Nathan writes:
With respect, legal issues are debated on many projects practically
> every day. This particular issue is no different. In some
> jurisdictions, just accessing such files can expose one to legal risk.
> While Mike is a good lawyer, he doesn't represent individual editors -
> and the Foundation's interests and liabilities (as a host, not a
> content provider) may not fully intersect with the needs of individual
> editors.
>
Keep in mind, though, that PM is constantly asking for Foundation
intervention with regard to the images that he is so consistently reviewing
and concerned about. Why PM wants Foundation intervention rather than
community consensus is unclear to me -- it should be clear, however, that
the Foundation is disinclined to engage in editorial intervention in the
absence of a clear legal imperative.
With regard to the Foundation's legal obligations, I expect my colleagues at
the DOJ and elsewhere will contact me if they have a problem with Foundation
policies or operations.
--Mike
G'day all,
I continue to have concerns related to the growing number of explicit images
on WMF projects (largely commons) - but rather than banging on with dull
mailing list posts which gaurantee a chorus of groans, I'm trying to be a
bit less dull, and have made a short video presentation.
It's my intention to work on this with a few like minded wiki volunteers,
and probably then make a sort of alternate version for youtube etc. to see
what the general feeling is out there.... what I'd really like is for the
foundation to acknowledge that this is an issue where some regulation may be
necessary (or indeed, where the discussion of potential benefits of some
regulation is even conceivable) - I hope the board, or the advisory board,
might also be interested in offering some thoughts / recommendations too.
I've used a selection of explicit images from Commons, so please only click
through if you're over the age of majority;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Privatemusings/WikiPr0n
ps. I'm also particularly interested if anyone can point me to where
'section 2257' (record keeping) issues may have previously been discussed -
is it the current foundation position that section 230 acts as an exemption
to these requirements?
best,
Peter,
PM.
Details on how to measure it are relatively complex. We can make a guess
because of data collected from sources available for Catalan. My mail was
just to explain the phenomena.
Figures results from: a) Surveys. Last one answered by 400 Catalan Wikipedia
readers. We use results from answer to question about other language
versions frequently used. [1] b) Most viewed pages in Spanish, French and
English not yet existing in Catalan.[2] c) % of visitors to web pages
exclusively in Catalan using web browser configured in other languages [3].
D) Own experiments with common searches in Google configuring the browser in
Catalan, French, Spanish, and English, and some final cooking. Result is
very approximate but gives us an idea about what is happening.
The bilingual factor is not negative. It apparently reduces hits to Catalan
pages but really it increases hits to non Catalan pages.
The factor due to inexistent or not well developed articles has to be
improved by growing the project.
The more frustrating one is the Google Factor, You can Google “Integral”
even with a Catalan configured navigator and you will get the English
version first, then the Spanish one (witch is a translation from an old
Catalan version) both in first page but not find the Catalan one witch is
the larger of all before page 10. This article is a very special case due to
specific factors.
A technical solution would be great. And perhaps it is not of high
difficulty. We could guess languages from IP address and highlight interwiki
links to those languages.
[1]
http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viquip%C3%A8dia:Segon_sondeig_dels_usuaris/4._…
[2]
http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuari:Meldor/Top_visites_2009#Mes_visitats_a_…
[3] http://www.eines.cat/?p=804
> From: Marcus Buck <me(a)marcusbuck.org>
>
> Joan Goma hett schreven:
> > There are 3 phenomena acting simultaneously against the number of visits
> to
> > small projects: The bilingual effect, the size effect, and the Google
> > effect. For Catalan case we estimate a penalization factor of 8.3 (that
> > means that visits are 8.3 times less that what they should be). It comes
> > from: 1.2 bilingual factor (visits lost because people also understand
> other
> > languages, even if they have the opportunity to read the article in their
> > mother tongue, they also read it in others). 2.5 size factor (visits to
> > other projects because readers don?t find what they were looking for in
> > their mother tongue). And 2,77 Google factor. (Visits lost because Google
> > directs people to other tongues projects). The only positive factor is
> the
> > bilingual one. We are working hard to correct the others. For other
> projects
> > those factors can be very different but the concept can be there.
> >
> Interesting. What's the math behind that numbers? Or the source?
>
> Marcus Buck
>
>
>
> Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:58:20 -0800
> From: William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com>
>
> On 01/18/2010 09:29 AM, Joan Goma wrote:
> > There are 3 phenomena acting simultaneously against the number of visits
> to
> > small projects: The bilingual effect, the size effect, and the Google
> > effect. For Catalan case we estimate a penalization factor of 8.3 (that
> > means that visits are 8.3 times less that what they should be).
> >
>
> In the long term, it seems like we could compensate for all of these
> effects in software.
>
> I'm imagining a user experience where we make it easy for multilingual
> users to switch back and forth. That would include passive detection of
> multilingual users, hinting when good content is available in other
> languages, and making it easy for multilingual users to help translate
> content. It might also be worth looking at URL schemes that are not 100%
> language-specific, to focus the Google effect more usefully.
>
> That would require a lot of technical work, and would raise a number of
> non-technical issues, but I don't see any insurmountable barriers to a
> more fluid experience for multilingual users.
>
> William
>
>
>
******************************************
__ __ _ _ _ _
/ / /\ \ (_) | _(_)___(_)_ __ ___
\ \/ \/ / | |/ / |_ / | '_ \ / _ \
\ /\ /| | <| |/ /| | | | | __/
\/ \/ |_|_|\_\_/___|_|_| |_|\___|
.org
Anno Domini MMX Week III Number CXXI
******************************************
An independent internal news bulletin
for the members of the Wikimedia community
//////////////////////////////////////////
=== Technical news ===
[Flagged revisions] - status information about flagged revisions and
how the English Wikipedia is going to use it.
http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2010/01/flagged-revisions-your-questions-answ…
[10gbit/sec] - on the 11th of January Wikimedia's world-wide
five-minute-average transmission rate crossed 10gbit/sec. This peak
rate was achieved while serving roughly 91,725 requests per second.
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical/46655
[Wikipedia and Google] - A custom Google skin for Wikipedia is
created. It provides advanced Google/Wikipedia search options.
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/10/26/google-experiments-with-new-ways-to-se…
=== Foundation ===
[Stewards] - Candidate submissions are open for the function of
Steward. A steward is a user who has the administrative user rights to
grant and revoke all existing user levels on all Wikimedia Foundation
projects. It can be compared with a super-bureaucrat.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2010/Guidelines#Candidates
-- until 28th January
[WMF fundraiser] - it has come and is gone again. The Wikimedia
Foundation was able to raise just over $8 million USD. In Euro it 5,5
million. In any case it was the most successful fundraiser to date.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/2009_Fundraiser_Closing_…
[WMF move] - The Wikimedia Foundation started in Saint-Petersburg,
Florida. And moved in early 2008 to San Francisco, California. A
couple of months ago the WMF moved again to a larger office in the
neighborhood of the old office.
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/10/27/wikimedia-finds-a-new-home/
=== Community ===
[Commons] - Post of Erik about how the contend imported on Commons
from partnerships have been used on the projects.
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/43645
[Wiki jobs] - If you work on a WMF project and do your best, maybe,
just maybe, you will be offered a job. That was the case with
[[user:Mike Halterman]] from EN Wikinews. His work on Wikinews
attracted the attention of a new magazine starting up in Tampa,
Florida, USA, This user did had a journalistic background but this
online work at Wikinews was the ticket. Nine months after being hired
as a writer, Mike Halterman is now lead editor of OMG! Magazine.
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User:Mike_Haltermanhttp://omgmag.com
=== Awards ===
[PL Wiki] - Polish Wikipedia has been awarded a "Jan ?ukasiewicz
special award for social innovation in the application of IT" by the
Polish IT Society (Polskie Towarzystwo Informatyczne). The award has
been received by Pawe? Jochym, a co-founder of pl.wiki, and Prof.
Janusz "Ency" Doro?y?ski, an active Polish Wikimedian and a member of
the Society.
=== Media ===
[A editor story] - A nice article about one of the many people working
on the wiki
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/22/AR200910220…
=== Other news ===
[Wikitravel] - has changed there license to "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0". This is the same license as the Wikimedia
Foundation is using for most projects.
http://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:License_upgrade
[Upcoming holiday] - 25th of January Magnus Manske Day
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Magnus_Manske_Day
=== Editorial notice ===
So, this was the first Wikizine of 2010 (and it was not even a good
one). It has been a couple of months since the previous Wikizine.
There was a short revival of Wikizine in the period of August,
September and October. And now this edition in January. I can not make
any promises for a next edition. Maybe until Wikizine 121,
Greetings,
User:Walter
//////////////////////////////////////////
Editor(s): Walter, Casey
Corrector(s):
Thanks to: Erik, Jay, Cary, George Herbert, Frank, Magnus Manske,
Jyothis, Amgine, Sage, Jay, Tim, Marlita, Kat, David, Wpedzich, Naoko,
Kul, Evan
Contact: reply or http://report.wikizine.org
Website: http://www.wikizine.org
//////////////////////////////////////////
Wikizine.org makes no guarantee of accuracy,
validity and especially but not limited to,
correct grammar and spelling. Satisfaction is not guaranteed.
Wikizine.org is published by [[meta:user:Walter]].
Wikizine is published as long as there is noteworthy news (and time)
Content is available under the GNU Free Documentation License
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
and also the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
_______________________________________________
To unsubscribe;
mailto:request@wikizine.org?subject=unsubscribe
There are 3 phenomena acting simultaneously against the number of visits to
small projects: The bilingual effect, the size effect, and the Google
effect. For Catalan case we estimate a penalization factor of 8.3 (that
means that visits are 8.3 times less that what they should be). It comes
from: 1.2 bilingual factor (visits lost because people also understand other
languages, even if they have the opportunity to read the article in their
mother tongue, they also read it in others). 2.5 size factor (visits to
other projects because readers don’t find what they were looking for in
their mother tongue). And 2,77 Google factor. (Visits lost because Google
directs people to other tongues projects). The only positive factor is the
bilingual one. We are working hard to correct the others. For other projects
those factors can be very different but the concept can be there.
>
> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 02:40:06 -0700
> From: Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from? Q&A
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <849f98ed1001160140h20c69f6fxa5a7a22d4b81eb37(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Sociolinguistic situations around the world are very complex I think. In
> especially former European colonies, of which Kenya is but one example, the
> language of the former colonial power often has a unique position in
> society.
>
> It is not surprising to me that the English Wikipedia is so popular
> compared
> to any other in Kenya, but it is quite a bit more surprising that Korean,
> Romanian, Bulgarian, Lithuanian, Iranian, etc. users prefer the English
> Wikipedia.
>
> Mark
>
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 2:25 AM, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk(a)googlemail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Dear Erik,
> >
> > Maybe there is a dirty Polish word looked up by many Polish pupils,
> > and when they Google it they come to eu.WP because a Basque word
> > accidentally is alike? :-)
> >
> > I am looking now for the interest in the native / the English
> > Wikipedia in specific countries. It might be important how localized
> > the software in general is. If you live in, say, Kenya, and your
> > computer has Windows in English, the Internet Explorer and everything
> > is oriented to English, and you google your home town in an English
> > language Google, it is probable that you will get the Wikipedia
> > article in English and not in Swahili.
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Ziko
>
Dear all,
We've had SUL ([1]) for almost two years now. At the moment projects all
have different policies for usurpation. On some projects conflicts can
easily be solved, while on others they can't.
Are there any plans for having a Foundation wide policy on that? Will
unattached accounts ever be forcefully renamed in order to have full SUL
conflict resolution?
--Erwin
[1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Unified_login
Just a short remark: the most statistically explicative parameter for
Wikipedia activity is not the number of internet connections but GDP (except
for English and Chinese projects which exhibit singular behavior). Perhaps
you could retry the analysis using GDP and find some more countries where
chapters are achievable.
Sorry for not providing references. This comes from a not yet published
research work that applies reasonable hypothesis to transfer more than 20
parameters from country data into language data and then apply statistical
methods to search for correlations between those data and size of Wikipedia
projects.
>
> == Searching for chapters ==
>
> This analysis is about where to search for new Wikimedia chapters. It
> may be useful to the ChapCom and Board, but the other intention is to
> encourage Wikimedians from those countries to try to form their
> chapters, because it is achievable.
>
>
I read all kind of confusions about funny correlations between language
versions and countries where visitors are coming from.
As I (privately) communicated with Erik, the following flaws are in the
current analysis:
* The country code AU is often used (by apnic in this case) as a placeholder
for ranges that are pre-reserved. For instance to allocate parts of that
very big range in bits and pieces to countries in the area (e.g. JP)
* Similarly Ripe is doing that for the country code EU (not to be confused
with the language code eu)
Other misinterpretations may occur because there are some conflicts between
country and language codes. An example of this is for instance SL (Sierra
Leone) and sl (Slovenian) and I guess UA (Ukraine) and uk (Ukrainian?) is a
similar case. But there are certainly more.
See also: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_codes/Conflicts, although
imo this list is not comprehensive.
Another cause of problems might be the fact that the assignments of IP
ranges continuously change. That happens on a small scale (e.g. re-assigning
a block of 65536 or much smaller), but also on a larger scale. The result is
that you can't fully trust a so-called geo-IP database (like MaxMind). I
don't know how quickly such a database is outdated, but have noticed major
shifts of ranges of more than 16 million addresses within half a year
(concerning the AU - JP confusion).
Structured lists do not exist, so the only way is continuously checking the
data in such a database via the Regional Internet Registries. That is a
complicated, but also a very time-consuming process.
So don't draw conclusions in the case of small countries and/or languages.
Rgds Ronald
Based on Erik's statistics [1] and Nikola's addition of Internet users
[2] and the list of Wikimedia chapters [3], here is the first set of
conclusions.
== Searching for chapters ==
This analysis is about where to search for new Wikimedia chapters. It
may be useful to the ChapCom and Board, but the other intention is to
encourage Wikimedians from those countries to try to form their
chapters, because it is achievable.
=== Methodology ===
I used Nikola's table and:
* I removed all countries with less than 499.000 Internet users
(actually, the initial idea was to remove all countries with less than
500.000, but Nepal was very close that number). Those are countries
where we have potential to create a chapter in the relatively near
future. Existing chapter in a country with the smallest number of
Internet users (and smallest number of inhabitants) is Wikimedia
Macedonia, with 1,100,000 Internet users. I think that it is
reasonable to expect chapters in countries with somewhat smaller
number of Internet users. It removed countries/territories in which
some initiatives already exist, like Iceland and Macao are; but my
analysis is not about where *not* to search for chapters, but where to
search for chapters. In other words: if some group is able to create a
chapter in a country with less Internet users, it would be good. Also,
it should be noted that this is just about the present situation.
Internet adoption is increasing and I expect that more countries will
pass my fictional line.
* I sorted them according to the number of Internet users.
* Then, I marked them according to data at the Wikimedia chapters page
[3]: chapter exists, chapter is planned, chapter is in discussion or
"there are more possible chapters". Inside of the last category are
USA (with one existing chapter), Canada (with two options: one or more
chapters), Spain (with one national and one regional chapter) and
India (the situation is not clear, at least to me). Those potential
chapters are excluded from my analysis. It should be noted that just
"existing chapters" are reliable category. As a member of ChapCom, I
know that even some groups inside of the category "ideas for chapters"
came further than some "planned chapters". Because of that, I will
list them as they are the same.
=== We need chapters in ===
Countries are listed from the most number of Internet users to the
least number of Internet users (with some groupings). If you are
interested in chapter creation inside of a particular country and you
see that the stage of chapter creation is "planned", "in discussion"
or "an idea for chapter exists", please go to the appropriate page or
to Wikimedia chapters page [3] and see who is involved there. (Help
from other ChapCom members would be appreciated because it is possible
that I missed some initiative.)
* China [4]. AFAIK, Ting is working on Chinese issues.
* Japan [5]. I think that Japanese Wikimedians should reconsider their
position (from 2007, [3]) that there are no willingness for creation
of chapter. Creative Commons have strong organization there and I am
sure that they will help to Wikimedians.
* South Korea is planned chapter [6]. Project was active in the first
part of 2009, but not since then.
* Iran is in discussion [7]. Project has been initiated in 2008, but
it is not active anymore. I think that it will wait until internal
political situation in Iran will be solved.
* Colombia [8]. Was active at some point of time. Some activity still exists.
* Egypt [9]. The idea for Wikimedia Egypt is at the solid grounds.
* Romania [10]. I didn't hear anything about Romania for years.
* Pakistan [11], Malaysia [12], Saudi Arabia [13]: Listed as in
discussion, but virtually nothing.
* Mexico: Some initiative exists, even they are not listed. Relevant
Wikimedians are from Mexico, so they should think about organizing a
chapter.
* Turkey [14]. If I counted well, this is the newest idea for chapter.
* Vietnam, Thailand, Peru. Nothing which I know
* Nigeria, Chile, Morocco: Initiatives exist, but not in the stage
that they did anything on Wikimedia chapters page.
* Belgium [15]. I didn't hear anything about Belgium for long time.
* Greece. There were some initiatives, but nothing developed.
* Algeria [16]. Listed as "in discussion", but never really alive.
* Slovakia, Syria: Nothing which I know.
* Singapore: I think that there was some initiative, but I can't find anything.
* New Zealand [17]. Was an idea in 2006, but dead since then.
* Belarus, Dominican Republic, Tunisia [18]: Initiatives exist at
various degrees. Dominican Republic is the newest initiative, probably
the most serious.
* United Arab Emirates, Bulgaria, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan:
Nothing which I know.
* Croatia [19]. Planned, but delayed.
* Lithuania [20]: In discussion, but culmination was in 2007.
* Jordan. Initiative existed at the beginning of 2009.
* Guatemala, Jamaica, Azerbaijan, Costa Rica, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Latvia:
Nothing which I know.
* Ecuador, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Some weak initiatives, AFAIK.
* Uruguay [21]. Low level initiative exists.
* Slovenia [22]. Was active in the second part of 2009.
* Sri Lanka, Georgia, Senegal, Puerto Rico, Kuwait: Nothing which I know.
* Bolivia [23]. Relatively fresh initiative exists.
* Haiti, Ghana, Lebanon, Paraguay. Nothing.
* Estonia. Page not created, but in development.
* Kyrgyzstan. One initiative at the end of 2008.
* Moldova, El Salvador, Cameroon, Zambia, Cote d'Ivoire, Honduras,
Tajikistan. Nothing which I know.
* Albania. Maybe initiative in a year or two.
* Bangladesh [24]. Listed as in development, looks active.
* Tanzania. One initiative at the beginning of 2009.
* Angola, , Afghanistan, Nepal: Nothing which I know.
[1] - http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportPageViewsPerCountryO…
[2] - http://smolenski.rs/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/wikipedia-page-views-pe…
[3] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters
[4] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Mainland_China
[5] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Japan
[6] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_South_Korea
[7] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_iran
[8] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Colombia
[9] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Egypt
[10] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Rom%C3%A2nia
[11] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Pakistan
[12] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Malaysia
[13] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Saudi_Arabia
[14] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_T%C3%BCrkiye
[15] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Belgium
[16] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Algeria
[17] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_New_Zealand
[18] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Tunisie
[19] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedija_Hrvatske
[20] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Lietuva
[21] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Uruguay
[22] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Slovenia
[23] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Bolivia
[24] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Bangladesh
This is not news for people who've been watching closely, but I
thought it deserved a "re-post" to give it some additional visibility.
In the last year, the Wikimedia movement has developed some very
important content partnerships with cultural institutions such as
museums and archives to bring valuable pictures, videos, and other
media online. Some but not all of them are categorized here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Commons_partnerships
What's the impact of these partnerships? How are these media used? We
didn't have good answers to these questions until very recently.
Thanks to the work of Bryan Tong Minh, Magnus Manske, and other
engineers, we now have some first good data:
1) The GlobalUsage extension is now re-deployed on Wikimedia Commons,
which makes it easy to see where any individual file is used in the
Wikimedia universe;
2) The Glamorous script by Magnus Manske gives you that overview for
an entire category on Commons.
For example, you can go to http://toolserver.org/~magnus/glamorous.php
and select the "Images from the German Federal Archive" category. This
will show you that out of the 82,457 images uploaded so far, more than
15,000 are currently used in articles. 34 languages use at least 100
images, 11 use at least 1,000. This demonstrates the powerful dynamic
of global re-use that uploading media to Wikimedia Commons can result
in.
We'll be able to show even more compelling data if we now add the
(known) pageview data for the relevant articles. Hopefully this
emerging data will contribute to a virtuous circle of new content
partnerships. I'll pull together some facts for a blog update on
what's happening in the space, but wanted to give a general quick
update first. :-)
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate