On 18/06/2014, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
...
> A single editor in Commons can tweaks license information as much as it
> might be in Wikidata. Remember both Commons and Wikidata are wikis. It is
> likely that a property will be needed to reference an OTRS instance.
> Reasons why a file has issues will be as much be defined by properties and
> qualifiers. Really Fae, not much will change except that a Russian may view
> all this in Russian and a Brazilian in Portuguese.
>
> Effectively the number of people who will be able to understand what is
> expressed will increase. More people will be able to find media files...
> Remember, that IS the objective isn't it?
With regard to your specific mention of OTRS tickets and identifying
different licences for the same image (or derivatives) across
projects, can you point to an example, or an agreed plan with a date
for implementation on Wikidata? I know that Jarekt has worked hard on
Commons licence identification, to my knowledge it is a far more
complex issue than people might expect.
At the current time, I have yet to see how the Wikidata theoretical
use improves finding images on Commons today. After regularly getting
emails over the past two years raising expectations of how these
problems will be solved through Wikidata, I have yet to be involved or
invited to join any Commons based Wikidata project, despite being
currently the most active unpaid volunteer uploader for Commons.
One of my particular interests was sorting out the Geograph project
where I added meaningful place categories to images (around a million
images). Last year I deliberately deferred continuing improvements and
new uploads based on suggestions of how Wikidata was going to
revolutionise the way this worked. As far as I am aware, there is
still no published plan to help with identifying Commons categories
with places using Wikidata; indeed for projects like our Avionics
batch uploads (which rely on Airport categories and their locations) I
have been told the opposite, to no longer expect, nor wait, for this
to be sorted out and I am likely to revise my Geograph work without
any plans to incorporate Wikidata, or work with Wikidata.
Fae
--
faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Hoi,
- Many people no longer trust Commons to store their media files. People
are more certain that their files will remain available when they upload
media files to their own project.
- Many media files exist on many projects waiting for transfer to
Commons. It does not happen and consequently those media files are not
generally available.
- Media files exist on multiple wikis because they are acceptable to
them for reasons defined at those wikis. Theoretically the same file is
stored in many locations.
- Wikidata has started its development that will "Wikidatify" much of
the meta data of media files
These things are all true and typically they are seen in isolation. When
the process of bringing Wikidata to Commons really gets under way, Commons
will finally become usable for people who do not know English. When this
process is complete, it is reasonable to expect that functionality will
build upon the information that is held in this way.
It is equally reasonable that the projects who have their own media files
will insist that this new functionality will be available for their media
files as well. Consequently it is extremely likely that all media files
will be Wikidatified.
The opportunity exist to have all this data in one "multimedia Wikidata".
It would mean that when a Commons admin decides for his reasons that a file
is no longer available, that a local admin can address his reasons and
decide that it is available for his project. When a file is marked ad being
available for transfer, it is technically only a different setting about
that media file. I would not be surprised when in the technical
infrastructure a file exists only once anyway.
As far as I am concerned, when people are searching for any excuse to deny
the existence of an image, it is extremely similar to pushing a POV. When
people find that some users are only involved in pushing such a POV, it
should be obvious what happens next. This would not be a third or fourth
iteration of saving one image at a time.
Thanks,
GerardM
Per GerardM: "Many people no longer trust Commons to store their media
files. People
are more certain that their files will remain available when they upload
media files to their own project."
I for one won't use Commons for image uploads. I feel that my uploads have
been treated vindictively there.
There is no functional reason for Commons to even exist. Images can as
easily be uploaded to the various language Wikipedias for use in
illustrating encyclopedic articles, which is the true point of the
exercise, thus allowing different encyclopedias maintaining differing local
standards for their inclusion. (Just be sure to use the {{keep local}} flag
to keep things from being expropriated by bots and buccaneers if you go
this route.)
Commons is dominated by "free use" (as opposed to "fair use") advocates who
see mission of the repository as the accumulation of any image whatsoever
which may be deemed "educational" in the very loosest sense of the term.
They rely on a precedent established in 2004 as their rationale for their
free use worship, which they consider axiomatic but which is actually
debatable.
Commons has poorly developed standards for inclusion vs. exclusion and is
dominated by a group who run roughshod over their critics.
Tim Davenport /// Carrite on WP /// Randy from Boise on WPO
Dear movement fellows,
in the context of our annual general assembly on June 14, 2014 WMAT
conducted elections for the board, the internal and external auditors
and the community representative of our good governance committee.
After a successful and constructive term of office we are happy to
announce that all representatives were available for re-election and
were confirmed in office by our members:
_Board:_
Kurt Kulac, president
Alexander Wagner, vice president
Beppo Stuhl, secretary
Michael Karolzak, vice secretary
Reiner Strubert, treasurer
Michael Kranewitter, vice treasurer
Andrea Kareth, adviser
Bernhard Wallisch, adviser
_Auditors:_
Andrea Pfandner, Steirische Wirtschaftstreuhand GmbH & Co. KG, external
auditor
Gerhard Wrodnigg, community auditor
_Good governance committee:_
Franz Pfeiffer, community representative
Berhard Wallisch, board representative
Thomas Planinger, staff representative
We are convinced that this team with it's various personalities and
areas of expertise and experience will lead WMAT through another two
successful years on the quest for free knowledge. We are looking forward
to this exciting time!
Kurt Kulac
President
Wikimeda Österreich
Claudia Garád
Executive Director
Wikimedia Österreich
As Sage notes, the functionality of the new apps is about the same on both
Android and iOS, with some differences in the UI.
Like the beta Android version, we're using a sidebar ToC instead of
collapsing sections (though it's a bit fancier looking on iOS right now!)
and we've added basic login and editing ability. Note that in both OSs we
do not yet have any talk page or notification support -- this should be
coming a couple months down the line as we continue to tune up the
editor-facing features.
We hope to iterate fairly quickly once we've got the first new version out!
Unfortunately due to Apple's store policies we can't have an open public
"beta" version of the app easily installable like we do on Android. We're
currently doing "in-house" betas with Apple's Enterprise Distribution
program combined with the TestFlight beta distribution service; when they
release upcoming improvements to TestFlight we'll be able to distribute
betas much more publicly but this may not arrive until iOS 8 as well.
Regarding iOS 8 features -- they are very much on our minds, but we can't
actually use them yet so we're working on polishing up the iOS
6/7-compatible release. :)
Aside from various nice internals updates in the OS, one of the main
user-facing improvements is better app-to-app integration based on
extension points. This would allow us to make Commons available as a
"share" destination for photos directly from other apps as we do on
Android, and other potential things.
-- brion
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 6:43 AM, Sage Ross <ragesoss+wikipedia(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Thehelpfulone
> <thehelpfulonewiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ahh, but some of us are on iOS which doesn’t seem to have been updated
> on the App Store in a while! The latest status update (at
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Apps/status#2014-05-monthly)
> seems to suggest it’s in Alpha state. Please can someone from the Apps Team
> give me some insight into the ETA for a new app, and if some of the new
> features of iOS 8 could be integrated into it?
> >
>
> I believe the provisional release date is July 7.[1]
>
> In broad strokes, the functionality of the new iOS app is pretty
> similar to the new Android app, although I must say the iOS version
> has a really cool way of handling the in-article navigation with both
> a ToC and a scrollable miniature view of the article. Someone who
> knows better can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think much
> attention has been given yet to potential iOS 8-specific features.
>
> -Sage
>
> [1] = http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/mobile-l/2014-June/007331.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
Hi all,
As I scanned through the weekend emails on this list I noticed that many of
you are ready to get back to discussing the goals we are all working on. I
am really glad to see that. We have plenty of interesting projects to
discuss without the gossip. Let's respect the time that many following this
list are donating to the project by sticking to constructive, on topic
matters.
And for starters: the Wikipedia Android Beta app is in store and is
awaiting your comments.
Thanks,
Lila
Erik Moeller wrote:
>... My own focus will be on fleshing out the overall narrative,
> aligning around organization-wide objectives, and helping to
> manage scope....
Steven Walling wrote:
> The Wikimedia Foundation does not write nor edit content
> on Wikipedia....
Newyorkbrad wrote:
>... The protection of Section 230 enables websites such as
> Wikipedia to operate without fear that the Foundation will be
> subject to suit anytime someone, such as a BLP subject,
> disagrees with the content of an article....
Are there any reasons that
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Develop_systems_for_accuracy_re…
should not be adopted as a Foundation engineering goal?
Is there anywhere in
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/2014-15_Goals
where it fits in?
I am not a fan of neglecting low hanging fruit, especially when it is
characterized as something positive, like narrowing focus, fleshing
out a narrative, goal alignment, or managing scope. So much money is
coming in from contributors who deserve and could have so much more if
the Foundation leadership was more ambitious and less distracted by
incremental but relatively burdensome improvements to existing
solutions like the visual editor and talk page redesigns.
(Cross-posted from my En-wiki talkpage)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Sixth_…>
has issued its decision today in *Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment
Recordings LLC*. This is a well-known dispute involving application of Section
230 of the Communications Decency Act
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act>
in the context of a website ("www.TheDirty.com") whose goals and contents
are deplorable. The court's decision can be found here
<http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0125p-06.pdf>. A blog post
(Eugene Volokh) summarizing the decision can be found here
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/16/thedirty…>
.
In its decision, the Sixth Circuit takes a broad view of Section 230 and
holds that Section 230 protection is not lost even where the website
operator solicited contributors to post unsourced and uncorroborated "dirt"
about anyone they pleased, and even where the website operator selected
which contributions would be published.
The protection of Section 230 enables websites such as Wikipedia to operate
without fear that the Foundation will be subject to suit anytime someone,
such as a BLP subject, disagrees with the content of an article. It is a
truism that Freedom of Speech under the First Amendment and statues like
Section 230 protects speech we do not care for as well as speech whose
value we appreciate.
That being said, the decision is a reminder that those of us who care about
how Wikipedia treats the subject of BLP articles must remain vigilant in
keeping such articles free of defamatory, unsourced negative, unduly
weighted, and privacy-invading content, as well as in using good judgment
regarding which living persons should be the subject of articles at all. At
least in the United States, for better or worse, the law will do little to
protect the people we write about in our encyclopedia. Treating them fairly
and responsible is therefore, all the more clearly, our collective,
non-delegable editorial responsibility.
Newyorkbrad
Hello all,
We have published the minutes from the Board's April 2014 meeting in San
Francisco, which you may find here:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2014-04-25
--
Stephen LaPorte
Legal Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
*NOTICE: As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal and ethical
reasons, I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more
on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.*
_______________________________________________
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
WikimediaAnnounce-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l