January 24th:
Jovana Milicevic and Goran Obradovic talked in tv show Mozaik(3rd channel of
National television).
January 25th:
IT magazine COM&GSM published an article about Wikipedia and Wikimedia
Serbia and Montenegro.
January 26th:
Weekly newspaper Vreme published article about serbian Wikipedia.
January 27th:
Jovana Milicevic speaked in the programe at radio B92 about Wikipedia.
January 28th:
In Youth center Dom omladine Belgrade Wikimedia Serbia and Montenegro, FSN
(Free Softver Network), LUG (Linux User Group) organized projection of the
movie Revolution OS (J.T.S. Moore), and there were almost 200 visitors.
Jovana Milicevic
Wikimedia Serbia&Montenegro
Actually, being a lawyer and a PhD candidate in copyright law, I think
do have "legal mind" :-)
And there are some others on juriwiki-l too :-)
Is copyright.or.kr a governement institution?
Anyway, I know some legal scholars in Korea, and I can contact them to
obtain more precise information. But it will take some time.
I'll follow the link and I forward this to juriwiki-l
Best,
Jean-Baptiste Soufron
Puzzlet Chung wrote:
> User:WonYong, who insisted that the contents of Wikipedia should be
> restricted by National Security Law weeks ago (
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-January/043321.html
> ), claims that copyrighted images can be uploaded to Korean Wikipedia
> and Wikimedia Commons, through "quotation policy."
>
> Some months ago, WonYong wanted to upload image files from South
> Korean government, but found that they are copyrighted and not allowed
> to be uploaded. Now he came up with a new (proposed) policy that
> allows uploading almost any image files. His point is that even
> copyrighted images can be _quoted_ in Wikipedia articles, just like
> citations in academic articles. He says that he won't no longer need
> fair use, which he had proposed in Korean Wikipedia before.
>
> South Korean copyright law states that publicized materials may be
> quoted for report, research, or educational purposes, within a
> reasonable scope. A bulletin board in the Copyright Discussion and
> Arbitration Committee website (http://copyright.or.kr/) answered that
> this "quotation" article of the bill is not suitable for writing
> encyclopedias.
>
> The problem is that he pushes his policy in not only Korean Wikipedia
> but Wikimedia Commons. He says he distrusts copyright.or.kr, and
> doubts that other Wikipedians and those in Commons do have "legal
> mind."
>
> Ongoing discussion in Wikimedia Commons is here:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#ALLOW_COPYRIGHTED_IM…
>
> And the diff is here:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AVillage_pump&diff=…
>
> Puzzlet Chung
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
As the stewards community got larger and not so many things to do right now I think we should have a larger policy about stewards, their status and functions.
First of all I think that if we want to have neutral stewards they should not be members of staff in local projects (sysop, bureaucrat) because this can influence their decision.
The current stewards should have a period to think about the issue and consider if they want to leave their local status or the steward status.
Another urgent issue is checkuser policy regarding stewards. We don't have one and I think is immediatly subject.
Any other ideas?
>
> Yes
>
> <subliminal message>
>
> Local bureaucrats should be the ones to give bot status on local
> projects. It makes little sense that stewards do it.
>
> </end of subliminal message>
>
> :-) Agree without conditions!And if there is installed the stewards interface to bureaucrats (of course simplified) they will have the possibility to give also rollback rights and in this case I think we should reconsider reintroducing this permission.M
As announced in my previous response, here are some general concerns
about the various committees created through:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions
=== Openness ===
The secret to our project-level success has been that we allow ordinary
people to do extraordinary things. This distinguishes Wikimedia from
other organizations. It is essential that we preserve this principle in
our organizational work.
There has been a committee before these new committees; it is the
Wikimedia Research Network which I started while I was CRO. This
committee is open. Anyone can join, it has public meetings anyone can
participate in, and public IRC logs and reports. I hope that we can make
these new committees (except for the Executive Committee) similarly open.
That does not mean that every member has to have the same rights and
privileges. There can be leaders, a trusted (elected or appointed) core
group, and a larger open membership group surrounding the core. There
may be meetings which are open to all members, and those which are only
open to the core group.
But I hope we all agree that an approach which maximizes openness and
participation is desirable. I would very much like to see open meetings
about the formation of these committees, open discussions about their
purpose, and open reports about their activities. I would appreciate
some Board-level oversight to ensure that this openness is preserved.
Are there still documents on the internal wiki or relevant messages on
the internal mailing list which have not yet been, but can be
publicized? If so, I would appreciate it if this was done.
=== Multiple languages ===
I do not find anything in the resolutions about languages. In fact, as
far as I know, all the committee organizers speak English. This is to be
expected and perfectly alright. However, as a community which strives to
bring knowledge to people in their language, I find it highly important
that people are enabled to participate in their language on an
international level. (We do enable local participation through the
projects and chapters.)
This is a tricky problem, but I believe there are reasonable ways to
deal with it. For example, every committee can agree on its most
commonly spoken language - in almost all cases, this will be English.
Beyond that, it can form language-specific subcommittees that meet
separately, and that relay the results of their work through someone who
speaks the common language.
This may seem like overkill, but do keep in mind that if we aim for open
committees with different levels of authority, we will also end up with
fairly large groups, so this will become a real issue. I certainly hope
that it will! :-)
=== Multiple projects ===
Among the resolutions, there is a "Special projects" committee which, at
the moment, has no definition. I'm not sure if I would call Wikisource,
Wikiquote, Wiktionary, Wikinews and Wikimedia Commons "special
projects". (Wikispecies is perhaps one because of its relation to a
grant.) Yet, all of these projects have very specific needs.
For example, there have been ideas floating around for Wikinews to work
together with journalism schools and radio stations. There's been talk
about collaboration between Wikisource and Project Gutenberg /
Distributed Proofreaders. And there are about a hundred different
possible collaborations actively being explored around Wiktionary and
its potential successor, from the European Union's terminology databases
to Swahili dictionaries.
It is clear that these partnerships need to be pursued by people close
to the projects, who understand their needs and who are in touch with
the right people, some of them because of their personal background,
others because of their passion.
In all these cases, it would greatly help to have a workgroup that is
authorized and tasked with pursuing these partnerships, and that can act
in the name of the Wikimedia Foundation, together with the Executive
Committee (more on this below).
Wikimedia is much more than just Wikipedia. Therfore, I think it is
absolutely necessary to think about forming project-specific committees
for each Wikimedia project. I understand "special projects" to be
something separate from this - things like grants work, new project
proposals like Wikiversity, and other meta collaborations. What do the
organizers of the special project committee think about its role?
In line with my earlier comments about the Executive Committee, if we
end up with project-specific committees, their leaders could be elected
by their communities, legitimizing them and at the same time ensuring
their participation on the ExecCom.
=== Clear definitions ===
At the moment, none of these proposed committees has a clear scope or
clear definition. There is a communication committee, for example.
Communication cannot be compartmentalized; every single committee needs
to be able to communicate with the inside and outside world. My concern
is that as these definitions are made, there will inevitably be scope
conflicts between the committees.
This reinforces my earlier point about the need for openness. Perhaps an
open meeting with all committee organizers and interested parties could
be organized soon to hammer out the basic definitions, in order to avoid
overlap. Angela, Anthere and Jimmy, would you be willing to organize
something like this in the near future?
Best,
Erik
Each article on most editions on wikipedia are licenced under
"GFDL 1.2 or later", but articles on ja.wp are currently licenced
under "GFDL 1.1 or later". But, some images and some articles
on ja.wp are duplicated from other language edition of wikipedia,
it seems GFDL violation because GFDL version imcompatibility.
("Permission is granted to use under GFDL 1.2 or later" can be
read "Permission isn't granted under GFDL 1.1 or prior")
If licence on ja.wp shifted to "GFDL 1.2 or later" simply,
can their "Duplicated articles and images" be relieved
from GFDL version imcompatibility because article 9 of
GFDL licence?
(Can article 9 of GFDL licence used to relieve them from
GFDL version imcompatibility?)
----
PiaCarrot at ja/en/ja.wiktionary
E-Mail:nao-yuki a-t beige.plala.or.jp
Hi all,
My decision to found the admin IRC channel has meant that I've had to
take a lot of flak from some of my friends which has been quite
upsetting. I thought I would write this email to the list to explain
what I see its purpose as. This also serves to highlight the importance
of RC patrol.
I started the channel following Danny's suggestion that there should be
a private place for discussion of confidential issues which we don't
want the public (and by extension, the media) to know about. Such issues
include complaints to the Foundation about libel in articles. Everyone
should know this is one of Wikipedia's greatest problems, that anyone
can say nasty things about someone else and quite often this isn't
picked up on RC patrol.
Danny's suggestion for a private method of communication between
"trusted users" given the issues we face was an excellent one in my
opinion and I thought that an IRC channel is an ideal medium for this
type of discussion to occur. Admins form a pretty diverse group of
trustworthy users (all admins have the best interests of their project
at heart) so for simplicity I created the channel for admins only.
The suggestion of a "trusted user" group is an interesting idea but
unfortunately very selective. Who is responsible for choosing who is a
trusted user? Whoever it was, there would be a large number of people
who would be missed off even though they are perfectly trustworthy.
Also, think of the consequences if someone found out if they weren't
considered trustworthy as they weren't given channel access - it would
be quite demoralising for one. Rationally, there may be perfectly solid
reasons why they weren't given access but emotionally it is still
demoralising. That's why I went by the simple, easily-defined standard
of admins on the English-language Wikipedia.
Later Danny and I talked about the scope of the channel and raised the
point that people who work the OTRS lists should be given access, since
they get the bulk of the libel complaints and are best placed to notify
people of potential issues. This is an entirely sensible argument.
Some people have raised concerns about backroom decisions, cliques and
the lack of transparency this channel will create. These are fair
comments to raise but I believe they are unfounded. Firstly, the
channel's purpose is not a decision-making one. Unrelated chit-chatter
and non-confidential discussions are pointed out as inappropriate for
the channel and go on to take place in #wikipedia. Some admins have
refused to join because they think the channel is closed and hidden. I
think a better action for them to take would be to join, and
self-regulate what the channel discusses. If it's not appropriate, ask
the people discussing to talk in a different channel.
On a related note, the entire reason this channel exists is due to the
problem we face from libel. This is why we must be grateful for the
existing work people who work RC patrol do, and we should do everything
we can to help them out. Problems which are ending up in OTRS and the
admin channel are due to edits slipping through RC patrol. What we need
to do is make their job easier. Admins who help out on RC patrol know
the huge difference admin rollback makes, compared to having to do it
manually. This is why we should either make the majority of RC
patrollers admins, or give them access to rollback. Because of the
rising standards for becoming an admin on the English language
Wikipedia, the former is becoming more hard. Arguments of "adminship is
no big deal" have now become "adminship should be no big deal". We have
to recognise that this shift has taken place - and those who hold this
principle should take part in RFA more, supporting more candidates.
Another - and better - solution, however, is to grant the rollback
privilege to good contributors who are not admins. This would make the
jobs of RC patrollers much easier - and will have the knock-on effect of
lowering the amount of complaints the Foundation gets. The Foundation
agrees that this is a great solution to the big problem we face. There
is a poll to gauge community consensus on the issue:
-->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback_privileges/Poll
Chris (Talrias)
--
Chris Jenkinson
chris(a)starglade.org
"Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra