There are severe public relations problems between WM-IL and some Commons admins at present over the Pikiwiki project. They're getting attention at the Foundation level.
Anyone here have anything to say on the problems?
(They appear to relate to how much of a service project for other Wikimedia projects Commons is, can be and bothers to act like instead of being bureacratically obstructive.)
- d.
Hoi, Well the most basic thing is that the logo of the project has been marked for deletion. This is the same old argument as happened over Wikimedia Foundation logos.
I do have something to say about this project. It is an issue that I raised with Dror at some stage... the timing was not opportune he told me.. Given the description about this current issue, my issue is likely to be unrelated. However, the amount of info given is such that I might be wrong at that., Thanks, Gerard
2009/6/4 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
There are severe public relations problems between WM-IL and some Commons admins at present over the Pikiwiki project. They're getting attention at the Foundation level.
Anyone here have anything to say on the problems?
(They appear to relate to how much of a service project for other Wikimedia projects Commons is, can be and bothers to act like instead of being bureacratically obstructive.)
- d.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
2009/6/4 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Well the most basic thing is that the logo of the project has been marked for deletion. This is the same old argument as happened over Wikimedia Foundation logos.
Sounds like people who don't want Commons to be a service project and are resorting to bureaucratic obstructionalism.
- d.
David Gerard schreef:
Anyone here have anything to say on the problems?
You might want to read http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Piki... It pretty much sums up all problems (and possible solutions!).
Maarten
2009/6/4 Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl:
David Gerard schreef:
Anyone here have anything to say on the problems?
You might want to read http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Piki... It pretty much sums up all problems (and possible solutions!).
From that thread, I think I can conclusively say: if Commons has been
obstructively bureaucratic to the point that an entire chapter (WM-IL) will no longer work with it ... then Commons has *failed utterly* as a service project, and will need reining in at the Foundation level.
- d.
David Gerard a écrit :
2009/6/4 Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl:
You might want to read http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Piki... It pretty much sums up all problems (and possible solutions!).
From that thread, I think I can conclusively say: if Commons has been obstructively bureaucratic to the point that an entire chapter (WM-IL) will no longer work with it ... then Commons has *failed utterly* as a service project, and will need reining in at the Foundation level.
I'm not much involved in that issue (and don't really want to be), but when I see ONE user saying "accept all our pictures without challenging their copyright status or I close a whole Wikimedia chapter", I think that maybe the other side of the issue can be considered as well: maybe that's not only Commons failing to serve anyone willing to be served.
Eusebius
2009/6/4 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
From that thread, I think I can conclusively say: if Commons has been obstructively bureaucratic to the point that an entire chapter (WM-IL) will no longer work with it ... then Commons has *failed utterly* as a service project, and will need reining in at the Foundation level.
Not an accurate description of events. Commons simply doesn't trust any 3rd party when it comes to copyright and thus wants information that can be used to judge and verify claims. WM-IL has reacted to this is a rather forthright manner.
Foundation can't do anything without some legal stupid statements with regards to it's position on copyright.
Most of Commons's concerns can be adress without to much difficulty but WM-IL needs to accept that commons is not doing what it is doing because it is anti isreal but because it takes copyright seriously. Equaly commons needs to accept that the situation can be improved.
On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 12:36 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
2009/6/4 Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl:
David Gerard schreef:
Anyone here have anything to say on the problems?
You might want to read http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Piki... It pretty much sums up all problems (and possible solutions!).
From that thread, I think I can conclusively say: if Commons has been obstructively bureaucratic to the point that an entire chapter (WM-IL) will no longer work with it ... then Commons has *failed utterly* as a service project, and will need reining in at the Foundation level.
- d.
Yes, this whole episode has been a failure for all involved - there is no shortage of blame to spread around. However pointing fingers at this point is unlikely to be particularly helpful. Instead, we shoul focus on fixing the problems which were raised (which are real), and reigning in some of the more block-happy admins. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that this couldn't have been resolve amicably and without blocking anyone or anything.
-Mike
2009/6/4 Mike.lifeguard mikelifeguard@fastmail.fm:
Yes, this whole episode has been a failure for all involved - there is no shortage of blame to spread around. However pointing fingers at this point is unlikely to be particularly helpful. Instead, we shoul focus on fixing the problems which were raised (which are real), and reigning in some of the more block-happy admins. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that this couldn't have been resolve amicably and without blocking anyone or anything.
So what's likely to happen from Dror now being blocked? Anything? Nothing? Even a "don't do it again" to the blocking admin? No?
- d.
Hi!
Please read entire http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Piki... before making far reaching conclusions.
Upload bot was blocked, not Dror.
Eugene.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 6:31 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/4 Mike.lifeguard mikelifeguard@fastmail.fm:
Yes, this whole episode has been a failure for all involved - there is no shortage of blame to spread around. However pointing fingers at this point is unlikely to be particularly helpful. Instead, we shoul focus on fixing the problems which were raised (which are real), and reigning in some of the more block-happy admins. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that this couldn't have been resolve amicably and without blocking anyone or anything.
So what's likely to happen from Dror now being blocked? Anything? Nothing? Even a "don't do it again" to the blocking admin? No?
- d.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Eugene Zelenko schreef:
Upload bot was blocked, not Dror.
Actually Dror was blocked too. He went on an "I want to get blocked mission" (starting editwars and other disruptive behaviour). This post describes is quite well: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AAdministrators%27_n...
Maarten
2009/6/4 Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl:
Actually Dror was blocked too. He went on an "I want to get blocked mission" (starting editwars and other disruptive behaviour).
I'd hope you could substantiate such a claim of bad faith with more than a link to another admin (the class under inspection here) claiming the same.
- d.
2009/6/4 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
I'd hope you could substantiate such a claim of bad faith with more than a link to another admin (the class under inspection here) claiming the same.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
I took a look to main discussion.... I'm so sad .... Very unkind, very confuse. I think, it's very hard for an admin to manage this kind of issues ... how much lost time, how much lost energy. :-( And this is my single opinion about.
I am the admin that blocked Drork for 72 hours.
The reasson I blocked him is very simple... He is/was removing Deletion template from images pages and that ended on several places in a editwar. By removing templates he did made him self a danger for the system Commons works with. He was warned several times by other users than me, so the only option to stop it was a block.
I don't see myself as a block happy admin. I patrol the recent changes a lot and delete copyvios a lot. In my time as Administrator on Commons I placed 38 blocks. By saying it was a bad faith block you are saying that I shouldn't have blocked him. I hope you can give some good reassons for that.
Btw if I need to defend my block on him I would be happy to do so.. But on Commons not on a mailing list.
Huib Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor msn: Abigor@forgotten-beauty.com
Folks before this disolves into a pointy session we know the whole process derailed a long time ago the block Dror was to protect the person and project there's no reason to disect it on this list.
Whats needed is solutions to resolve the problems with image uploads and heal the wounds
Is the best move stopping further uploads until resolved, can we work around the problems while they are addressed? The basis of the problems is the difference between acceptable image licenses and the trail back to the source. Commons need the detail Pikiwiki doesnt have enough of it because the policies didnt need it due to local laws and the disclaimer they used.
Commons issues arent with every file in fact from the way the discussion on commons is worded it appears to only be about 20% the files. Why cant we continue to extract the other 80% of images until we can address the issue with the remaining images?
Is Pikiwiki closing down, can they retain the problematic images there, aka en with fair use images?
Is there something in the background that isnt being covered, ie server locations?
2009/6/4 Abigor abigor@forgotten-beauty.com
I am the admin that blocked Drork for 72 hours.
The reasson I blocked him is very simple... He is/was removing Deletion template from images pages and that ended on several places in a editwar. By removing templates he did made him self a danger for the system Commons works with. He was warned several times by other users than me, so the only option to stop it was a block.
I don't see myself as a block happy admin. I patrol the recent changes a lot and delete copyvios a lot. In my time as Administrator on Commons I placed 38 blocks. By saying it was a bad faith block you are saying that I shouldn't have blocked him. I hope you can give some good reassons for that.
Btw if I need to defend my block on him I would be happy to do so.. But on Commons not on a mailing list.
Huib Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor msn: Abigor@forgotten-beauty.com
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 23:26 +0800, Gnangarra wrote:
Is the best move stopping further uploads until resolved, can we work around the problems while they are addressed? The basis of the problems is the difference between acceptable image licenses and the trail back to the source. Commons need the detail Pikiwiki doesnt have enough of it because the policies didnt need it due to local laws and the disclaimer they used.
I'm not convinced that it is best to keep the bot blocked. Most of the uploads are just fine, and it'd be great if we could allow the more reliable uploads to continue, even while work is being done to rectify some of the issues which were raised. I think it'd be helpful to hear from Drork or someone else involved in that project whether such an arrangement could be achieved.
-Mike
If the bad uploads from the upload bot can eventually be fixed by a fix bot, then definitely unblock.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Mike.lifeguard mikelifeguard@fastmail.fmwrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 23:26 +0800, Gnangarra wrote:
Is the best move stopping further uploads until resolved, can we work around the problems while they are addressed? The basis of the problems is the difference between acceptable image licenses and the trail back to the source. Commons need the detail Pikiwiki doesnt have enough of it because the policies didnt need it due to local laws and the disclaimer they used.
I'm not convinced that it is best to keep the bot blocked. Most of the uploads are just fine, and it'd be great if we could allow the more reliable uploads to continue, even while work is being done to rectify some of the issues which were raised. I think it'd be helpful to hear from Drork or someone else involved in that project whether such an arrangement could be achieved.
-Mike
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 15:41 +0200, Maarten Dammers wrote:
Eugene Zelenko schreef:
Upload bot was blocked, not Dror.
Actually Dror was blocked too. He went on an "I want to get blocked mission" (starting editwars and other disruptive behaviour). This post describes is quite well: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AAdministrators%27_n...
Maarten
Yes, that accurately describes his behaviour. Nonetheless, I've unblocked him and left him some comments. I fully expect that he will be concentrating on fixing the issues with Pikiwikisrael instead of more edit warring, thus the block was no longer preventative. If I'm wrong, then another block may become necessary, provided it is a last resort to prevent disruption to the project. Drork is aware that he is not getting a free pass from me.
-Mike
Gerard,
The PikiWiki project is lead by three organisations and not only wikimedia Israel.
I don't think the problem is Commons accepting the project. But even if we see it as one of our sisterprojects it still needs to follow Commons Policies. The same counts for En.Wiki the can't upload fair use on Commons because the policy. There are other project that al almost the same like Http://www.wikiportret.nl or photosubmission project on En.wiki both the projects need to get otrs permission for every upload and give as source the projectsite. I think this would be a good way to go with Pikiwiki.
About the block, as far as I know the bot is already unblocked. But we have like 2.500 images already on Commons that need to be fixed before we upload even more images.
huib
Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor msn: Abigor@forgotten-beauty.com
Just a point of fact: the upload bot is still blocked at this time: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&am...
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Abigor abigor@forgotten-beauty.com wrote:
Gerard,
The PikiWiki project is lead by three organisations and not only wikimedia Israel.
I don't think the problem is Commons accepting the project. But even if we see it as one of our sisterprojects it still needs to follow Commons Policies. The same counts for En.Wiki the can't upload fair use on Commons because the policy. There are other project that al almost the same like Http://www.wikiportret.nl or photosubmission project on En.wiki both the projects need to get otrs permission for every upload and give as source the projectsite. I think this would be a good way to go with Pikiwiki.
About the block, as far as I know the bot is already unblocked. But we have like 2.500 images already on Commons that need to be fixed before we upload even more images.
huib
Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor msn: Abigor@forgotten-beauty.com
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
First up correct me I'm making the wrong assumption here
Pikiwiki is hosted on Israeli servers Commons is hosted on US servers
The problem that is arising is that there are differences between the copyright laws of the two countries and what is an acceptable free image use in Israel is significantly different to what applies in the US and its with this difference that problems have arisen. Some how we need to explain the differences to the Pikiwiki community and get their help in addressing the information we need to host images on US servers.
As a separate issue the purpose, position, and expectations of Commons within the wider Wikimedia community needs to clarified, when I came to Commons it was as repository of free media, primarily to design to support cross project use of that media without the need to have multiple copies of the same file stored on the servers. From where it sit that hasnt changed, the people/admins of Commons havent gone rogue but at the moment it appears that we as members of that community are under seige. While Cary's comments on commons, and this discussion have helped to stimulate further discussion I think the approach of take all the files fromPikiwiki then you(Commons community) can sort the copyright problems later, because that what your there for isnt helpful or reasonable.
I agree with Dror involving the Foundation in this because its a fundamental concern that needs to be fixed and something that has the potential to bite at the core of our society. Whats needed from the Foundation is physical assistance in assessing, transfering the images and ensuring that before they are hosted on Commons servers the image do comly with US and source copyright laws what isnt need is further bashing of the people on Commons who are trying to ensure the image can be hosted.
2009/6/5 W Knight wknight94@gmail.com
Just a point of fact: the upload bot is still blocked at this time: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&am...
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Abigor abigor@forgotten-beauty.comwrote:
Gerard,
The PikiWiki project is lead by three organisations and not only wikimedia Israel.
I don't think the problem is Commons accepting the project. But even if we see it as one of our sisterprojects it still needs to follow Commons Policies. The same counts for En.Wiki the can't upload fair use on Commons because the policy. There are other project that al almost the same like Http://www.wikiportret.nl or photosubmission project on En.wiki both the projects need to get otrs permission for every upload and give as source the projectsite. I think this would be a good way to go with Pikiwiki.
About the block, as far as I know the bot is already unblocked. But we have like 2.500 images already on Commons that need to be fixed before we upload even more images.
huib
Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor msn: Abigor@forgotten-beauty.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
I didn't readed the entire discussion here on mailing list neither on COM:AN simply because I don't have enought time to look for productive comments and to ignore the flamewar pieces.
Talking only on the logo issue: after months of inactivity (I will be back on July for 4-8 weeks, returning again on December and leaving again on February or March 2010) I've logged-in my [[User:555]] account to take a look at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=F...<http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=F...
and I've found a non-copyrightable image!
1) The text is PD according to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-textlogo ;
2) The blue background is simply a blue background. You can't claim for copyrights on a colour. If you don't see the blue background as a background, no problem: there is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-shape for you;
3) The piece that is a good attempt on showing a photography is or a http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-shape or a derivative from copyleft icons like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nuvola_apps_background.png or http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vista-folder_images.png or http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vista-kview.png or thousands more that depicts the sky with a mountain.
Fortunately I'm no more a copyright paranoid.
Fell free to open a undeletion request mentioning this message *if* the Wikimedia Israel guys agrees that the logo for this project don't have anything with enough creative work to get copyrighted. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Trademarked may or may not apply for this image.
/me going back to get madden with their college researchs
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
First up correct me I'm making the wrong assumption here
Pikiwiki is hosted on Israeli servers Commons is hosted on US servers
The problem that is arising is that there are differences between the copyright laws of the two countries and what is an acceptable free image use in Israel is significantly different to what applies in the US and its with this difference that problems have arisen. Some how we need to explain the differences to the Pikiwiki community and get their help in addressing the information we need to host images on US servers.
As a separate issue the purpose, position, and expectations of Commons within the wider Wikimedia community needs to clarified, when I came to Commons it was as repository of free media, primarily to design to support cross project use of that media without the need to have multiple copies of the same file stored on the servers. From where it sit that hasnt changed, the people/admins of Commons havent gone rogue but at the moment it appears that we as members of that community are under seige. While Cary's comments on commons, and this discussion have helped to stimulate further discussion I think the approach of take all the files fromPikiwiki then you(Commons community) can sort the copyright problems later, because that what your there for isnt helpful or reasonable.
I agree with Dror involving the Foundation in this because its a fundamental concern that needs to be fixed and something that has the potential to bite at the core of our society. Whats needed from the Foundation is physical assistance in assessing, transfering the images and ensuring that before they are hosted on Commons servers the image do comly with US and source copyright laws what isnt need is further bashing of the people on Commons who are trying to ensure the image can be hosted.
2009/6/5 W Knight wknight94@gmail.com
Just a point of fact: the upload bot is still blocked at this time:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&am...
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Abigor abigor@forgotten-beauty.comwrote:
Gerard,
The PikiWiki project is lead by three organisations and not only wikimedia Israel.
I don't think the problem is Commons accepting the project. But even if we see it as one of our sisterprojects it still needs to follow Commons Policies. The same counts for En.Wiki the can't upload fair use on Commons because the policy. There are other project that al almost the same like Http://www.wikiportret.nl or photosubmission project on En.wiki both the projects need to get otrs permission for every upload and give as source the projectsite. I think this would be a good way to go with Pikiwiki.
About the block, as far as I know the bot is already unblocked. But we have like 2.500 images already on Commons that need to be fixed before we upload even more images.
huib
Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor msn: Abigor@forgotten-beauty.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
-- GN. http://gnangarra.redbubble.com/
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Luiz Augusto wrote:
- The blue background is simply a blue background. You can't claim for
copyrights on a colour. If you don't see the blue background as a background, no problem: there is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-shape for you;
What about the blue text?
Fell free to open a undeletion request mentioning this message *if* the Wikimedia Israel guys agrees that the logo for this project don't have anything with enough creative work to get copyrighted. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Trademarked may or may not apply for this image.
Of course. They could even disagree butlicense it under a free license.
I wasn't involved on that image issue, but I think the probem is with http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=F... "This is the official logo of the Pikiwiki Israeli free image collection project. It is used to identify the project, and should be used only for this purpose. (...) Use of this image requires permission."
I don't think it's a bad idea to accept these kind of images. Something like opening the WMF-Exception to chapters, or to allow images copyrighted by chapters if WMF supports them. Needs discussion.
Hello,
I fail to see why the Foundation is involved. The bot isn't giving enough information regarding source and permission and is therefor blocked by policy.
That Drork decided to go to the Foundation is just a stupid action, he could better spend his time fixing the bot...
I think the project that he is leading is a great idea but it must stay within the Commons policys we can't let somebody have other rules than the other people.
The Pikiwiki logo is nominated for Deletion by me. The reasson therefor is simple. Commons does not accept unfree media from different organisations than the Foundation itself. Since that logo isn't protected by the Foundation is can't stay as all rights reserved on Commons.
Huib
Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor msn: Abigor@forgotten-beauty.com
Hoi, I would argue that any of the WMF chapters and its projects should be seen as our "own". When this is not accepted it means that Commons is indeed an island with the drawbridge closed. Truly reconsider because this hurts us as an organisation. We are not divided by chapters we are organised with chapters as our representative. Thanks, GerardM
2009/6/4 Abigor abigor@forgotten-beauty.com
Hello,
I fail to see why the Foundation is involved. The bot isn't giving enough information regarding source and permission and is therefor blocked by policy.
That Drork decided to go to the Foundation is just a stupid action, he could better spend his time fixing the bot...
I think the project that he is leading is a great idea but it must stay within the Commons policys we can't let somebody have other rules than the other people.
The Pikiwiki logo is nominated for Deletion by me. The reasson therefor is simple. Commons does not accept unfree media from different organisations than the Foundation itself. Since that logo isn't protected by the Foundation is can't stay as all rights reserved on Commons.
Huib
Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor msn: Abigor@forgotten-beauty.com
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Gerard Meijssen schrieb:
Hoi, I would argue that any of the WMF chapters and its projects should be seen as our "own". When this is not accepted it means that Commons is indeed an island with the drawbridge closed. Truly reconsider because this hurts us as an organisation. We are not divided by chapters we are organised with chapters as our representative. Thanks, GerardM
Pikiwiki is _not_ a chapter, it is an independent third party project. (Or did I get it wrong?)
Regards,
ChrisiPK
Hoi, As far as I am aware this is a project of the Israeli chapter and as such you are wrong. Thanks, GerardM
2009/6/4 ChrisiPK chrisipk@gmail.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Gerard Meijssen schrieb:
Hoi, I would argue that any of the WMF chapters and its projects should be
seen
as our "own". When this is not accepted it means that Commons is indeed
an
island with the drawbridge closed. Truly reconsider because this hurts us
as
an organisation. We are not divided by chapters we are organised with chapters as our representative. Thanks, GerardM
Pikiwiki is _not_ a chapter, it is an independent third party project. (Or did I get it wrong?)
Regards,
ChrisiPK -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkon8/sACgkQzjPUOXJa0duecwCglWJHUFcgjn3u5sUTW9TU2J+2 VuEAoLoqcmYb0TDjdvoj83EVwgxwIWqn =XhW1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Gerard,
Did you even check things before you are shouting? The first English page on the pikiwiki website say's
"This project is a joint venture of the Israel Internet Association (ISOC-IL), the Israeli Wikimedia chapter and the Center for Educational Technology (CET) as part of promoting the concept of free content on the Web" (source: http://www.pikiwiki.org.il/index.php?action=content&id=21)
The userpage say's "Pikiwiki is a joint initiative of Wikimedia Israel (WM-IL), the Israel Internet Association (ISOC-IL) and the Center for Educational Technology aiming at collecting free-licensed images of special interest, related to Israel, from the Israeli public."
On the metapage you can find a complete list with all organisation that join this project. (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Israel_free_image_collection_projec...)
This pretty much proofs you didn't check anything before you give your opinion
Hoi, As far as I am aware this is a project of the Israeli chapter and as such you are wrong. Thanks, GerardM
2009/6/4 ChrisiPK chrisipk@gmail.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Gerard Meijssen schrieb:
Hoi, I would argue that any of the WMF chapters and its projects should be
seen
as our "own". When this is not accepted it means that Commons is
indeed an
island with the drawbridge closed. Truly reconsider because this hurts
us as
an organisation. We are not divided by chapters we are organised with chapters as our representative. Thanks, GerardM
Pikiwiki is _not_ a chapter, it is an independent third party project. (Or did I get it wrong?)
Regards,
ChrisiPK -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkon8/sACgkQzjPUOXJa0duecwCglWJHUFcgjn3u5sUTW9TU2J+2 VuEAoLoqcmYb0TDjdvoj83EVwgxwIWqn =XhW1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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
Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor msn: Abigor@forgotten-beauty.com
Hoi, Key in my mind is that this is a project of the Israeli chapter. These other organisations are cooperating by growing OUR content. The fact that there are other organisations involved is not that important to me. The fact that they collaborate and realise our commons goal is.
Given that my point of view is substantially different from yours you "ass u me d" that I did not have a look. Thanks, GerardM
2009/6/4 Abigor abigor@forgotten-beauty.com
Gerard,
Did you even check things before you are shouting? The first English page on the pikiwiki website say's
"This project is a joint venture of the Israel Internet Association (ISOC-IL), the Israeli Wikimedia chapter and the Center for Educational Technology (CET) as part of promoting the concept of free content on the Web" (source: http://www.pikiwiki.org.il/index.php?action=content&id=21)
The userpage say's "Pikiwiki is a joint initiative of Wikimedia Israel (WM-IL), the Israel Internet Association (ISOC-IL) and the Center for Educational Technology aiming at collecting free-licensed images of special interest, related to Israel, from the Israeli public."
On the metapage you can find a complete list with all organisation that join this project. ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Israel_free_image_collection_projec... )
This pretty much proofs you didn't check anything before you give your opinion
Hoi, As far as I am aware this is a project of the Israeli chapter and as such you are wrong. Thanks, GerardM
2009/6/4 ChrisiPK chrisipk@gmail.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Gerard Meijssen schrieb:
Hoi, I would argue that any of the WMF chapters and its projects should be
seen
as our "own". When this is not accepted it means that Commons is
indeed an
island with the drawbridge closed. Truly reconsider because this hurts
us as
an organisation. We are not divided by chapters we are organised with chapters as our representative. Thanks, GerardM
Pikiwiki is _not_ a chapter, it is an independent third party project. (Or did I get it wrong?)
Regards,
ChrisiPK -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkon8/sACgkQzjPUOXJa0duecwCglWJHUFcgjn3u5sUTW9TU2J+2 VuEAoLoqcmYb0TDjdvoj83EVwgxwIWqn =XhW1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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
Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor msn: Abigor@forgotten-beauty.com
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Hello Huib,
at first I want to make clear that I write this mail as a normal community member and not as a board member, and that I am expressing my personal opinion and in no way stance of the foundation or the board. Just to avoid any possible confusion about this point.
I read the threads about the blocking of the bot and Dror and I think I can agree with most of what you said. But in a few points I don't agree with you, especially with what you said in this special mail.
Abigor wrote:
I fail to see why the Foundation is involved. The bot isn't giving enough information regarding source and permission and is therefor blocked by policy.
That Drork decided to go to the Foundation is just a stupid action, he could better spend his time fixing the bot...
There are a few issues here. First of all, this is not only a problem inside the community. There are a few parties involved, inside the community, for example the Commons, the chapter, and outside the community, for example the volunteers and NGOs that are cooperating with the Pikiwiki project. The Foundation has a mission and we encourage people to put their content free. I see here that you agree with this mission:
I think the project that he is leading is a great idea but it must stay within the Commons policys we can't let somebody have other rules than the other people.
This mission had inspired a lot of volunteers, including our chapters. The German Chapter with the Bundesarchiv was the first of such projects that had third party content involved. And this example had again inspired a lot of other volunteers and chapters. I remember on the Berlin chapters meeting this April Dror told me the session lead by Matthias Schindler about the Bundesarchiv project was the best of the meeting. I have no doubt that Dror, you, me, we all agree with our mission.
Every project of the foundation has its own culture. In most cases this does not matter, because the communities between the projects have only very little intersections (in my opinion sadly). Commons is a very special project, because it has potentially with every other project intersections. People from a smaller community, where most differences can be resolved with discussion and concensus can get a culture shock when they first have contact with Commons. I don't know if you have this rule on commons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers but I think commons administrators should especially sensitive to this rule because it has such a wide spread intersection with other projects. I have often the feeling that this failed on commons because I know quite a lot of people who try to avoid commons because they are afraid of the admins there. If inside of our communities such cultural differences is such a big issue, what do you imagine how difficult it could be if a third party is involved?
Now to Dror specitically. I think there are two reasons why blocking him is disastrous. First, for me blocking is something like to say someone is an enemy or at least an unwilcome person of the project. Even though if that block is only temperal or lifted later, that person is marked in some sense. We saw on board election or stewardship election people pointing out this person was blocked once or twice, or that person had issues with copyright on commons. Dror is a board member of one of the Wikimedia chapters. Per definition he is a very trusted person of the foundation. So blocking him is like to say a very trusted person of the foundation is an unwilcome person of the project. This doesn't help to ease the relations between commons and other communities.
Second reason, and in my opinion the more important reason. As I said above this is in reality an issue that involves not only commons, another wikimedia project or chapter, but also third parties and volunteers of third parties. As far as I know Dror is the only link person between the two ends (commons on one side and the chapter and third party on the other side). I think as a person who works on a project that has intersections with all other projects and all the different cultures you should also recognize his difficulty in sitting between commons and the chapter and the third party. So block him out simply cuts off any communication between the two sides.
Personally I don't think Dror wrong in calling help from the foundation. At some time the situation is so bad that neither side can resolve the problem. I think to call for help is a possibility. The involvement of Cary was helpful, at least the whole thing got moving again, and in the right direction (a direction, we should all remember this very crucial point that we all agree on). It is definitively better than cut off communication.
Commons has its rules, and these rules are important. It is important to keep copyvios out of commons. But on the other side, dealing with third party, it may also be more helpful if commons can be more active in helping the partner fix his problem and not just say Feed or die.
As I said before I agree with a lot of what you said especially on wiki. And I don't agree with a lot of accusations against commons. I think the rules of commons have their sense and includes a lot experiences and knowledge. But as such a central project please be more friendly and be more proactive helpful.
Bundesarchiv was the first action of this sort and it was a very big success. It had inspired a lot of people. Because of that success we had overseen the potential dangers and risks in such projects with third party. Pikiwiki is the first such project outside of the reign of german chapter, maybe from a chapter and community that has a very different culture as commons or German Wikipedia. We have a throw back here. I read a lot of very good suggestions on this discussion for example in the mail of Gnangarra. I think it is important to calm down, to work _together_ and to help each other. If this is a lesson we have learnd from this event and we can deal such projects in the future better out of this experience it would at least be useful.
The Pikiwiki logo is nominated for Deletion by me. The reasson therefor is simple. Commons does not accept unfree media from different organisations than the Foundation itself. Since that logo isn't protected by the Foundation is can't stay as all rights reserved on Commons.
This I agree with you.
Greetings