First, sorry if my points have already been made and/or answered I have
tried to read all the fore-going discussion but may have missed things.
1) The main POV pushing here is to call all these cartoons racist. It would
seem clear that the Ariel cartoons are on the face of it against Ariel
Sharon and his policies/actions. To see Ariel Sharon as being used as a
proxy for the Israeli nation, or Jews is an interpretation that requires
input from the viewers POV.
2) Not yet used in any wikimedia project is not the same as "not useful for
any Wikimedia project". I expect that at any one time the majority of
images on commons may not be in use, that does not mean they are outside the
project scope!
3) Keeping only a sampling of images as an 'exemplar' is not appropriate
either, commons does not have a quota of any type of images, either they are
within the project scope or not, we have no need to restrict supply, the
projects can pick and choose what they want to use.
4) The 'original research' question doesn't seem relevant, that normally
applies to research by the contributor themselves anyway. You might as well
define all original photos on commons as original research.
I would have thought the main problem with a lot of Bush and Sharon cartoons
would be a question of defamation. But then if you take the POV that they
are actually about a whole nation or its peoples, then perhaps you can not
argue that one ;-).
I would like to see the cartoons with useful descriptions putting them in
context, when were they produced, in response to what news, actions etc.
Looking at political cartoons in isolation makes no sense.
Does everyone here actually understand the idea of a media bank?, commons is
not just a convenient place to store images currently in use on other
projects. Also commons gallery pages are not articles to provide
information on the subject, but, along with the category system, they are a
way to find the images to illustrate some aspect of the subject on other
projects. I think the problem here is that some people think a gallery on
commons should be a place to promote the subject depicted (with air brushed,
promotional, photos), rather than part of a filing system .
- Tony.
Silly question time. Just because a project, say, decides to migrate
from one license type to another, how can the project forcefully reassign
the older contributions under the new license? I'm familiar with the GFDL
and CC-BY-SA, but suppose someone (who is a stick-in-the-mud true
believer of the GFDL, for instance?) insists that their contributions are
only licensed under the GFDL and not a similar but less restrictive CC license?
What about all the contributors (aka copyright holders for Wikipedia's content)
who either disagree with such a move, or those who simply never give consent
to the changeover?
I'm hoping I'm missing something.
~ Kylu
>> As far as I can understand, the main problem we have with the GFDL is
that
>> you have to include the entire text of the license if you want to use
>> something that is GFDL. Why not, in the next GFDL version, just
remove the
>> clause that says you have to include the entire license, and just say
it's
>> sufficient to state that the material is GFDL and credit the
author(s) in
>> the appropriate manner? Wouldn't that - for the everyday person -
accomplish
>> exactly the same as switching to CC-by-SA?
>A bit of a follow-up to this question: If the FSF modifies the GFDL to
>be compatible with CC-BY-SA, wouldn't that negate the need to migrate
>from one to the other? If the two licenses were fully-compatible to
>the point that migration was possible, wouldn't we already be getting
>everything we want out of the GFDL anyway? If the GFDL is modified to
>suit our needs as well as the CC-BY-SA does, why is there a need to
>migrate?
Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com
hi,
anybody knows how much bandwith wikimedia is using currently? thanks
to tim i just saw the post from brion at
http://leuksman.com/log/2007/06/07/wikimedia-page-views/ with the 7
billion / month pageviews for all wikimedia projects.
does this mean
* we have > 300 mio page views per day
* we have 300 mio * 100k = 30 gb per day data volume
* and then there is some traffic from kennisnet
?
what would be our "average page size" and what would be the percentage
handled by proxies, and kennisnet especially?
rupert.
I was being unduly sharp-tongued and it was unfair of me. I can't
imagine what it must be like to be in your position. Sorry for any
offense.
--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)
******
Thank you, no offense taken. I was unduly sharp-tongued myself last month
and paid a heavy price for it. In light of that, I owe a few dollops of
good faith toward other people.
Best regards,
Durova
Dear community,
Some of you will remember that a meeting was originally planned in
Frankfurt this week end, with representants from WMF and all wikimedia
chapters, to work on organizational issues (such as "who can make
business with who", "who can do fundraising", "how to redistribute money
between organizations" etc...).
This meeting was cancelled because we felt not enough prepared for it to
have much chance to be successful, and suggested another course of events.
The chapters were asked to participate to a survey. The survey
management was led by the chapcoordinator, Delphine. This survey is
pretty long and detailed, with topics such as
* History of the chapter. Basic details (figures, date of creation...)
* Current status of the chapter (membership based organization, non
profit, languages covered...)
* Activities of the chapter (promotion, press, grant development,
software etc...)
* Perception of Wikimedia Foundation activities (does it get involved in...)
* Public recognition of the chapter (by press, government etc...)
* Relationships with the Foundation and other chapters (status,
suggestions for improvement)
* strenghts and weaknesses of the Foundation and of the chapter
* what should be the measures of success of a chapter
* What does the chapter intend to focus on in the future
* etc...
A meeting will occur in Frankfurt this week end, and part of saturday
will be dedicated to discuss Wikimedia Foundation and chapters issues.
Participants will include WMF board members (Frieda, Jan-Bart and
myself) and WMF staff members (Sue, Delphine).
The day will include
* Presentation of survey results & analysis
* Discussion of survey results & analysis
* Defining process & timeline for developing proposal and gaining
approval for it
I am very excited at the prospective of reading the chapter survey
results and analyzing it. I hope it will be useful in the discussions.
Thank you to all who took the time to complete it.
Ant
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "rhetoric" here
>
> Rhetoric is something said more for effect than for its informational
> value - humour and irony are forms of rhetoric. (They can still have
> informational value, but it's generally of secondary importance to the
> effect of the statement.)
Ah, that explains my confusion -- you were using a nonstandard
definition of "rhetoric."
In any case, what I originally posted was meant to be understood
primarily for its informational value and not merely appreciated for
my inimitable style and flare.
> It also helps to English - we're generally
> much more used to sarcasm and similar forms of rhetoric than, say,
> Americans.
In light of this exchange, you're being ironic here, right? :)
--Mike
All,
I'm pleased to announce that four Wikipedians -- myself (user:phoebe),
Charles Matthews (user:Charles Matthews), Ben Yates (user:Tlogmer) and
SJ Klein (user:sj) -- are writing a book about using and understanding
Wikipedia, tentatively titled "How Wikipedia Works". It will be
published by [[No Starch Press]] in early 2008.
This guide will be focused on helping readers understand Wikipedia and
helping new editors contribute. We hope to include enough detail to
make it a useful reference for current contributors as well. (Note
that this is a different project from the O'Reilly book that was
discussed earlier on the lists).
We welcome community feedback and ideas, and hope to make this a truly
community-based work. There is a project page here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Phoebe/book
We'll add detail there over the coming weeks, and have asked for
feedback in some specific areas. Please do contribute and send us your
thoughts and ideas.
Some details:
* The book will be licensed under the GFDL and an online version will
be available. (No Starch has been a great partner in this and has been
very supportive of open licensing). Where the book reprints on-wiki
documentation, the authors of that documentation will be credited.
* We're primarily focusing on the English Wikipedia, but there will be
brief sections about the sister projects and Wikipedias in other
languages, so we definitely welcome feedback and ideas from those
communities as well.
* A portion of the authors' proceeds will be donated to the Wikimedia
Foundation.
If you have any questions, concerns or ideas, please let me or one of
the other authors know. I'll be updating the project page with
progress information as we get closer to publication.
best,
Phoebe Ayers
phoebe.ayers(a)gmail.com
Thomas Dalton writes:
> Yes, but the reason I'm good at understanding sarcasm is because I'm
> frequently exposed to it due to it's common place in my culture. The
> reason Americans are good are understanding sports metaphors is
> because they are frequently exposed to them due to their common place
> in their culture.
I am utterly charmed by the notion that, as an American, I'm more
likely to understand sports metaphors than sarcasm.
--Mike
Isn't this going slightly off-topic? Trying to stand on Essjay's
shoulders while you're both drowning isn't going to save anyone. For
what it's worth, I don't see how Essjay's actions were wrong - since
we don't require any credentials to edit, it matters not whether he
lied about having credentials that he didn't. He just played a game in
trying to assume credibility he didn't have, at least he didn't harm
anyone.
--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)
******
Excuse me for any impropriety. I meant only that both he and I were
reported in the news. It isn't easy to be in this position.
-Durova
> Why bother? Good old William of Occam would have made a fantastic
> Wikimedian. You've got a simple, quick, and easy solution to a pretty bad
> problem. Why hesitate and go in for something more complicated? Don't
> understand the reason to overcomplicate. Or, alternatively, you could ban
> him from uploading any more politics-related images...
>
> Honestly, though, if we get to the stage where 50 percent of one guy's
> picture gallery labels him as a Neo-Nazi - complete fringe theory -
Commons
> need to learn something from enwiki and toughen up. There's a word for
that
> we use at enwiki: POV-pushing. This is not acceptable and we don't really
> need any more bad press at the moment, not with Durova/!! all over the
> Register.
En.wikipedia has a lot more problems and disgruntled users than Commons ever
has, and I don't believe it is purely due to size or reputation. We're more
easy-going at Commons and we try to talk to and help people before clicking
the block button and pissing them off - you'd be surprised how many times
I've explained one point of policy to someone who would otherwise have been
blocked for uploading copyvios or such after repeated warnings, and they
realised a point they hadn't understood before and became decent
contributors. Policy and copyright are hard to understand and blocking is
not the way to educate people.
en.wp does not do things perfectly; and no, they aren't the perfect older
sibling for the little ones to look up to. En.wp is more like the rebellious
older sibling who became a rock star and wildly famous, but is also slowly
killing itself with drugs and alcohol. Just because it makes a lot of money
and has a lot of fans doesn't mean the little siblings should mimic its
behaviour.
--Ayelie
(Editor at Large)
******
Could I ask for a retraction, please?
I've been keeping my head low for two weeks in the hopes that things would
blow over. Yes, I'm in the Register now. And unfortunately in a couple of
more mainstream news sources also. None of them contacted me for comment
before running the story. And due to the way dispute resolution progressed
I had no fair opportunity to present my side of events onsite, either.
I unblocked the editor as soon as I realized I was mistaken, apologized
repeatedly, sought to make amends, invited scrutiny, and pledged
improvements. What more can I do?
I'm not Essjay. I haven't lied about my credentials or misled any
reporters. I've volunteered for Wikipedia for two years and 20,000 edits
and handled some of the site's most difficult disputes. Please assume good
faith.
This reads like an implication that I've sought this attention, and that I'm
a substance abuser. None of that is true.
-Durova