It’s not clear to me what will be done with the answers proposed so far at
Will they be submitted as they are, or is someone proposing to merge them into a single version (even though many answers have been signed)?
Also unclear unless I have missed something is who will the answers be submitted by, and on whose behalf? Only individuals - and not the Foundation nor chapters - have formally posted answers so far, so is the intention that the answers will be submitted by and on behalf of those individuals only?
The page says that the response "can be submitted by the Wikimedia Foundation and other interested groups”, so perhaps the answers are merely intended as a resource others can use if they wish?
If the intention is that a formal response will be submitted on behalf of the unincorporated group Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU, then it would be sensible for that group to register with the EU Transparency Register, here:
According to the EU, responses to the consultation from non-registered entities will "be published separately from the registered organisations”, which may mean less influence. See:
(I note that the Foundation is not registered!)
By the way, WMUK will be completing and filing its own separate response.
> From: Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov <dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov(a)gmail.com>
> Date: 21 January 2014 14:51
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] European Commission Copyright Consultation
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Hi everyone,
> Just a quick reminder that we have 6 more days to collaboratively draft
> answers to the European Commission's copyright consultation.
> The idea is to give the global, online community a chance to come up with
> answers that, if coherent enough, can then be officially given to the
> We see this as a social experiment, since no one until now has ever
> attempted to answer collaboratively and publicly such short-termed and
> in-depth consultations.
> The corresponding link is:
> Have fun answering!
Here is a letter I just sent on behalf of the Board of Wikimedia Israel to
the WMF Board of Trustees, regarding the deletion of images from Commons
The letter is also posted on Meta:
We would love to hear your thoughts on this, preferably in the discussion
page on Meta.
WMIL Board Member
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 10:36 AM
Subject: A letter from WMIL regarding the deletion of images from Commons
Dear Board of Trustees,
As you might know, there was a discussion on Wikimedia Commons regarding
the Golan v. Holder copyright case, where the copyright status of a massive
amount of non-US images was changed from public domain to copyrighted. The
conclusion of the discussion was that there was indeed a problem with such
images, but that they would be deleted on a case-by-case basis. The actual
effect is not only that masses of public domain images be deleted from
Commons (with the burden of proof lying on the uploader), but also millions
of PD images waiting to be uploaded to Commons which are now in limbo. This
will certainly hinder or eliminate many GLAM partnerships around the world
and, again, deprive Commons of millions of images, many of them
historically important or iconic.
The reason behind the community decision was that, since Commons' servers
are located in the United States, all public domain images must
specifically be in the public domain in the United States, regardless of
their status in any other country. The Foundation's legal team issued a
legal position, which did not actually take any position but gave the
pertinent legal arguments. It is clear however that the community was in
fact trying to legally protect the Wikimedia Foundation from lawsuits,
therefore it stands to reason that the Foundation should specifically
address where it stands on this issue.
We believe that Wikimedia's position is not just to interpret the current
legal status, but to act and change it.
In light of this, we implore you to speak out and act in favor of uploading
public domain images to Commons that are not necessarily PD in the United
States, whether by allowing it directly, or making other arrangements to
allow such uploads without risking legal backlash. Millions of images are
at stake. This is possibly more than the amount of content that would be at
risk had PIPA/SOPA passed, and the Foundation made its position on
PIPA/SOPA very clear. It goes without saying that blocking access to public
domain images on Commons goes against the stated aims of our movement and
deals a severe blow to its legitimacy.
This is a similar case to PIPA/SOPA, and the Foundation can and should do
everything in its power to allow the use of these images in the Commons and
making them available to the public. Clearly the community is starting to
delete these images reluctantly, thinking it protects the legality of all
Wikimedia projects, but this only has to be true if the Foundation stands
on the sidelines. We believe that should the Foundation get involved, as
with the PIPA/SOPA case, the matter will be resolved quickly.
It should be noted that we the volunteers, both in Israel and in other
countries, are doing the utmost to obtain official documents that make it
clear that the relevant images are in the public domain. However, this can
only be done for images owned by governments. For images owned by
individuals the process is next to impossible, and is no different from the
process of asking every individual to release copyright on any image. As we
are frantically looking for all sorts of solutions, we expect the
Foundation to act on the behalf of the entire community and by extension,
This brought our chapter, as well as other chapters, to rethink about the
operation of Commons, and to seek alternatives. We may be forced, if this
issue is not properly addressed by the Foundation, to consider moving the
images to alternative servers located in other countries.
Thank you in advance,
--Wikimedia Israel Board
WMIL Board Member
Thanks! The most interesting datum I've noticed so far is the rate of
active editor (5+ edits/month) retention among new contributors after six
months, which is about 0.4%.
That (along with the easy-to-measure and already known sheer quanities of
photos generated) seems to me to be the most robust number to use in
evaluating WLM (and comparable) funding requests. 0.4% may be considered
worthwhile or not enough, depending on local contexts, so I'm not drawing a
universal conclusion from it, just noting it.
(just thinking out loud here.)
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks! Great to see this summary.
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 6:00 PM, LiAnna Davis <ldavis(a)wikimedia.org>wrote:
>> (please excuse cross-posting)
>> Hi everyone!
>> I posted the latest in the string of program evaluation reports on Meta
>> today, on Wiki Loves Monuments:
>> Highlights of the report include:
>> * About 17% of the images uploaded through Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 are
>> in use on our projects.
>> * The majority of Wiki Loves Monuments participants are new users;
>> however, the survival rate of new users is low (1.7% of the 2012
>> participants made at least one edit and 1.4% uploaded at least one new file
>> to Commons six months after the event).
>> * Half of the existing editors who participated in Wiki Loves Monuments
>> 2012 also participated in Wiki Loves Monuments 2013, with new users making
>> up for the other half.
>> * The global Wiki Loves Monuments organizing team helps support Wiki
>> Loves Monuments organizers around the world, providing replication
>> opportunities via direct support. This makes it easier for someone to
>> organize their own Wiki Loves Monuments contest.
>> Questions are welcomed and encouraged on the talk page.
>> On behalf of the Program Evaluation team,
>> LiAnna Davis
>> Wikipedia Education Program
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> +1-(415) 839-6885 x6649
>> Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
> Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266
> Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.
Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.
For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year
Round 1 will end on 7 February 2014. To vote, visit https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introdu…
Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee
Just a quick reminder that we have 6 more days to collaboratively draft
answers to the European Commission's copyright consultation.
The idea is to give the global, online community a chance to come up with
answers that, if coherent enough, can then be officially given to the
We see this as a social experiment, since no one until now has ever
attempted to answer collaboratively and publicly such short-termed and
The corresponding link is:
Have fun answering!
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 4:45 AM, rupert THURNER
> lianna, where did you get that number from?
> I want credit for this report to go where it belongs -- the Program
Evaluation team! I'm just assisting with publishing and distributing the
report; the work in it is a whole team effort, including contributions from
Frank Schulenburg, Dr. Jaime Anstee, Yuan Li, and Edward Galvez. Their hard
work went into data collection, reporting, and analysis; I just did some
minor copy editing and publicizing. :)
But that being said, I encourage everyone to post comments and questions on
the talk page, which is where the program evaluation team will be more
likely to see and answer them, rather than having parallel discussions on
Wikipedia Education Program
+1-(415) 839-6885 x6649
Few days ago, I was reading about an initiative against mass surveillance named "The Day We Fight Back", also is honoring to Aaron Swartz and SOPA Blackout Anniversary; many important websites are supporting this movement. Is not a call-to-action at all but I want to know if Wikimedia Foundation or Chapters are supporting this movement https://thedaywefightback.org/