WMF has deleted some German stamps with Loriot motives although German
community consensus is that they are in the Public Domain:
There is NO entry at
"If your contribution was the subject of a takedown demand under the
DMCA and you believe that your contribution did not violate copyright
law, you may wish to file a counter-notification."
The discussion cited above gives no evidence for a formal takedown
As German copyright expert (although not lawyer) I protest against the
decision of WMF
- to believe in a German counsel which has shown its incompetence
several times and which has given legal advice in unclear cases
against the vital interest of free content
- not to search the communication with the community as soon as possible
- not to make such a scandalous action of the Loriot heirs public.
There is a German court decision clearly saying that the stamps are
Public Domain and the legal literature ignoring that is wrong.
Therefore for me it is CLEAR that the stamps are in the Public Domain
and if WMF's counsel has another opinion he has to search the
discussion with the community like all others. Only in the case of a
formal takedown notice it is the right of WMF to overrule the
This is NO single case decision. If WMF accepts German stamps as not
free this will have heavy implications. It is not reasonable to let
the German community in the dark according the position "Hey feel free
to store German stamps on Commons and on de WP but if a rights holder
contacts us we will remove them".
I clearly support all users who are viewing this deletion as not
acceptable overruling community consensus and the communication after
the deletion as not appropriate.
Dr. Klaus Graf
This case has to be discussed IN THE PUBLIC. As
gives not sufficient reasons for the decisions and no sufficient
background there is NO need that I privately contact WMF's counsel.
It's not my duty to contact him but his duty to explain a case with
EMINENT implications for the German community.
> - The full logo will be used, and a subline will be added under the
> word WIKIMEDIA.
> - The subline can be localized (eg. name of the country in the
> relevant language/languages). It can consist of one or more lines and
> can be written in the relevant script/ideograms. The WIKIMEDIA part of the
> logo will *not* be localized.
The guideline is problematic particularly for some languages - particularly
non-latin ones such as Arabic, Persian, Chinese, Japanese and various other
far eastern communities.
In the case of Turkish there is no letter W and the sounds for I (ı) and İ
(i) differ. Furthermore there is no way to read "ia" as vowels aren't
supposed to be next to each other. A localized version of the name would be
VİKİMEDYA rather than WIKIMEDIA.
The goal "common visual identity" shouldn't make foundations name
unpronounceable in other languages. If the goal can be expressed with the
slogan "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share
in the sum of all knowledge" then names of chapters shouldn't be forced to
use characters unpronounceable or outright alien to the local population. I
do not see how variants such as Wikimédia or Vikimedya would prevent a
common visual identity...
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
Hey guys; another office hours session with Howie, Fabrice and Dario
covering the Article Feedback Tool.
(and yes, I've got it right this time - I used
This session will be at 19:00 UTC on Thursday, in the usual location -
#wikimedia-office. I hope to see you all there :). We'll be holding a later
session next week, hopefully, timed so that East Coast editors can attend,
and I'll also be setting one up for Asian/Australasian editors on a Friday
Hope to see you lot soon!
Community Liason, Product Development
Forwarding a response from Hawkeye7:
Yes, "the only real conclusion that can be drawn from this research is that articles on Wikipedia use language scored as male by this specific test."
This is always the problem with quantitative analysis. On the one hand, the test is both objective and repeatable; on the other it produces facts without explanation. In particular, without some form of model, it is often hard to tell cause from effect.
This is what we know; but it is but a piece of the larger puzzle.
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 11:32:09 +0000
> From: Thomas Morton <morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] New Wikipedia gender gap research posted
> to Meta
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Whilst this research has interest, I don't think it really says much about
> gender. This form of gender coding is extremely hand wavy; and as the
> latter part of the report proves it is also largely defunct when applied to
> the internet.
> They clearly show that the predominant style of writing (in their sample)
> is male coded. With Geek Feminism matching Wikipedia almost exactly.
> Wikihow formal scored seems to be the exclusion; but we can form a
> reasonable hypothesis for that (which relates to the words chosen for
> scoring). Due to the subject matter of Wikihow (i.e. answering a question)
> the use of personal pronouns ("me", "myself") and queries ("what","how") -
> words the report identifies as formal female writing - are going to have a
> naturally high occurrence. The most obvious example is "your", which is
> scored quite highly as female word and which is clearly going to be a
> common word on Wikihow, but barely used on Wikipedia (we do not address the
> I think this explains the anomaly better than gender; and we can test it
> empirically by testing word occurrence in a larger sample of both sites.
> Ultimately gender scoring article text is statistically useless because the
> text being tested is the product of a number of editors. By numbers this
> means only a small female input in the prose is to be expected. Plus, as
> described, specific writing styles are needed in an encyclopaedia - which
> preclude several high scoring female words. These factors make an already
> vague test ineffective :)
> If I understand the conclusion I think the authors are trying to suggest
> that women on Wikipedia tend to communicate in a male style - and this
> could lead us into identifying a cause of the gender gap.
> I think there are a number of flaws to that hypothesis - and this study
> does not really contribute to understanding it. Partly because the gender
> language test is flawed And partly because the chosen test areas are ones
> which either proscribe a certain writing style (articles) or are not
> examples of communication (user pages).
> I think the only real conclusion that can be drawn from this research is
> that articles on Wikipedia use language scored as male by this specific
> With that said; I found a lot of interesting (and well written) material
> here which could be built on in other contexts :) As the authors note -
> looking at actual interactions (i.e. talk pages) is the only way to draw
> proper conclusions as to whether language interaction is abnormal.
> We should combine this in tandem with studies into:
> - whether women find interacting in a male coded way is difficult or off
> - whether male coded language is more predominant on the internet.
> - larger sample sets of Wikipedia-like writing (i.e. formal, informational,
> neutral) using an actual blind study (to avoid gender biasing in the test).
Does anyone feel that the Wikiquette is too weak to enforce the
respect aspect of the five pillars?
I wonder if we should make RFC/U a lot easier for cases where
administrators show a pattern of not handling new editors very well.
If [[WP:WQA]] had some teeth, say 3 reports against an admin and you
have to go back to "admin school" (not necessarily the pillory of RFA)
this might be a way of making some overly bullish admins think twice
about their language and impression they give newbies.
I think we have had trouble enforcing Wikiquette, however, I can't
understand all the acronyms. Could you please translate your question
into something more understandable and spelled out?
Following up on last year's OSTP call for comments (which I also sent
to foundation-l), the US government is seeking public comment on more
technical questions (including policy, repository and standards
development) related to sharing federally-funded scholarly data and
publications. This process is relevant for shaping access to a major
source of free knowledge, and such open access issues are of general
interest to many of us. Comments are due in January.
----- Forwarded Message -----
The White House Office for Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) has
released two Requests for Information, one on public access to digital
data resulting from federally funded scientific research and one on
public access to peer-reviewed scholarly publications resulting from
federally funded research. Responses are due January.
(1) "[T]his Request for Information (RFI) offers the opportunity for
interested individuals and organizations to provide recommendations on
approaches for ensuring long-term stewardship and encouraging broad
public access to unclassified digital data that result from federally
funded scientific research....Response Date: January 12, 2012...."
(2) "[T]his Request for Information (RFI) offers the opportunity for
interested individuals and organizations to provide recommendations on
approaches for ensuring long-term stewardship and broad public access
to the peer-reviewed scholarly publications that result from federally
funded scientific research....Response Date:
January 2, 2012...."
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
<at> gmail.com *
In reference to people wanting to be nicer to newbies, (and next to the obvious step of us really needing
to make it more frelling obvious that YES YOU CAN EDIT)
... that doesn't help much if the entire community has come down with adminitis and kicks anyone who
tries to edit out of the wiki and up into low earth orbit.
So qua editor retention, 2 things are needed:
* Make editing more obvious and easy, and bring the fun back. :-)
* Work on The Cure For Adminitis (tm). O:-)
Hi all !
The Public Domain Working Group <http://publicdomain.okfn.org/> and the Open
Bibliographic Data Working Group <http://openbiblio.net/> of the Open
Knowledge Foundation <http://okfn.org/> have started the drafting of a
Bibliographic Metadata Guide.
The goal is to produce something that can be hand in to various GLAM
institutions to help them setting up a proper metadata model for their
We want to provide them a few simple steps that illustrates the best
practices (or second-best practices) in terms of bibliographic metadata for
each category of works.
The current draft is available here
We would like to involve the Wikimedia community in this project, so please
feel free to contribute it any way you like, and if you know someone that
might be interested in contributing to this guide, please don't hesitate to
forward the link to them.
Also, are also trying to set up a small task-force of contributors who
would be assigned specific sections or tasks. If you are interested in
joining the task force, please don't hesitate to contact me.