There are an increasing number of organisations which have indicated
that their output is Creative Commons by default, however there are
not as many that have a public IP policy which clearly allows staff to
publish "their" work.
i.e. We have moved from the IP policy being the stick used to prevent
openness, and the "work for hire" and "publish process" are the next
A few staff at University of Canberra (UC) have written an IP policy
proposal which clearly gives staff ownership of their work, and
requires CC licensing if their staff use organisational infrastructure
to create their work.
Otago Polytechnic adopted an IP policy like that in 2007.
Are there other examples, within or outside academia, where the
organisation empowers its staff by providing a policy which clarifies
when "work for hire" principle is enforced in this murky world of
Does the WMF have an intellectual property policy for works created by
Employees edit and upload using free licenses under their own name,
but does the copyright belong to the employee or to the WMF?
Is anyone in our community going to:
Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest
Washington College of Law
American University, Washington, DC
August 25-27, 2011
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 11:07:54 -0300
> From: Andrew Crawford <acrawford(a)laetabilis.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Image filtering without undermining the
> category system
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> In general I think this is the best and most practical proposal so far.
Thanks I appreciate that.
> Having filter users do the classifying is the only practical option. In my
> opinion, it is unfortunately still problematic.
> 1. It is quite complicated from the user's point of view. Not only do they
> have to register an account, but they have to find and understand these
> options. For the casual reader who just doesn't want to see any more
> penises, or pictures of Mohammed, that is quite a lot to ask. The effort it
> would take to implement a system like this might outweigh the benefit to
> small number of readers who would actually go through this process.
Yes my wording of the options is not ideal, and I'm hoping we can make it
more user friendly. But the process isn't very complex. If we create
It need be no more complex than
I'm pretty sure we can make it simpler than buying some censorship software
with a credit card and then installing it on your PC.
> 2. It is obviously subject to gaming. How long would it take 4chan to
> out they can create new accounts, and start thumbs-upping newly-uploaded
> pictures of penises while mass thumbs-downing depictions of Mohammed?
Subject to gaming, well it's bound to be. But vulnerable to gaming,
hopefully not. Fans of penises are welcome to add their preferences. That's
why I didn't include the option "Hide all images except those that a fellow
filterer has whitelisted".
If some people find naked bodies wholesome but crucifixes troubling, and
others the reverse, then the filter will pick up on that as an easy
scenario, and once you've indicated that you are happy to see one or the
other it will start giving a high score to things that have been deemed
objectionable to people who've made similar choices to you, or things that
were deemed wholesome by people whose tastes run counter to yours.
Conversely it will give low scores to images cleared by people whose tastes
are highly similar to yours or to images objected to by people whose tastes
are the reverse of yours.
> 3. How can we prevent the use of this data for censorship purposes?
We prevent the use of this data for censorship by not releasing the
knowledge base, only showing logged in users the results that are relevant
to them, and not saying how we've come up with a score. If we only had a
small number of images and a limited set of reasons why people could object
to them then it would be simple to impute the data in our knowledge base,
but we have a large and complex system, and some aspects would be inherently
difficult to hack by automated weapons. An experienced human looking at an
image with a filter score would sometimes be able to guess what common
reasons had caused a filterer or filterers not to want to see it again, but
a computer would struggle and often anyone but the filterer who'd applied
that score would be baffled. If you had access to that individuals filter
list it might be obvious that they were blocking images that triggered their
vertigo, depicted people associated with a particular sports team or train
engines that lacked a boiler. But without the context of knowing which
filter lists an image was on it would be difficult to get meaningful
information out of the system.
> keep the reputation information of each image secret? I imagine many
> Wikipedians would want to access that data for legitimate editorial
> Well of course any of the editors could themselves have the filter set on
and would know what the score was relative to their preferences. But
otherwise the information would be secret. I don't see how we could give
editors access to the reputation information without it leaking to censors,
or indeed divulging it generally. Remember the person with vertigo might not
want that publicly known, the pyromaniac who blocked images that might
trigger their pyromania would almost certainly not want their filter to be
public. As for "legitimate editorial reasons", I think it would be quite
contentious if anyone started making editorial decisions based on the filter
results, so best not to enable that - but I'll clarify that in the proposal
Thanks for your feedback
> Andrew (Thparkth)
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 5:55 PM, WereSpielChequers <
> werespielchequers(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > OK in a spirit of compromise I have designed an Image filter which should
> > meet most of the needs that people have expressed and resolve most of the
> > objections that I'm aware of. Just as importantly it should actually
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers/filter
> > WereSpielChequers
> > _______________________
> Thanks for that and for your comments on
On 10/31/2011 6:01 AM, foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> On 31 October 2011 12:30, Oliver Keyes<scire.facias(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Not sure about that specific change, but one illustration might be the
>> > Article Feedback Tool, which contains a "you know you can edit, right?"
>> > thing. Off the top of my head I think 17.4 percent of the 30-40,000 people
>> > who use it per day attempt to edit as a result of that inducement.
>> > Admittedly only 2 percent of them*succeed*, but it's not a lack of
>> > motivation, methinks.
> What's the definition of "succeed" there - they save an edit with a change?
> Is that 2% of the 17.4%, or 2% of those giving feedback?
> I wonder if there's a way to detect a failure to edit and ask what went wrong.
In a text driven interface it is a little difficult to float an
interactive window asking if a reader saw any errors and if they'd like
to fix them - yet that's the level most readers are on.
We must also remember that the wiki edit interface and markup can be a
little intimidating to a newbie, so opening an edit window and making no
changes may be more common than we think. Are there any stats on this?
I’ve been into Wikipedia for several years, and all my friends know
this. I *still* find myself having to explain to them in small words
that that “edit” link really does include them fixing typos when they
So my suggestion: tiny tiny steps like this: things people can do that
have a strong probability of sticking.
Anyone else got ideas based on their (admittedly anecdotal) experience?
[inspired by Oliver Keyes' blog post: http://quominus.org/archives/524 ]
I am writing a book on the history of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement, focusing on its 'history of ideas'. Would any Wikipedians be prepared to be interviewed for this? Obviously long-standing Wikipedians would be a focus but I am interested in anyone who is involved in the movement because of passionately held convictions or 'ideology'.
A general question: is there a Wikipedian ideology? What is it? In particular, how does the current ideology, if there is one, compare with the ideology which inspired its founding fathers. And mothers - many of the founding editors of Wikipedia were women, I don't know how many people know that.
Since it hasn't really been mentioned, I just wanted to point out that this
image, never before available to the public in high resolution, was uploaded
to Commons as a result of our ongoing cooperative efforts with the US
National Archives (i.e., my residency). Its copyright status was listed as
unrestricted in the National Archives' online catalog, where the scaled-down
image has been displayed for several years without (apparently) any
incident. Of course, these copyright statuses can often use a second look,
and I am happy for it to get the extra scrutiny at Commons, especially one
as complex as this. I don't have any extra insight to offer copyright-wise,
and am interested to see the community's decision.
However, I would also like to take the opportunity to talk about the broader
effort here, which I think is more important than one image of Mickey Mouse
from a war poster, as symbolic as that is. Beginning in July, I began an
effort, in collaboration with NARA staff, to quite literally upload the
entire National Archives library of digital content in high resolution. The
National Archives—with billions of pages of records, tens of millions of
photographs, and hundreds of thousands more sound recordings, videos, and
artifacts—has hundreds of thousands of digital images in their catalog,
nearly all of which is in the public domain. The 60,000 uploaded so far
include thousands more posters like the Mickey one from the WWII and WWI
era; historically significant photography from Mathew Brady, Dorothea Lange,
Ansel Adams, and other notable photographers; photos of Native Americans, of
the Depression, of the national parks and the environment, of the Civil
Rights Movement, of presidents and their activities, and of every US war
from the Civil War to Vietnam, including incredible manufacturing and
Japanese internment scenes from the home front in WWII; ultra high-res TIFFs
(~150 MB) of the Declaration of Independence and other founding documents;
other textual documents, including historical maps, laws, court records,
census cards, and the letters of diverse personalities, from Susan B.
Anthony to Albert Einstein to Winston Churchill to Elvis Presley; and even
other oddities like an ancient Roman bust, a Remington statue, ancient
Chinese terracotta soldiers, a Diego Rivera painting, bullets and other
evidence from the JFK assassination, a First Lady's evening gown, and a
ceremonial Beninese wooden headdress(!).
This is a huge task, and it requires a community effort to help categorize
images, to use them in Wikipedia articles, to transcribe them on Wikisource,
and just generally show them some love. If finding Mickey Mouse in the
National Archives means anything, hopefully it's that this is a diverse and
significant, and sometimes surprising, collection that deserves more care
and attention—especially since many cultural institutions, domestically and
internationally, are following the project with interest. For more
information, check out the partnerships page on Commons <
and its sister WikiProjects on Wikipedia and Wikisource, linked in the tab
 See the upload feed at <
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:31:07 -0700
> From: Brandon Harris <bharris(a)wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] On certain shallow, American-centered,
> foolish software initiatives backed by WMF
> To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <4EAB2D2B.3020803(a)wikimedia.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> On 10/28/11 3:27 PM, Etienne Beaule wrote:
> > It's disabled on certain wikis because of technical problems.
> Oh? I wasn't aware that it had been disabled anywhere as yet.
> WikiLove was not rolled out "en mass"; the policy for deployment of
> tool is that it is by request only, and the requesting wiki must:
> a) Make sure the tool is localized (via TranslateWiki);
> b) Make sure they have a local configuration; and
> c) Show community consensus.
> So if it was enabled and then *disabled*, I have not heard of this.
> there a bug report I can look to? Or if you know of a wiki where this
> is the case, I can do a search.
> Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
> Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Good to hear that wikilove is only going in on wikis where there is
consensus for it. Can anyone give me a link to the discussion that
established consensus on EN wikipedia? The nearest I could find was
Personally, I find the whole "WikiLove" extension to be a bit naff and
schmaltzy. I'm generally not thrilled when I get a WikiLove kitten or
anything, just like I'm not touched that my local member of Parliament has
thought to send me a form letter about how hard they're working for me.
It's harmless enough though, I just choose to ignore it.
With that said though, if a particular project community decides they don't
want it, why should it be forced upon them? I think this principle should
apply to *all* extensions, not just "harmless" or "global improvement" ones.
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 22:57:25 +0300
> From: Mateus Nobre <mateus.nobre(a)live.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
> To: <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <SNT121-W28CDC17A85796201E442FEBFD00(a)phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Why any Wikipedia would not want the Wikilove feature?
This is inconsistent for me. Wikilove's a global improvement, there's no
reason to disagree improvements.
Wikimedia Brasil - MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects
(+55) 85 88393509
> Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 12:31:24 -0300
> From: betienne(a)bellaliant.net
> To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
> But if we enable it at a wiki that doesn't want it, there could be a
> boycott, and vandals just get the place up to there "code". It would be
> very detrimental to wikipedia.
> On 11-10-29 12:27 PM, "Nickanc Wikipedia" <nickanc.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > IMHO, Wikilove is something so important about wikipedia's ethics and
> > behaviour that shall be in every wiki. IMHO.
> > 2011/10/29 WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers(a)gmail.com>:
> >>> Message: 1
> >>> Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:31:07 -0700
> >>> From: Brandon Harris <bharris(a)wikimedia.org>
> >>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] On certain shallow, American-centered,
> >>> foolish software initiatives backed by WMF
> >>> To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> Message-ID: <4EAB2D2B.3020803(a)wikimedia.org>
> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> >>> On 10/28/11 3:27 PM, Etienne Beaule wrote:
> >>>> It's disabled on certain wikis because of technical problems.
> >>> Oh? I wasn't aware that it had been disabled anywhere as yet.
> >>> WikiLove was not rolled out "en mass"; the policy for
> >>> the
> >>> tool is that it is by request only, and the requesting wiki must:
> >>> a) Make sure the tool is localized (via TranslateWiki);
> >>> b) Make sure they have a local configuration; and
> >>> c) Show community consensus.
> >>> So if it was enabled and then *disabled*, I have not heard of
> >>> Is
> >>> there a bug report I can look to? Or if you know of a wiki where this
> >>> is the case, I can do a search.
> >>> Thanks!
> >>> -b.
> >>> --
> >>> Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
> >>> Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
> >> Good to hear that wikilove is only going in on wikis where there is
> >> consensus for it. Can anyone give me a link to the discussion that
> >> established consensus on EN wikipedia? The nearest I could find was
> >> ve_33#Thoughts_on_WikiLove.3F
> >> Ta
> >> WerepielChequers
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> foundation-l mailing list
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l