commons and discussing about sysops might blur this a little bit. That might presuppose sysops having an organizational role or function they wouldn't have. And one last thing: Commons, like all projects, are independent of the WMF, the Board of the WMF can't impose anything on the project. So Ting showed a lot of courage by stepping into this discussion, and I thank him for that, again.
Dedalus
----- "Dedalus" dedalus@wikipedia.be wrote:
From: "Dedalus" dedalus@wikipedia.be To: commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, 14 June, 2009 18:57:23 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Some reflections about the governance of Commons
This Spring the WMF has initiated a year long strategy formation process ... I would like to invite all participants in this discussion, and all participants in the [[massive upload conflict]]s to participate this year, just started, and ending summer 2010, in the overall Wikimedia Foundation strategy formation process.
I'd be keen to be involved as we have a mass upload project planned for some time in the next 6-12 months. How can we do this?
And, as far as I know, a sysop is just a technical function, with the ability (some buttons) and not the authority to push them without 'community consent'.
Sorry, but that's very naive. Sysops are always more than a technical function - they have authority, like it or not.
And one last thing: Commons, like all projects, are independent of the WMF, the Board of the WMF can't impose anything on the project.
Again, not true. WMF always has the ultimate power to step in and impose a solution through "office actions". Not saying they necessarily should, but they can if they need to.
Andrew
', a sysop is just a technical function, with the ability (some buttons)
and not the authority to push them without 'community consent'.
Sysops on Commons arent just handed the tools they first must seek a level of trust from the community that trust is because there are times when a person must act in the interest of Commons. As a long term sysop on Commons and one the higher end contributors sysops do have a level of authority and need to exercise their judgement more frequently without discussion then other larger projects (like de,en) one the problems is that at times there arent the experienced people around to enable a thorough discussion before acting.
This is a particluar problem with local copyright issues as an Australian I got a good understand of OZ law and know where to get more info, I also gained a fair understanding of US over time and out of necessity but I have a very limited smattering of it for elsewhere when there is the necessity to make a move if I cant get independent opinions/help then I would defer to safest solution for Commons
As Andrew said The Foundation has a significant authority to step in to issues and take the lead or if necessary dictate the end result. The reason being is that The Foundation can and does have a legal responsability, it would be also be the target of any action and initial Point of Call on documents.
The up coming GLAM event in Canberra http://wikimedia.org.au/wiki/GLAM is going to touch on this very issue, if you arent already aware of it it'd be worth see what this event achieves
2009/6/15 Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.com
----- "Dedalus" dedalus@wikipedia.be wrote:
From: "Dedalus" dedalus@wikipedia.be To: commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, 14 June, 2009 18:57:23 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland,
Portugal
Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Some reflections about the governance of Commons
This Spring the WMF has initiated a year long strategy formation process
... I would like to invite all participants in this discussion, and all participants in the [[massive upload conflict]]s to participate this year, just started, and ending summer 2010, in the overall Wikimedia Foundation strategy formation process.
I'd be keen to be involved as we have a mass upload project planned for some time in the next 6-12 months. How can we do this?
And, as far as I know, a sysop is just a technical function, with the
ability (some buttons) and not the authority to push them without 'community consent'.
Sorry, but that's very naive. Sysops are always more than a technical function - they have authority, like it or not.
And one last thing: Commons, like all projects, are independent of the
WMF, the Board of the WMF can't impose anything on the project.
Again, not true. WMF always has the ultimate power to step in and impose a solution through "office actions". Not saying they necessarily should, but they can if they need to.
Andrew
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
[foundation-l added back to cc: as well as commons-l]
2009/6/15 Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com:
Sysops on Commons arent just handed the tools they first must seek a level of trust from the community that trust is because there are times when a person must act in the interest of Commons. As a long term sysop on Commons and one the higher end contributors sysops do have a level of authority and need to exercise their judgement more frequently without discussion then other larger projects (like de,en) one the problems is that at times there arent the experienced people around to enable a thorough discussion before acting. This is a particluar problem with local copyright issues as an Australian I got a good understand of OZ law and know where to get more info, I also gained a fair understanding of US over time and out of necessity but I have a very limited smattering of it for elsewhere when there is the necessity to make a move if I cant get independent opinions/help then I would defer to safest solution for Commons
Yeah. The problem is that to be an admin on Commons requires you to be a copyright law edge-cases nerd way beyond the point where any reasonable person would just say "bugger it, just sue me." And the persistence to deal with, what is it, 10%? of uploads being unacceptable for one reason or another.
So you'll get people - and it's fewer and fewer - who tend to be interested in Commons as a standalone project and are indifferent-to-hostile to the service project angle.
The bureaucratic obstructionism - not active hindering (well, maybe just a bit), just passive not-caring - accorded the recent Pikiwiki problems is a perfect recent example.
Possible solution: active recruitment drive on client wikis of underrepresented languages. Get interested sysops on those wikis to go through suitable training to become Commons.
This requires setting out precisely what a Commons admin needs to know. Establish clear and somewhat objective criteria for Commons admins.
- d.
And this is more or less exactly what I see on top of the front page of Commons: "Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, a database of 4,584,458 media files to which anyone can contribute and be sued about 10% of the time".
The "service project angle" worries me too. I have noticed that many articles of Wikipedia, the service project that makes it easier to find media in Commons by providing encyclopedic context to our content, utterly lack the proper links to our galleries and categories. Furthermore, I sometimes have the feeling that contributors of Wikipedia expect us to host all sorts of unacceptable media in return of the service that they provide; while we of course appreciate the service projects, this is a problem, particularly when these files are copyright violations.
In the particular case of Pikiwiki, it would of course be very caricatural to say that all their images are copyvios. There are lots of out-of-scope party snapshots, too. -- Rama
On 15/06/2009, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
[foundation-l added back to cc: as well as commons-l]
2009/6/15 Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com:
Sysops on Commons arent just handed the tools they first must seek a level of trust from the community that trust is because there are times when a person must act in the interest of Commons. As a long term sysop on Commons and one the higher end contributors sysops do have a level of authority and need to exercise their judgement more frequently without discussion then other larger projects (like de,en) one the problems is that at times there arent the experienced people around to enable a thorough discussion before acting. This is a particluar problem with local copyright issues as an Australian I got a good understand of OZ law and know where to get more info, I also gained a fair understanding of US over time and out of necessity but I have a very limited smattering of it for elsewhere when there is the necessity to make a move if I cant get independent opinions/help then I would defer to safest solution for Commons
Yeah. The problem is that to be an admin on Commons requires you to be a copyright law edge-cases nerd way beyond the point where any reasonable person would just say "bugger it, just sue me." And the persistence to deal with, what is it, 10%? of uploads being unacceptable for one reason or another.
So you'll get people - and it's fewer and fewer - who tend to be interested in Commons as a standalone project and are indifferent-to-hostile to the service project angle.
The bureaucratic obstructionism - not active hindering (well, maybe just a bit), just passive not-caring - accorded the recent Pikiwiki problems is a perfect recent example.
Possible solution: active recruitment drive on client wikis of underrepresented languages. Get interested sysops on those wikis to go through suitable training to become Commons.
This requires setting out precisely what a Commons admin needs to know. Establish clear and somewhat objective criteria for Commons admins.
- d.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
2009/6/15 Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com:
The "service project angle" worries me too. I have noticed that many articles of Wikipedia, the service project that makes it easier to find media in Commons by providing encyclopedic context to our content, utterly lack the proper links to our galleries and categories. Furthermore, I sometimes have the feeling that contributors of Wikipedia expect us to host all sorts of unacceptable media in return of the service that they provide; while we of course appreciate the service projects, this is a problem, particularly when these files are copyright violations. In the particular case of Pikiwiki, it would of course be very caricatural to say that all their images are copyvios. There are lots of out-of-scope party snapshots, too.
I'd hope this isn't a summary of the views of other Commons admins.
Anyone else? Or is the Commons admin community this insular and derisive?
- d.
2009/6/15 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
2009/6/15 Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com:
The "service project angle" worries me too. I have noticed that many articles of Wikipedia, the service project that makes it easier to find media in Commons by providing encyclopedic context to our content, utterly lack the proper links to our galleries and categories. Furthermore, I sometimes have the feeling that contributors of Wikipedia expect us to host all sorts of unacceptable media in return of the service that they provide; while we of course appreciate the service projects, this is a problem, particularly when these files are copyright violations. In the particular case of Pikiwiki, it would of course be very caricatural to say that all their images are copyvios. There are lots of out-of-scope party snapshots, too.
I'd hope this isn't a summary of the views of other Commons admins.
Anyone else? Or is the Commons admin community this insular and derisive?
Commons foundation is as a service project, its also more than just that its also a community where some very talented artistic people choose to use their skills to improve many projects at once. This community is probably the most aware when it comes to an artists rights, the protection of those rights and its also the most exposed to violation of those rights. There is no grey area to work in if its a violation then its deleted end of story, if an account is to frequently a source of such problems then it gets going to get blocked, but a block on Commons isnt as stigmatised as it is on other projects that is because the community does realise that sometimes a block is a necessary evil while we find someone to help translate and ensure that person undestands whats happening.
Commons admins Insular not really, derisive definately absolutely not, cynical absolutely especially with claims of I've got the permission of my neighbour but its not in english so you cant read it anyway.
Do we need a big talkfest on how Commons should be managed, of course we need it because at the moment there is a general lack of understanding in the wider 'pedia community about copyright and its variants between countries. We also need to approach bulk upload issues with a less bold approach we need to have a way of ensuring copyright is addressed at source before the files arrive on our(foundation) servers when it does it meets US laws. The Pikiwiki incident shows that our communitcation in this area is lacking, it also shows our admins are cautious and err on the side of protecting the project. In the end if we are going to fix the problems highlighted by this incident we need to work together, we dont need insults, witch hunts, crusades etc.
Commons is unique for many reasons its multilingual, it supports all other projects directly, an action there could be seen in every project within moments, its the only project in this situaution it would benefit from a Foundation person like Cary is to OTRS. For these bulk collection type events this foundation person could provide a point of contact to ensure that the copyright and source details are sorted before uploads occur, this would also give a degree of privacy to the source making public announcements a possible publicity event. If an issue is observed then the uploading account has a notice directing the Commons admin as to what is happening, who to speak with and in what language again offering some privacy and continuaty in communications. It also means that an admin can let the Foundation person know theres an issue so that someone is able to ensure things get resolved in a timely fashion and isnt dependent on the admin or some public specticle like Pikiwiki experienced.
- d.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Anyone else? Or is the Commons admin community this insular and derisive?
Huh? Insular? Folks at commons are happy to provide a service. They just expect to be respected for doing it - and also be tied in in return, for example by good references to gallery pages.
Also, in my view, strange as it seems, being picky about copyright is actually a feature of commons. Because, if it's on commons, you know that it's safe to use it. At least, that is how it should be.
-- danielö
David Gerard wrote:
2009/6/15 Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com:
Furthermore, I sometimes have the feeling that contributors of
Wikipedia expect us to host all sorts of unacceptable media in return of the service that they provide; while we of course appreciate the service projects, this is a problem, particularly when these files are copyright violations. In the particular case of Pikiwiki, it would of course be very caricatural to say that all their images are copyvios. There are lots of out-of-scope party snapshots, too.
I'd hope this isn't a summary of the views of other Commons admins.
Anyone else? Or is the Commons admin community this insular and derisive?
I don't know if this makes me insular and derisive, but as a casual onlooker to the Pikiwiki episode, I do worry that there is an attempt to strongarm Commons into accepting material that would not normally be able to get in. It worries me because if Commons loses its reputation as a reliable source of free media, the that loss effectively contaminates everything in the project - potential users will be unsure if my own photos were really self-made, or I'm putting free licenses on material that is not mine to give away.
For projects that have committed to only using Commons for media, the pressure to accept borderline material is going to be intense, and it's always going to be a secondary concern that the files are going to be a problem for other clients of Commons. Projects experiencing that kind of pressure should maybe consider re-instituting local uploads, which allows for more gradual migration of material as it is determined to meet Commons' standards, and takes away the pressure on Commons admins to make snap decisions on tricky copyright issues.
Stan
Hoi, If you worry then you should not post arguments as fact and when you post argument as fact you should not say that you are a casual onlooker. Either you know what you are talking about and have an opinion that is founded on whatever or you are just fanning the flames.
If you had paid any attention, you would know that the content of the pikiwiki project is freely licensed. The question is very much about to what extend the i has to be dotted and the t has to be crossed. If anything I think that Commons is doing poorly. It should have at least 10 times the amount of freely licensed content. This is in my opinion not happening because of a broken conception of what Commons is about. It is broken because all kinds of things are conflated in one heap. Conflated are freely licensed, educational, artistic and quality. It is a mess that makes our own projects choose for Flickr. Thanks, Gerard
2009/6/15 Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net
David Gerard wrote:
2009/6/15 Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com:
Furthermore, I sometimes have the feeling that contributors of
Wikipedia expect us to host all sorts of unacceptable media in return of the service that they provide; while we of course appreciate the service projects, this is a problem, particularly when these files are copyright violations. In the particular case of Pikiwiki, it would of course be very caricatural to say that all their images are copyvios. There are lots of out-of-scope party snapshots, too.
I'd hope this isn't a summary of the views of other Commons admins.
Anyone else? Or is the Commons admin community this insular and derisive?
I don't know if this makes me insular and derisive, but as a casual onlooker to the Pikiwiki episode, I do worry that there is an attempt to strongarm Commons into accepting material that would not normally be able to get in. It worries me because if Commons loses its reputation as a reliable source of free media, the that loss effectively contaminates everything in the project - potential users will be unsure if my own photos were really self-made, or I'm putting free licenses on material that is not mine to give away.
For projects that have committed to only using Commons for media, the pressure to accept borderline material is going to be intense, and it's always going to be a secondary concern that the files are going to be a problem for other clients of Commons. Projects experiencing that kind of pressure should maybe consider re-instituting local uploads, which allows for more gradual migration of material as it is determined to meet Commons' standards, and takes away the pressure on Commons admins to make snap decisions on tricky copyright issues.
Stan
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Stan Shebsstanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
2009/6/15 Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com:
Furthermore, I sometimes have the feeling that contributors of Wikipedia expect us to host all sorts of unacceptable media in return of the service that they provide; while we of course appreciate the service projects, this is a problem, particularly when these files are copyright violations.
I don't have this feeling. There's some misunderstanding, though, with different conversations happening on different wikis. A better facility for discussion pages that are not tied to a particular wiki (or are replicated on more than one) would help mediate this.
In the particular case of Pikiwiki, it would of course be very caricatural to say that all their images are copyvios. There are lots of out-of-scope party snapshots, too.
Fuzzy party pictures are an icon of the times.
David Gerard writes:
Anyone else? Or is the Commons admin community this insular and derisive?
Yikes. I find the Commons community to be rewardingly inclusive...
I don't know if this makes me insular and derisive, but as a casual onlooker to the Pikiwiki episode, I do worry that there is an attempt to strongarm Commons into accepting material that would not normally be able to get in. It worries me because if Commons loses its reputation as a reliable source of free media, the that loss effectively contaminates everything in the project - potential users will be unsure if my own photos were really self-made, or I'm putting free licenses on material that is not mine to give away.
Absolutely. This is a contamination problem that affects most online media sites. (Jamendo is one I can think of off-hand that does the cleanest job of trying to confirm licensing of its free works)
For projects that have committed to only using Commons for media, the pressure to accept borderline material is going to be intense, and it's always going to be a secondary concern that the files are going to be a problem for other clients of Commons. Projects experiencing that kind of pressure should maybe consider re-instituting local uploads, which
Actually, I would be content with a less-free repository for media not suitable for commons but still of use to at least one page on one Wikimedia project -- I would like to be able to monitor (and pressure to become totally free) all 'local upload' materials on a single wiki. The technical advantages of having a single way to call a file from multiple namespaces would still apply, but there could be strong pressure to replace any non-free media with free media ... while releasing some of this kneejerk pressure on Commons.
In a similar vein, I'd like a wiki quarantine where I could post material that is mostly free but contains some non-free parts (a logo or something that needs removal) -- to allow a community of editors to see and revise it to make it freely available, without reinventing tools such as revision control, RC, &c.
The idea of all of this would be to move towards 100% free projects and contents, but without the strain imposed by the current sharp edge.
allows for more gradual migration of material as it is determined to meet Commons' standards, and takes away the pressure on Commons admins to make snap decisions on tricky copyright issues.
Right. Except there's no need to tie the advantages of gradual migration tot eh dsiadvantages and duplicated effort of local upload...
SJ
Samuel Klein a écrit :
Actually, I would be content with a less-free repository for media not suitable for commons but still of use to at least one page on one Wikimedia project -- I would like to be able to monitor (and pressure to become totally free) all 'local upload' materials on a single wiki. The technical advantages of having a single way to call a file from multiple namespaces would still apply, but there could be strong pressure to replace any non-free media with free media ... while releasing some of this kneejerk pressure on Commons.
You mean having a kind of central repository for "fair use" media, for instance? I'm not sure it is a good idea, because local "fair use" (and generally non-free) policies are based on local laws and regulations. A non-free use which is acceptable in some country might not be acceptable in some other. Maybe I haven't totally understood what you meant, though.
Eusebius
Eusebius schrieb:
Samuel Klein a écrit :
Actually, I would be content with a less-free repository for media not suitable for commons but still of use to at least one page on one Wikimedia project -- I would like to be able to monitor (and pressure to become totally free) all 'local upload' materials on a single wiki. The technical advantages of having a single way to call a file from multiple namespaces would still apply, but there could be strong pressure to replace any non-free media with free media ... while releasing some of this kneejerk pressure on Commons.
You mean having a kind of central repository for "fair use" media, for instance? I'm not sure it is a good idea, because local "fair use" (and generally non-free) policies are based on local laws and regulations. A non-free use which is acceptable in some country might not be acceptable in some other. Maybe I haven't totally understood what you meant, though.
This is simply not possible. A repository of fair use material is a contradiction in terms. Fair use, and similar concepts in other jurisdictions, depends on the context the image is used in - usually, and editorial context. In a repository, such a context is missing, so it would not be legal to have the images there. A fair use image is always bound to its context of use, otherwise, it's not fair use, it's simply distribution.
-- daniel
Hoi, There is material that can be used for particular purposes and not others. For instance logos. Many logos of friendly organisations have been removed from Commons because they are not "Free content" They are not free because they represent trade marks.
The fact that we have not been able or willing to find a solution for this reasonable exemption of Commons policy makes an alternative possible.
Another category are screen dumps. Nobody will protest for using undoctered screen dumps. The restrictions are in using the art work of a user interface for other user interfaces.. Thanks, GerardM
2009/6/16 Daniel Kinzler daniel@brightbyte.de
Eusebius schrieb:
Samuel Klein a écrit :
Actually, I would be content with a less-free repository for media not suitable for commons but still of use to at least one page on one Wikimedia project -- I would like to be able to monitor (and pressure to become totally free) all 'local upload' materials on a single wiki. The technical advantages of having a single way to call a file from multiple namespaces would still apply, but there could be strong pressure to replace any non-free media with free media ... while releasing some of this kneejerk pressure on Commons.
You mean having a kind of central repository for "fair use" media, for instance? I'm not sure it is a good idea, because local "fair use" (and generally non-free) policies are based on local laws and regulations. A non-free use which is acceptable in some country might not be acceptable in some other. Maybe I haven't totally understood what you meant, though.
This is simply not possible. A repository of fair use material is a contradiction in terms. Fair use, and similar concepts in other jurisdictions, depends on the context the image is used in - usually, and editorial context. In a repository, such a context is missing, so it would not be legal to have the images there. A fair use image is always bound to its context of use, otherwise, it's not fair use, it's simply distribution.
-- daniel
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Gerard,
When you say you want a policy to upload non free logo's on Commons you need to start a discussion on internal-l or a other foundation channel.
The foundation has decided that every wiki can make his own "fair use" (Don't know the right word) policy, but also decided to doesn't give that right to Commons. So even if the communety wants fair use logo's on Commons it is not possible by a Foundation resolution. So the Foundation has made it impossible for Commons to make a exeption for logo for Pikiwiki (just a example).
So instead repeating your point about logo's you could direct it to the right people.
Huib
Hoi, Fair use is something completely different. Fair use is a restriction where you acknowledge the copyright and you are only permitted to use the content because of special circumstances. What I am talking about is trademark material where the use is permitted as long as the use of it and possible derivates are not used to represent whatever the trademark represents.
Also the suggestion that we cannot talk about this on this mailing list is a bit weird given what has been said in the last few days. Thanks, Gerard
2009/6/16 Huib! abigor@forgotten-beauty.com
Gerard,
When you say you want a policy to upload non free logo's on Commons you need to start a discussion on internal-l or a other foundation channel.
The foundation has decided that every wiki can make his own "fair use" (Don't know the right word) policy, but also decided to doesn't give that right to Commons. So even if the communety wants fair use logo's on Commons it is not possible by a Foundation resolution. So the Foundation has made it impossible for Commons to make a exeption for logo for Pikiwiki (just a example).
So instead repeating your point about logo's you could direct it to the right people.
Huib
--
Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
2009/6/16 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
What I am talking about is trademark material where the use is permitted as long as the use of it and possible derivates are not used to represent whatever the trademark represents.
There is no point in discussing that, it is (and has been) allowed on Commons. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:With_trademark
As has been already said in this discussion, the trademark protection is not the problem. The copyright status of the trademark is: a logo can be (and often is) *both* trademarked and copyrighted. That is why there is that huge red © on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia
-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
Gerard Meijssen schrieb:
Hoi, There is material that can be used for particular purposes and not others. For instance logos. Many logos of friendly organisations have been removed from Commons because they are not "Free content" They are not free because they represent trade marks.
No, they have been deleted because they are also copyrighted. If they are only trademarked, they can stay. We even have a template for such trivial (namely: text only) logos.
The fact that we have not been able or willing to find a solution for this reasonable exemption of Commons policy makes an alternative possible.
The problem is that the law lacks many reasonable excemptions.
Another category are screen dumps. Nobody will protest for using undoctered screen dumps.
"nobody will protest" is not a valid argument. It doesn't work that way.
No, I for one would argue that the user interface of a program is industrial design, not artwork, and thus isn't copyrighted. If we can establish that postionion and back it up with court cases, excellent!
The restrictions are in using the art work of a user interface for other user interfaces..
That would be true if it was indeed that case that the user interface was deemed industrial design. Sadly, as long as we have to consider it copyrighted, we can't have screenshots on commons.
Again: it would be perfectly reasonable, but it's not for us to decide, it's up to the folks who make and interpret the laws.
-- daniel
Hi Stan;
I looked through some of the pictures you uploaded recently from Icebox Canyon. Nice work! I have good memories of that hike.
I have a vague memory, perhaps wrong, that you are in the Bay area. Andrea and I were down that way last week. I returned with some good pictures of Cupressus sargentii and Cupressus macnabiana taken east of the north end of Indian Valley Reservoir. Neither species is represented by images on Commons.
Best wishes, Walt
Hello,
I don't think we need to see Commons as a Service project, All Wikimedia projects need the other projects. Wikimedia is build on all the projects and saying that a project is only a service project can make the people feel bad that are working on that project. I think the view that Rama uses can be seen in a lot of ways, and regarding the point of view that you uses you can make all projects into a service project.
We have now a discussion in a "private" place about how people have to change Commons, isn't it a better idea to make this a discussion on Commons or on Meta (if you want a neutral place). Commons has a great communety with people that are spending all there time on Commons, and whe have photographers that can easely make money with there pictures but chooses to release it under a free license.. I rather see a onwiki discussion so we can hear there say's also..
Just my view here but I cant send the email without a notice about this..
I'm seeing a discussions or even multible discussions about how Commons needs to change to be a better service project. But when Commons needs to change, will we change all other projects also? There are still images getting deleted because we couldn't get the source information or other important information because the file was already deleted local, there is a bug to give Commons adminstrators view permission for deleted files globally, there has been a vote on Meta and still it isn't activated (more than a year waiting time). Things like that will make Commons also a better service project.. Or isn't that important enough?
Huib
2009/6/15 Huib Laurens Abigor@forgotten-beauty.com:
I'm seeing a discussions or even multible discussions about how Commons needs to change to be a better service project. But when Commons needs to change, will we change all other projects also? There are still images getting deleted because we couldn't get the source information or other important information because the file was already deleted local, there is a bug to give Commons adminstrators view permission for deleted files globally, there has been a vote on Meta and still it isn't activated (more than a year waiting time). Things like that will make Commons also a better service project.. Or isn't that important enough?
Yes, that's exactly the sort of thing Commons needs.
(and this is something of what I meant when asking for constructinve suggestions on what to do to improve things - in both directions.)
cc to wikitech-l - do you have a bug number for this?
- d.
Hello,
Here is the page on meta: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_deleted_image_review That one links to the vote that passed with 80% support. And for the bug: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14801
Best regards,
Huib
If commons is not a service project, what is it? Unlike other projects which have a measurable output, Commons' sole function appears to be as a repository of free images. It is therefore very much a service project as it serves other projects through storage of images.
I think the discussion here is especially important as this is the Wikimedia Commons discussion list. That being said, I feel that there should be an RfC/Poll on Commons about how it should change.
________________________________ From: Huib Laurens Abigor@forgotten-beauty.com To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 10:34:38 AM Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Some reflections about the governance of Commons
Hello,
I don't think we need to see Commons as a Service project, All Wikimedia projects need the other projects. Wikimedia is build on all the projects and saying that a project is only a service project can make the people feel bad that are working on that project. I think the view that Rama uses can be seen in a lot of ways, and regarding the point of view that you uses you can make all projects into a service project.
We have now a discussion in a "private" place about how people have to change Commons, isn't it a better idea to make this a discussion on Commons or on Meta (if you want a neutral place). Commons has a great communety with people that are spending all there time on Commons, and whe have photographers that can easely make money with there pictures but chooses to release it under a free license.. I rather see a onwiki discussion so we can hear there say's also..
Just my view here but I cant send the email without a notice about this..
I'm seeing a discussions or even multible discussions about how Commons needs to change to be a better service project. But when Commons needs to change, will we change all other projects also? There are still images getting deleted because we couldn't get the source information or other important information because the file was already deleted local, there is a bug to give Commons adminstrators view permission for deleted files globally, there has been a vote on Meta and still it isn't activated (more than a year waiting time). Things like that will make Commons also a better service project.. Or isn't that important enough?
Huib
_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
2009/6/16 Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com
If commons is not a service project, what is it? *Unlike other projects which have a measurable output, Commons' sole function appears to be as a repository of free images.* It is therefore very much a service project as it serves other projects through storage of images.
I don't agree with this statement. 1. any wiki project has in part a role of service for other wiki project. I.e.: we use la.source as a "repository" of original latin sources for our Italian translations of latin classics. 2. any shared file (images, movies and so on) is an independent output, that can be used both into wiki projects and by any other web user. In particular, movies often carry a "complete message" by themselves. But if you think about, pictures too carry such a complete message, and sometimes a very important one, needing lots of NPOV.
Alex
Hoi, When you leave it up to Commons to decide its role, you forget the need it provides. As it is not an option to ditch Commons when it does not want to fulfill its role, it is not an option to leave it only to Commons. Thanks, GerardM
2009/6/16 Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com
If commons is not a service project, what is it? Unlike other projects which have a measurable output, Commons' sole function appears to be as a repository of free images. It is therefore very much a service project as it serves other projects through storage of images.
I think the discussion here is especially important as this is the Wikimedia Commons discussion list. That being said, I feel that there should be an RfC/Poll on Commons about how it should change.
*From:* Huib Laurens Abigor@forgotten-beauty.com *To:* Wikimedia Commons Discussion List commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org *Sent:* Monday, June 15, 2009 10:34:38 AM *Subject:* Re: [Commons-l] Some reflections about the governance of Commons
Hello,
I don't think we need to see Commons as a Service project, All Wikimedia projects need the other projects. Wikimedia is build on all the projects and saying that a project is only a service project can make the people feel bad that are working on that project. I think the view that Rama uses can be seen in a lot of ways, and regarding the point of view that you uses you can make all projects into a service project.
We have now a discussion in a "private" place about how people have to change Commons, isn't it a better idea to make this a discussion on Commons or on Meta (if you want a neutral place). Commons has a great communety with people that are spending all there time on Commons, and whe have photographers that can easely make money with there pictures but chooses to release it under a free license.. I rather see a onwiki discussion so we can hear there say's also..
Just my view here but I cant send the email without a notice about this..
I'm seeing a discussions or even multible discussions about how Commons needs to change to be a better service project. But when Commons needs to change, will we change all other projects also? There are still images getting deleted because we couldn't get the source information or other important information because the file was already deleted local, there is a bug to give Commons adminstrators view permission for deleted files globally, there has been a vote on Meta and still it isn't activated (more than a year waiting time). Things like that will make Commons also a better service project.. Or isn't that important enough?
Huib
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
Gerard Meijssen schrieb:
Hoi, When you leave it up to Commons to decide its role, you forget the need it provides. As it is not an option to ditch Commons when it does not want to fulfill its role, it is not an option to leave it only to Commons. Thanks, GerardM
Did anyone ever say commons doesn't want to be a service to other wikis? No! The point is: it's not just an image store. It's a project in it's own right, with it's own community, and it has a purpose besides and beyond hosting images for wikipedia etc. al. The commons community wants projects who use the images to acknowledge their work, and to abide by the local rules. They don't like to be pushed around - "shut up and take the pictures, that's what you are here for". This kind of attitude leads to conflict.
-- daniel
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 3:22 PM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/15 Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com:
The "service project angle" worries me too. I have noticed that many articles of Wikipedia, the service project that makes it easier to find media in Commons by providing encyclopedic context to our content, utterly lack the proper links to our galleries and categories. Furthermore, I sometimes have the feeling that contributors of Wikipedia expect us to host all sorts of unacceptable media in return of the service that they provide; while we of course appreciate the service projects, this is a problem, particularly when these files are copyright violations. In the particular case of Pikiwiki, it would of course be very caricatural to say that all their images are copyvios. There are lots of out-of-scope party snapshots, too.
I'd hope this isn't a summary of the views of other Commons admins.
Anyone else? Or is the Commons admin community this insular and derisive?
- d.
I hope that this isn't the view of admins outside the Commons community.
Seriously with this kind of discussion we end up nowhere. Perhaps it would be more useful to actually get to the points of problem or just stop discussing at all.
Bryan
I don't know about others, but this discussion has generated more content than I can keep track of as a casual but interested observer. I suspect the same is true for others who aren't already involved in the issues at stake, which means you're not getting the perspectives of the community anymore.
Could somebody please point us to some blog posts or wiki pages or other forums (a Wave would be nice, if it comes with usernames ;-) to get an overview and participate more fully in the conversation? I think that might help make the discussion more productive.
Best wishes, Andy
--- Andy Kaplan-Myrth, M.A., LL.B. ------------------------------------------------ email: andy@kaplan-myrth.ca web: http://kaplan-myrth.ca blog: http://blog.kaplan-myrth.ca ------------------------------------------------
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 8:15 AM, Bryan Tong Minhbryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 3:22 PM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/15 Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com:
The "service project angle" worries me too. I have noticed that many articles of Wikipedia, the service project that makes it easier to find media in Commons by providing encyclopedic context to our content, utterly lack the proper links to our galleries and categories. Furthermore, I sometimes have the feeling that contributors of Wikipedia expect us to host all sorts of unacceptable media in return of the service that they provide; while we of course appreciate the service projects, this is a problem, particularly when these files are copyright violations. In the particular case of Pikiwiki, it would of course be very caricatural to say that all their images are copyvios. There are lots of out-of-scope party snapshots, too.
I'd hope this isn't a summary of the views of other Commons admins.
Anyone else? Or is the Commons admin community this insular and derisive?
- d.
I hope that this isn't the view of admins outside the Commons community.
Seriously with this kind of discussion we end up nowhere. Perhaps it would be more useful to actually get to the points of problem or just stop discussing at all.
Bryan
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l