Hello,
I regret the fact that I need to e-mail to this list, but I tried and tried
but can't work it out with the people involved. I talked about letting it go
but that doesn't seem the right thing to do also, so maybe a discussion on
this list can make something happen.
First a starter, I'm not going to spin around it... I'm currently blocked on
Commons, nl.wiki en Meta for privacy violation and using multible accounts.
But now here it comes, when I want to talk about the privacy about the
people around me no body is responding. If I messed up, and that still a big
"maybe" I'm happy to go down and get a bad reputation into Google and all
the other search engines but people around me should be safe.
Currently there are lots of pointers to my girlfriend on NL.Wiki, Meta and
Commons. While the article and the picture was hers she had nothing to do
with the complete case some people made here. As you will understand I will
not call her by her name since otherwise we have yet another place where her
name is listed and indexed into Google.
It all started on the Dutch Wikipedia after somebody created a article about
the Dutch writer and somebody did a CheckUser and came to the conclusion
that Delay and me had a common source. After that a Dutch Administrator
Freaky Fries came with the news that I had a relationship with this person
and that we would live on the same adres (here:
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verzoekpagina_voor_moderatoren/Sokpo…)
While the CheckUser confirmed that the IP from the home adres is no link to
the Delay account and there is no proof or relavancy what so ever it still
stating on Wikipedia that we are living together. After that a OTRS agent
with the name RonaldB posted a ticketnumber that can confirm that I and her
have a relationship. On the Request for Deletion page on Nl.wikipedia is
again a link posted to my private twitter to state that I have a
relationship with her. (
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Te_verwijderen_pagina%27s/Toegevoegd…)
After that this whole discussion is moved by a dutch administrator to
Commons where even Yesterday and today there is a whole discussion again
with her name involved on multible pages (
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Req…http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Req…)
Where most recenty a dutch administrator Trijnstel is saying that I
and
the girl have split up (without any source and without any relevance). On my
talkpage on Commons is again brought to the attention.
Between this we also have a big Meta discussion
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_comment/Abigor where on the
page and talkpage the relevance to a possible girlfriend is being made.
Now I'm sure that this did break my complete reputation on Wikimedia, while
I tried to defend myself and asking for information that the foundation can
and have to give I still didn't recieve anything. Also a request for removal
of all the names have been made by the ArbCom and nothing was heard But tell
me do we want to foundation the damage a reputation of people who doesn't
even edit Wikipedia but are taking on to Wikipedia to break a user? I don't
care what is happening to me, but somebody please step in and start removing
all those privacy violations on all those wiki's. This is going to damage
her, and than the Foundation will need to take the heat? Is that what we
want?
Best,
Huib
Here is a copy of an email I received today in my mail box. I saw it at
the ultimate proof of fame :)
----------
Managing Partners
Clinton Barnes Solicitors & Co
326-328 Old Street
London, EC1V 9DR
England
Dear Sir / Madam ,
I am Clinton Barnes , an attorney at law. A deceased client of mine,
that shares the same last name as yours , died as a result of a
heart-related condition on March 12th 2005. His heart condition was due
to the death of all the members of his family in the tsunami disaster on
the 26th December 2004 in Sumatra Indonesia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake
I am contacting you to seek your consent to present you as the next of
kin to my late client .This will be executed under a legitimate
arrangement that will protect you from any breach of the law.
If this business proposition offends your moral values, do accept my
apology.
I can be reached on : clintonbarnes(a)yahoo.cn
Sincerely Yours,
Barrister Clinton Barnes.
Attorney at Law
[this is to those of you who run mailing lists]
You may have noticed a deluge of mailing list subscriptions from
sensible.names(a)apotmail.com -- these are definitely not real people; in all
likelihood, the operator's goal is e-mail address harvesting, or worse.
Perhaps it would save some of you time to be aware of this and reject these
subscribers (on our subscription-by-approval lists, that is) point blank.
Cheers,
Asaf
--
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia Foundation
I'd like to approach the "Unnamed Movement" idea from a slightly
different perspective.
What we really have emergent is a series of related movements, many of
which are nested inside of each other.
At the highest and most general level is the Free Culture Movement,
which is a real and active movement for sharing-minded copyright and
IP innovations in all forms.
Below that, there is a division between the artistic side (Remix Art
Movement) and the factual side (Open Knowledge Movement).
The Open Knowledge Movement is itself divided between the side
dominated by professional scholars (Open Access Movement) and the side
dominated by info-hobbyists (Wiki Knowledge Movement or New
Encyclopedist Movement or "Unnamed Movement" or whatever).
(Of course, this doesn't mean that experts aren't deeply involved with
Wikimedia-like sites, indeed they play a very important role, just
more of a supporting than a dominating one.)
It is only I think on the level of the last mentioned info-hobbyist
movement (of whatever title) that Wikimedia can seem to be the clear
"industry leader" and potential movement-definer.
Thanks,
Richard
(User:Pharos)
Although we supposedly don't do POV forks, we effectively *have* with
the different language versions. So -
http://manypedia.com
"On Manypedia you can compare the same Wikipedia page as it appears on
2 different language Wikipedias, both translated in your language. For
example you can search for a page in the English Wikipedia and compare
it with the same page on the Chinese Wikipedia but translated into
English."
- d.
Hi,
I'm just dropping a line to notify the list of a proposal for a new project.
The proposal is to build a wiki-based Citizens' Information portal for every state in the world. The purpose of a Citizens' Information portal is to provide essential and neutral information that is of use to citizens. An example of a currently existing Citizens' Information portal is www.citizensinformation.ie, a website run by the Irish government.
More details of the proposal are here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Civipedia
In interest of honesty, this is not my idea but something that was said to me offline and which I thought was a particularly good idea.
Best regards,
Oliver
Why can't we setup a meta server sandbox that allows these experimental
things to be rapidly activated in the sense of giving each a virtual
server slice. That way there is room to play and if something takes off
it can then be allocated some serious resources. The ones that die on
the vine won't be tying up much of any time or resources since they are
virtual anyway.
On 7/12/2011 11:16 AM, foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> But now, I feel like we may be able to move back into an era of rapid
> experimentation, where new projects are more like unmanned 1940s test
> rockets-- they should be blowing up left and right, as we try to learn
> from the failed attempts.
>
> I'll go further-- provided we can do so cheaply, I want new projects
> that are like the ridiculous early failures of flight.
> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7OJvv4LG9M]. I want to hear about a
> new WMF project and it's policy, think "That's crazy-- that's never
> gonna get off the ground", and indeed, learn something from whether it
> crashes or whether it actually takes off.
>
> Having an "early flight era" attitude is how we can find something
> even better than Wikipedia. I agree a lot of ideas are unlikely to
> work-- but provided the resource usage is sufficiently negligible, let
> people start making insane flying machine projects, and eventually the
> wright brothers will show up.
Yes, there are big differences between IMDB and YouTube rightswise.
IMDB requires that every submission be reviewed for accuracy and content
before acceptance. They are trying to compete with Baseline and want to
be seen as an equal - so they (perhaps overzealously even) require that
new indie film productions have documented festival screenings before
acceptance. This restriction is NOT imposed on the 350 production
companies who are members of AMPTP, who are able to list projects as
being in development forever.
YouTube uses a completely different approach. Anyone can put anything
online anytime. The only time content origin is an issue is when it is
challenged. Unlike other video sharing sites, there is no explicit "opt
in" button asking if the uploader has copyright control over original
content.
The Wikimedia movement is on the bleeding edge of evolving copyright
law, just as are Google, The Internet Archive and many other evolving
content providers. It is unfortunate that YouTube is so frequently used
to share content without the copyright holder's consent as it lowers the
trust level.
If someone wants to link to content they uploaded to a video sharing
site for inclusion in Wikipedia, then use of a more trusted site might
be in order to avoid editor action. How can we communicate this to the
casual contributor?
On 7/16/2011 5:00 AM, foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> I haven't fully read the context of this thread, but something that
> did cross my
> mind recently, why do we treat YouTube-links different from other
> links here?
>
> Aren't most of our sources and external linked websites atleast as
> copyrighted
> as YouTube ?
>
> Consider links to IMDb for example, the content we link to, through
> that, is all copyrighted!
>
> Or just a good old "Official website"-link on an article about person
> X or
> organization Y, likely also "All rights reserved."
>
> YouTube atleast is partially (and soon more) under a CC-license.