https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikispecies:Charter was created in
September 2004 with:
---
As quoted from Jimbo Wales:
"As you know, the creation of this project was somewhat controversial
in some quarters, and so I propose an early development of a strong
non-forking policy guideline here, illustrating how wikispecies
significantly differs from articles that would appear in a general
encyclopedia.
Here are some of the key points that the board put forward when we
approved this project:
We set up the WikiSpecies wiki for biologists to begin organizing the project.
We propose that as the software is developed, it should work to
strongly support integration with wikipedia, to help avoid duplication
of effort, i.e. to avoid forking.
We ask the participants on wikispecies to particularly think about how
their work should differ from a generalist encyclopedia."
---
Does anyone know where this Jimmy quote comes from? I presume it is
after the WMF board meeting on 5 September 2004 as it quotes from it
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings/September_5,_2004
(created 26 September 2004)
I think the Wiki "charter" needs to be made a bit more .. err .. like
a charter. It is linked to from the Wikispecies about page
https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikispecies:About
--
John Vandenberg
Just a reminder that we will be in #wikimedia-office to talk about using
the Feedback Dashboard (Special:FeedbackDashboard) to respond to new
editors on Wikipedia. The feature is currently enabled in Dutch and English.
See the wiki version here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Reports/2011-11
This is the language committee report for November 2011. Previous month no
e-mail was sent because there was nothing to report, other than the
creation of the Northern Sotho Wikipedia.
===Committee===
* Several members (Amir, Robin, Gerard, Santhosh) went to the Hackathon in
Mumbai, India. <http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/India_Hackathon_2011>
===Approvals===
* The Veps Wikipedia and Western Punjabi Wiktionary are approved and
waiting for creation (bugs 32510 and 32511 respectively).
===Requests===
* Discussion about the Mapudungun Wikipedia and its orthography issue.
* Amir contacted the Ingush State University for an analysis of the Ingush
content at Incubator. They told that the content is quite different from
standard literary Ingush.
===Other===
* Discussion about Moldovan and its closed Wikipedia.
* Discussion about the dialogue on <
http://www.newtactics.org/en/thread/what-steps-need-be-taken-underrepresent…>
and more specifically about the Songhay language(s) which is classified as
"collective" which we didn't allow so far. <
http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=son>
_______________________________________________
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Foundation-L, the public mailing list about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. For more information about Foundation-L:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
WikimediaAnnounce-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
Hi,
Copernicus Sience Center from Warsaw:
http://www.kopernik.org.pl/en/
Has just started a wbesite called "singing Wikipedia"
http://www.famelab.org.pl/
The idea is that anyone can propose any article from Polish Wikipedia
to be read by one of several Polish celebrities (actors, TV
journalist, singers etc). They are usually doing this in a funny way.
Most funny reads are recorder and made available to general public and
placed in YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL938BB67F93980477
Wikimedia Polska had nothing in common with this except they asked us
about legal issues (licence, use of logo etc.). After explanation they
decided not to use logo of Wikipedia and use only the name in ctiation
context. I personally believe that it is really good promotion for us
:-)
The website is 100% non-commercial. The main idea behind is just to
attract people to science and generally knowledge.
My favorite "singing" is "Seplenienie" ("Lisp") by Borys Szyc:
http://www.famelab.org.pl/#seplenienie
which in fact could be used as a good ilustration of this article :-)
--
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerekhttp://www.ganicz.pl/poli/http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz
Hello, I am an independent Lebanese journalist. I am very interested to be your company representative in Lebanon, with whom I may communicate concerning this matter? Also I have a project proposal doing internet interaction site for intellectuals, with whom should I communicate? Thank you. Joumana mobile +961-76765019
Sent via BlackBerry® from mtc touch
Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 14:55:29 +0200
> From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal
> filter lists
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <CAJ9-EKLOfhu5jycOt6i4fMm-CRM=0wrtT=e4=Orhmg--_RTROQ(a)mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 1:00 PM, WereSpielChequers
> <werespielchequers(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm pretty sure that the community is against a filter system based on
> our
> > commons categories.
>
> .
> > Thankfully the Foundation seems to have taken that message on board and
> > though we can expect to continue to have pro-filter people joining the
> > debate and trying to revive that type of proposal, I'm pretty sure it is
> > dead in the water.
>
> Not according to their meeting minutes. It does seem there are people still
> flailing around with a horse-whip, thinking that if they just whip the dead
> horse hard enough, it will rise up and be a useful steed.
>
The bit I was referring to was:
"that the Board send a letter to the community acknowledging opposition to
the filter idea; that the idea of a category-based system be dropped, as it
is problematic and highly controversial, but that staff continue
discussions with the community about how to build a system that would meet
the Board's objectives; and that the staff also continue to focus on their
work to recruit a more diverse editor body, including women and people from
the global south. Sue noted that we do not currently have technical work
scheduled on the filter, so there is time to develop ideas that acknowledge
community objections. This course of action was agreed to. "
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2011-10-07
My reading of that is that the board has agreed to drop the idea of a
filter based on our category system, but unfortunately they haven't yet
agreed to drop the idea that someone controlling an IP could censor what
other viewers using that IP can see.
> >
> > I'm not sure that we have a consensus for or against the principle of
> > censorship, or whether the community as a whole regards a private
> personal
> > filter as censorship.
>
> This is one of those canards that just keep popping up, despite having been
> comprehensively debunked time and again. We have always had a consensus
> against censorship, and Jimbo even used to enforce it through bans and
> blocks.
>
We already have a no censorship policy that makes various exceptions. For
Example Paedophilia advocates get blocked on site on EN wikipedia. There
may in the past have been a consensus against any change to that policy,
but there hasn't been a recent site wide reconsideration of that consensus.
DE Wikipedia had an overwhelming vote, but they may not reflect views on
the rest of the site, and not being a German speaker I'm not sure to what
extent their vote was a decisive rejection of the proposal that was then on
the table or a rejection of filtering in principle.
> > On the one hand at least one Wikimedian is asserting that the
> > community is opposed to censorship in principle, and that even a private
> > personal filter would be censorship. On the other hand the board still
> > wants the image filter to be usable for IPs and not just logged in users
> -
> > despite the fact that we have no way to implement an IP level system
> > without allowing some people to censor other people's Wikimedia viewing.
>
> If you mean me, I am not asserting, I am reminding that this issue has been
> visited and revisited more times than anybody can be bothered to count. And
> the consensus has always been the same. The definition of insanity is
> trying
> the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
>
>
>
Change on wiki is sometimes slow as consensus makes for a very
conservative(cautious) policy making process. But that doesn't entitle the
opponents of change to oppose simply because an idea is similar to ones
that have been rejected before. If the proponents of change are making an
effort to meet the objections raised to similar proposals, then to operate
in a spirit of consensus the defenders of the status quo should at the very
least explain how the latest proposal doesn't meet or all or some of their
objections. Otherwise the supporters of change may reasonably assume that
they've won the argument and only have inertia to overcome. That said there
is an argument for having a minimum interval between reviews of a policy -
and if this current debate were to conclude with the consensus against
those of us who are trying to formulate a filter proposal that would be
acceptable to the community then I would hope we could agree not to reopen
the debate for at least a year - or two if the majority is significant.
WSC
> --
> --
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
>
>
>
>
HI folks - on-passing this important note from Garfield!
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Garfield Byrd <gbyrd(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> The audit of the Wikimedia Foundation and frequently asked questions about
> the audit for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011 are available at
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports.
>
> Please contact me via e-mail with any questions.
>
> --
> Garfield Byrd
> Chief of Finance and Administration
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
> directed to Foundation-L, the public mailing list about the Wikimedia
> Foundation and its projects. For more information about Foundation-L:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> _______________________________________________
> WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
> WikimediaAnnounce-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
>
>
--
Jay Walsh
Head of Communications
WikimediaFoundation.orgblog.wikimedia.org
+1 (415) 839 6885 x 6609, @jansonw
Hey guys; the AFT office hours session will be starting at 11:00 (or
whenever Geoff finishes) :). Hope to see you all there!
--
Oliver Keyes
Community Liason, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
I'm pretty sure that the community is against a filter system based on our
commons categories. Those who oppose that type of scheme range from the
idealists who are opposed to censorship in principle to the pragmatists who
are aware of our categorisation backlog and don't want to set us up to fail
(or to implement something that would undermine our GLAM programs).
Thankfully the Foundation seems to have taken that message on board and
though we can expect to continue to have pro-filter people joining the
debate and trying to revive that type of proposal, I'm pretty sure it is
dead in the water.
I'm not sure that we have a consensus for or against the principle of
censorship, or whether the community as a whole regards a private personal
filter as censorship. The "referendum" could have established if we have
such consensus, but it didn't include the right questions. I suspect that
I'm not unusual in opposing more censorship than we already have in our
somewhat misnamed "not censored" policy, but also in regarding censorship
as one person stopping another from seeing or hearing something. To my mind
censorship starts when someone tells me I can't have certain images or
information, if I choose not to see certain things that's my choice and not
something I consider censorship, but I don't know what proportion of the
community shares my view on that. This question raises two contentious
areas; On the one hand at least one Wikimedian is asserting that the
community is opposed to censorship in principle, and that even a private
personal filter would be censorship. On the other hand the board still
wants the image filter to be usable for IPs and not just logged in users -
despite the fact that we have no way to implement an IP level system
without allowing some people to censor other people's Wikimedia viewing.
Another contentious area exists re NPOV and globalisation. Some other
websites have a clear POV and a focus on a particular culture, and for them
a filter is relatively easy. "Not Safe for Work" is probably quite similar
in Peoria, Portsmouth and Perth and such a filter prudish but not totally
alien to many Europeans. But in some parts of the world cultural concerns
are very different, so different that the idea of a simple single filter or
even a complex filter with a sliding scale from burka to bare naked via
swim wear isn't enough. To comply with NPOV and offer a filter that could
potentially work for everybody we need a multiplex system that allows for
the possibility that two different people could share a distaste for one
image but have completely opposite perceptions of another image. The
initial WMF proposal only supported a limited number of filters and
therefore inevitably would have lead to POV disputes as to which religions
or filter concerns were important enough to be on the list and which the
community would ignore and deem insufficiently important to merit a filter
option. Both of the filter options in play - the personal filter option and
the personal private filter option are based on the idea that you can have
as many different filter options as you want - the distinguishing issue is
whether there are people who want a particular filter not whether the
movement decides whether a particular filter request is valid or not.
However one of the leading proposals is that we promote the practice of
collapsing contentious images that already operates on two languages and
encourage it elsewhere on Wikipedia. The problem is that you can't have a
policy of allowing "controversial" images to be collapsed without setting a
threshold as to how controversial an image needs to be to merit such
action. If you simply allow anyone to collapse any image they find
offensive then our Political coverage will quickly look odd. If you decide
to only collapse and hide images that have been reported to be
controversial by reliable sources then brace yourself for various
demonstrations at every future Wikimania.
The third contentious area is over the publishing of lists that could
assist censors. Tom Morris has argued that we shouldn't concern ourselves
with that, in effect citing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists and explaining
that the horse has bolted. Not everyone accepts that argument, and I see
this as a major difference between the personal filter option and the
private personal filter option
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming/personal….
Though I'm wondering whether a compromise between the two with seeding
lists would be acceptable providing they were not comprehensive lists.
A fourth area of contention is money and specifically whether this is a
legitimate use of the money donated to the movement. We've already had one
UK board member ask awkward question re this. My view is that one could
argue that a private personal filter is a user preference and within scope;
That a filter which made the projects acceptable to large numbers of people
who currently avoid us would be in scope; and that a filter which cost a
tiny proportion of our total budget could be de minimis. But others
disagree and at present we have no idea as to what these filters would cost
or how many non-users are just waiting for such a filter. Part of that
could be answered by an estimate from the developers, part by doing
research amongst the internet users who don't use Wikimedia in languages
where we have low readership share. But radically the board could resolve
this by setting up a stand alone organisation to fund the global image
filter. If that couldn't fundraise then we'd have an idea of the value of
the concept, and it might be salutary for the board itself to organise such
a fork and then have to collaborate with it.
WSC
> It isn' one incidence, it isn't a class of incidences. Take it on board
> that the
> community is against the *principle* of censorship. Please.
>
>
> --
> --
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 19:06:50 +0000
> From: Tom Morris <tom(a)tommorris.org>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal
> filter lists
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <CAAQB2S88_o=poBAE-mx28jYr=F0uiH9zxRe1kd9HmCisHc3FEw(a)mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 09:11, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is not a theoretical risk. This has happened. Most famously in
> > the case of Virgin using pictures of persons that were licenced under
> > a free licence, in their advertising campaign. I hesitate to call this
> > argument fatuous, but it's relevance is certainly highly
> > questionable. Nobody has raised this is as a serious argument except
> > you assume it
> > has been. This is the bit that truly is a straw horse. The "downstream
> > use" objection
> > was *never* about downstream use of _content_ but downstream use of
> _labels_ and
> > the structuring of the semantic data. That is a real horse of a
> > different colour, and not
> > of straw.
> >
>
> I was drawing an analogy: the point I was making is very simple - the
> general principle of "we shouldn't do X because someone else might
> reuse it for bad thing Y" is a pretty lousy argument, given that we do
> quite a lot of things in the free culture/open source software world
> that have the same problem. Should the developers of Hadoop worry that
> (your repressive regime of choice) might use their tools to more
> efficiently sort through surveillance data of their citizens?
>
> I'm not at all sure how you concluded that I was suggesting filtering
> groups would be reusing the content? Net Nanny doesn't generally need
> to include copies of Autofellatio6.jpg in their software. The reuse of
> the filtering category tree, or even the unstructured user data, is
> something anti-filter folk have been concerned about. But for the most
> part, if a category tree were built for filtering, it wouldn't require
> much more than identifying clusters of categories within Commons. That
> is the point of my post. If you want to find adult content to filter,
> it's pretty damn easy to do: you can co-opt the existing extremely
> detailed category system on Commons ("Nude images including Muppets",
> anybody?).
>
> Worrying that filtering companies will co-opt a new system when the
> existing system gets them 99% of the way anyway seems just a little
> overblown.
>
> > It isn' one incidence, it isn't a class of incidences. Take it on board
> that
> > the community is against the *principle* of censorship. Please.
>
> As I said in the post, there may still be good arguments against
> filtering. The issue of principle may be very strong - and Kim Bruning
> made the point about the ALA definition, for instance, which is a
> principled rather than consequentialist objection.
>
> Generally, though, I don't particularly care *what* people think, I
> care *why* they think it. This is why the debate over this has been so
> unenlightening, because the arguments haven't actually flowed, just
> lots of emotion and anger.
>
> --
> Tom Morris
> <http://tommorris.org/>
>
>
>