On May 24, 2010, at 1:57 AM, "Erik Zachte" <erikzachte(a)infodisiac.com>
> Pending Revisions conveys that publication is deferred, but not for
> Based on only the name it leaves a new editor guessing: maybe there
> is a
> server delay and the matter will resolve itself in next twenty
Yes, a new editor may ask "pending what exactly?" and the plural
"revisions" may bring frustration of thinking that there are many
revisions ahead of his/hers in the queue.
Pending Revisions conveys that publication is deferred, but not for what
Based on only the name it leaves a new editor guessing: maybe there is a
server delay and the matter will resolve itself in next twenty minutes?
Double Check or Revision Review tells clearly there is human intervention
needed for the next step.
Revision Review is my favorite. It seems more neutral, also less 'heavy' in
connotations than Double Check.
Also Review is clearly a term for a process, unlike Revisions.
"This article is in Pending Revisions". or "Pending Revisions applies to
"This article is in Revision Review. " or "Revision Review" applies to this
the latter sounds more natural to me.
There is only so much one can convey in two words without further
So a new editor will not have a clue from the name what the review process
At least it is clear it is a process, and human intervention is key.
Across the world the "Nobody is home" argument is quickly running out of
> steam. Google execs sentenced to 6 months in Italy, LimeWire guilty for
> its user's piracy, and blog owner found liable for user submitted libel.
It helps to actually read the stories and understand the cases. The Google
execs were found guilty even though they quickly responded to a complaints
and removed the offending video. In other words, they didn't make the
"nobody is home" argument.
Limewire is a contributory-infringement case that has nothing to do with
publisher liability. (Limewire distributed software.)
And the blog owner actually hasn't been found liable for user-submitted
libel in the Register story published. As the story is reported, the blog
owner has merely been told that moderation of content runs the risk of
*creating* liability by removing the exemptions for mere hosts. The decision
is regarding a pre-trial motion. In other words, the case has precisely the
opposite meaning of what wiki-list writes here, since it focuses on the
risks of moderation, not the risks of non-moderation.
But don't take my word for it -- read the links yourself!
I wouldn't endorse wiki-list's unusual interpretation of the cases, as
summed up here:
> the days of the internet being a free for all are coming to an end. If
> websites won't take responsibility, at least to the extent of having a
> policies in place which are enforced, then others will make it for them,
> by disabling access to the site.
With regard to the Google case, at least, it looks like taking
responsibility doesn't protect you, and with regard to the libel case,
moderation increases your risk of liability by undermining your statutory
What I'm advocating for now is voluntary compliance, for the following
reasons (and nobody has tried to address #3 yet):
It's a proven system of record keeping that verifies information like
names of subjects, stage names, date of birth, name of photographer,
consent (implied by completing affidavit), and the date the photos
The legal responsibility for the accuracy and content of 2257 records
remains with the record holder, and personal identifying information
of the subjects of the photos (and the legal responsibility) remain
It fulfills the licensing requirements of Creative Commons, saying
that our images must be made available for commercial use, however
currently our pornographic images CAN NOT be reused legally in the US
for commercial purposes because they lack USC 2257. This falls way
short of our "free content" ideals (as well as Commons:Licensing).
All primary producers (photographers) and secondary producers
(uploaders) of pornographic images in the US must keep records, even
if the images were uploaded to Commons by using a pseudo-anonymous
username. For this reason, sexual content transferred from Flickr
without 2257 information should not be accepted.
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Rob Lanphier <robla(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> I'm preparing a patch against FlaggedRevs which includes changes that Howie
> and I worked on in preparation for the launch of its deployment onto
> en.wikipedia.org . We started first by creating a style guide describing
> how the names should be presented in the UI:
I'm concerned that the simplified graphical explanation of the process
fosters the kind of misunderstanding that we saw in the first slashdot
threads about flagged revision... particularly the mistaken belief
that the process is synchronous.
People outside of the active editing community have frequently raised
the same concerns on their exposure to the idea of flagged revisions.
Common ones I've seen "Won't people simply reject changes so they can
make their own edits?" "Who is going to bother to merge all the
unreviewed changes on a busy article, they're going to lose a lot of
None of these concerns really apply to the actual implementation
because it's the default display of the articles which is controlled,
not the ability to edit. There is still a single chain of history and
the decision to display an article happens totally asynchronously with
The illustration still fosters the notion of some overseeing
gatekeeper on an article expressing editorial control— which is not
the expected behaviour of the system, nor a desired behaviour, nor
something we would even have the resources to do if it were desirable.
In particular there is no per-revision analysis mandated by our
system: Many edits will happen, then someone with the right
permissions will look at a delta from then-to-now and decide that
nothing is terrible in the current version and make it the displayed
version. It's possible that there were terrible intermediate
versions, but it's not relevant.
I have created a poster suitable for distribution to journalists
(Though the lack of clarity in the ultimate naming has made it very
difficult to finalize it. If anyone wants it I can share SVG/PDF
versions of it).
Due to numerous requests we have extended the submission deadline for
Wikimania 2010 as follows:
* Abstract Registration: May 24, 11.59 p.m. (Pacific Time)
* Notification for workshops: May 29, 11.59 p.m. (Pacific Time)
* Notification for panels, tutorials, presentations: June 3, 11.59
p.m. (Pacific Time)
See the Call for Participation for more details:
Thank you for helping make Wikimania 2010 a successful event. :-)
See you in Gdansk, July 9-11!
With best regards,
In a message dated 5/22/2010 11:41:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> <<The foundation or the site admins do moderate. The foundation or they
> have the power, to delete submissions that are considered non
> encyclopedic, trolling, libelous and etc. There is constant moderation
> on by or on behalf of the foundation. If not teh Foundation then the
> admins have responsibility. The foundation is not acting simply as a
> hosting site that merely stores user submitted data. It is not godaddy,
> it is not wordpress, it is not even YouTube.>>
*Any* user has the ability to delete content.
Is any user now "the foundation" ?
That's not an effective argument for the responsibility lying at the top,
in fact you've just made the complete opposite argument.
I was just about to post that same section.
From 2257(h)(2)(B)) exception to record keeping:
(v) the transmission, storage, retrieval, hosting, formatting, or
translation (or any combination thereof) of a communication, without
selection or alteration of the content of the communication, except
that deletion of a particular communication or material made by
another person in a manner consistent with section 230(c) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230 (c)) shall not constitute
such selection or alteration of the content of the communication;
What I would define as "communication" is the image page created by
the logged in user. That user created to page, selected and uploaded
(inserted) the image onto Wikimedia's servers. That person could be
viewed as a primary (if own image) or secondary (if transferred image)
producer. These individuals need to follow 18 USC 2257 record keeping
From there, volunteers (like myself) tag, categorize the page, and
start Deletion Requests (likely acceptacle under the Good Samaritan
clauses of (47 U.S.C. 230 (c)).
However, when that image is selected for reuse (and not in an
automated way, but by an actual human) on an article page, user page,
or off-wiki that person also becomes a secondary producer.
2257B(g) simply refers to 2257(h) above, so I'm not sure why Mike even
(g) As used in this section, the terms “produces” and
“performer” have the same meaning as in section 2257 (h) of this
On May 21, 2010, at 9:13 PM, Mike Godwin <mnemonic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Stillwater Rising writes:
> Hosting these images without 18 USC 2257(A) records, in my opinion,
> is a *
>> no-win* situation for everyone involved.
> This raises the obvious question of how you interpret 18 USC 2257A
> which refers back to 18 USC 2257(h) (including in particular 18 USC
> 2257(h)(2)(B)). I'll be interested in hearing your thoughts about the
> interaction and interpretation of these related statutes (as well as
> of the
> interaction between 18 USC 2257(h) generally and 47 USC 230 and 231,
> referenced within section 2257.
> foundation-l mailing list
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
David Goodman gives a very fair and accurate summary of our interactions in
the AmSci Forum (though I would not have said that some were unfriendly --
just impatient, on my part; and if anything, I'm even more impatient now
that another half-decade has gone by and we still don't have universal OA!).
Regarding the Wikipedia entry for OA, I would add only that the proof is in
the outcome: Yes, I had no choice but to let things take their natural
course with the "Open Access" entry, as David and Peter urged. And yes, it
did become "Open Access (publishing)." But, the result is that now the
widespread misconception that "Open Access" means "Open Access Publishing"
-- it does not -- is all the more widespread and entrenched, thanks to that
natural "echo-amplification" outcome in Wikipedia.
If someone considers that to be some sort of a triumph or vindication on
behalf of something or other, I have no idea what that something is!
Wikipedia has simply served as a megaphone for amplifying misinformation in
So much for conflating OA with OA publishing.
I would say it's not at all accurate to say that I oppose OA publishing
("Gold OA"): I don't. (In fact I am pretty sure it will eventually prevail,
and have been saying so since the very beginning.) I simply assign it a
different priority, in time, importance, urgency, causality and potential,
relative to OA self-archiving ("Green OA") at this time, for very specific,
concrete, practical, evidence-based reasons (which I will not rehearse
I also don't, didn't, and never aspired to "own" the OA entry in Wikipedia.
It was written by many people long before I knew about it, and before I
contributed portions to a few of its subsections (the ones on Green OA and
Institutional Repositories). I occasionally look at those sections still,
but I largely stopped trying to fix them any more when my edits were
repeatedly over-ruled on several points in which I felt that the Wikipedia
outcome was just plain wrong.
But nothing about OA is rocket science, and the only thing hanging in the
balance is more lost time... The outcome itself is obvious, optimal and
inevitable -- just long overdue.
On Sat May 15 23:06:14 David Goodman wrote:
> When I was a librarian open access was one of the principal things I
worked on. Stevan has been for over 10 years an acknowledged leader
in this field, and his propaganda for open access has been a key
factor for the considerable success it has had--by now all major US
and UK granting agencies require it or are about to do so. All of
us who use academic material are very much indebted to him, for I do
not think it would have happened to anywhere near this extent without
> But Stevan is very much set on his own preferred way of doing this.
His way is good, but he thinks that only his way is good--to the
extent that he has often tried to argue against other ways, even
though they differ only in detail, and most of his activism in the last
few years has been against other open access advocates. (I am, as you
gather, one of the people who thinks other ways are at least as good
or possibly better, and I have had many public & private discussions
about this with him over the years, not all of them friendly. ).
> There are two basic methods:
> One is known as "Gold" open access, publishing by open access
publishers in journals that are free to the reader, the costs being
paid through some form of direct or indirect subsidy from the author,
his institution, his granting agency, or other financing arrangement.
(Familar examples of this are PLOS or BMC).
> The other is known as "Green" open access, publishing in journals in
the conventional way, but also putting the articles, or at least
unedited drafts of the manuscript, into a repository. There are two
types: using a centralized repository , either on a nationwide or
subject-wide basis (the familiar examples of which are PubMed Central
in biomedicine and arXiv in physics), or alternatively on an
institution-wide basis (good examples are Harvard's DASH or Stevan's
own repository at Southampton, ECS )
> The only form Stevan supports is institutional repositories. (For
reasons, I refer you to his many long postings on American Scientist
Open Access Forum , which he moderates in accord with his own views.)
He opposes the term open access publishing because it suggests "Gold"
Open Access publishers.
> When I joined WP three years ago, I found that Stevan was exercising
OWNership over the WP article on open access, which almost totally
focussed on institution-based repositories and referenced a great
number of his own writings. When I and other made changes, Stevan
always reverted them.
> Stevan attempted to get his form of the article fixed by personal
intervention with an eminent open access supporter very close to his
own views who was a member of the WMF Advisory Board, and I believe
also with Jimbo. I am also a professional acquaintance of that
supporter, an extraordinarily fair-minded person trusted by everyone
dealing with the subject at all, and between us in personal discussion
with Stevan we were able to convince Stevan to let community processes
deal with the article.
> As phoebe says, the current wording is reasonable.
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.