Yeah, I am definitely watching users that violate any Wikimedia project and I talk about it with other users publicly. What should be done different? Should we let this users go and ignore they are violating important rules? I will be paying atention to suggestions. And trying to do something different is the reason I created this thread. I am pretty sure that the regular measures won't be enough. I would never blame regular editors though. That would be too much easy and counterproductive.
Yeah, Wikipedia Zero is a good thing. That goes without saying. And I am not saying that because I expect something in return from the users of Wikipedia Zero. I actually don't think many of them will improve wiki as they use cellphones to edit and there is not yet an app for easily editing. Other than reading, doing anything else on cellphone is too much painful. The best thing of WP Zero is that it *provides* information for too many people in need.
Teles
Em quinta-feira, 24 de março de 2016, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> escreveu:
Hoi, So what are you saying? It is ok for people to do dastardly things and abuse Commons and it is even worse when people at Commons use the environment they know, the Internet, to do some research and expose what they find?
Really? And I must be impressed when Mr Kolbe asks attention for it?? Because what! It a Dutch proverb the best sailors are ashore. The same can be said by Mr Kolbe who is proficient in telling other people what to do and why he objects. That is his prerogative as it is mine to be underwhelmed.
Be serious. When issues arise, we may work towards an understanding and a solution and sometimes hands get dirty. I will always support people who actually make a meaningful difference over people who cannot be faulted. Mistakes are made and when that is a problem go elsewhere. When there is a meaningful discussion anything is on the cards. So far this is not one. Thanks, GerarddM
On 24 March 2016 at 09:04, David Emrany <david.emrany@gmail.com javascript:;> wrote:
Dear Gerard
Correspondingly, what I find unconscionable for us is that a small group of Commons editors /admins congregated on the talk page of 'Teles' and discussed how to secretly spy on these new Zeropaid enabled editors and monitor their Facebook-basic pages [1], [2].
IMO had this been more widely discussed at Commons seeking solutions, we would not be seeing unfortunate news articles like the one Andreas Kolbe has linked to
Regards
Dave
[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATeles&type=r...
[2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Teles/Angola_Facebook_C...
On 3/20/16, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com javascript:;>
wrote:
Hoi, Realistically. Wikipedia is very much an enabler.
Your ease to consider "simply" disabling mobile edits or uploads I find appalling. People in countries like USA or UK are very fortunate.
Nobody
would ever argue to disable their edits or uploads. At the same time
as a
movement we desperately need more and more diverse involvement. While
you
may say what you want, it is unconscionable for us to do as you suggest
as
it is fully contrary to what we aim to achieve.
What we are experiencing is a bump in the road. We have to deal with it
but
throwing the baby with the washing water? REALLY !! Thanks, GerardM
On 19 March 2016 at 15:03, David Emrany <david.emrany@gmail.com
javascript:;> wrote:
Hi Adele
Can we have a clear picture of Wikimedia's ‘complicated’ relationship with net neutrality - 1year on from the Washington Post story [1]
Can we also have specific figures on how much of WMF's traffic has been lost / gained from key markets in Latin America and Asia after regulators have blocked zeropaid schemes due to local concerns.
WMF's "complicated" stance has also turned off many like-minded support groups who stand for pure net neutrality - and not WMF's or Facebook's ersatz versions [2]
Lastly, if the primary aim of Wikipedia Zero is to gain readership, why not simply disable all mobile edits / uploads from these accounts.
David
[1]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-comp...
[2]
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/01/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-prot...
On 3/19/16, Adele Vrana <avrana@wikimedia.org javascript:;> wrote:
Hi Teles,
As the head of the Wikipedia Zero program, I would like to respond
and
provide more context to the important challenges you are bringing
up.
Last year, the Foundation increased our security and privacy by requiring HTTPS to access all Wikimedia projects. That change has greatly
impacted
the Wikipedia Zero program, and most importantly has also allowed editing (and not only reading) and extended the scope of zero-rated access
from
just Wikipedia to all Wikimedia projects. However, our banners do
not
reflect this additional zero-rating, but still only appear on
Wikipedia.
In your message you highlight two main concerns. One would be the
upload
of
copyrighted materials and overall abuse on Commons. The other
concern
regards how the editing community should deal with an influx of new
good
faith edits and potential editors in Portuguese, with particular
challenge
of the extra work this causes for existing community members.
Regarding Commons, we have experienced abuse from a few subscribers
of a
Zero partner in Angola. Typically what happens is that the pirates upload copyrighted movies to Commons either directly or in a concealed form
(like
huge/split PDFs or JPEGs). Then they promote the links on Facebook
or
a
similar public forum for others to download. When partners become
aware
of
this they have flagged it to us and we've, in turn, flagged it to
Community
Engagement who has worked with editors to try and make sure it's removed.
We agree that this is not an ideal way to handle this problem, and
we
would
prefer to catch it much earlier or simply prevent it outright
(without
significant limits being placed on good faith editors). Last fall,
we
had internal discussions on finding technical solutions for this
problem.
However, we discovered that we could not widely identify traffic
from
zero
rated partners, and that ability was a prerequisite to address this
issue.
As of December 2015, the Ops team was able to complete that work.
With this task completed, our team, in coordination with community engagement and engineering is working on finding the best approach
to
resolve this issue. Do you have suggestions or guidance? We are
eager
to
examine multiple approaches and this is a great time to open the discussion. As we evaluate different approaches, we can also update
you
and
the list here.
On the editing topic, the primary goal of Wikipedia Zero is to
increase
readership. This is measured in potential reach (through subscriber
counts)
and pageviews within regions with Wikipedia Zero partnerships.
There’s
not
enough information to show that Zero can also increase editorship,
but
it is something we believe is furthered by expanding reading access. So
if
that is what is happening in Angola, we see that is a great thing.
However, we understand that it’s challenging for our existing
editing
community to handle a sudden influx of new editors. This seems to
be a
crucial and important conversation for the movement at large to
have.
I
hope we can figure out a way to turn this moment in Angola into an opportunity to learn how to deal with new readers and editors.
Best regards, Adele
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Gnangarra <gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
some of the issue stems form the copyright laws of Angola, which
are
really interesting to read -- read them in english -- https://www.copyright-watch.org/files/Angola.pdf of course I dont
expect
people to know their copyright laws in detail or to have read them
but
they do know the principles of it and what they can do
some points of interest
- Non protected works Article 9 section c -- news of the day
published
by the press or broadcast
- Chapter IV Uses lawful without Authorisation article 29
section
b
- reproduction by photographic process or process analogous to
photographic process by <snip> documentation centres <snip> or teaching organisations ..... refers to minimum amount of copies necessary, but wither
way
Wikipedia would fall into either of these definitions as
permitted
to reproduce
- article 30 - is the key here it enables translation into
Portuguese after 3 years without any real restrictions - hence why the
pt.wikis
are having so much of an issue and by extension commons where they encourage uploading of media
Wikipedia zero implementation needs to also consider the
implication
of
local laws especially copyright on the projects where the laws are
this
outdated and effectively enable copyright issues then WP Zero could provide a read only option for IP's or a no upload option, with a rights
request
process on commons
On 19 March 2016 at 00:45, Lucas Teles <teleswiki@gmail.com
javascript:;> wrote:
> Hi, everyone. > > It is being recently reported on Portuguese Wikipedia and Commons
(at
> least) the increasing ammount of improper editing coming from IP addresses > located in Angola. Some users believe that this may be related
with
> Wikipedia Zero and a partnership between WMF and a cellphone
company
[1]
> that allows reading and editing at free cost. > > One of the first reactions to that is a large range block that
was
just
set > on Commons in order to prevent these edits [2], as they are being > done in a > way that volunteers can't handle. > > That seems to be some kind of "second wave" as the first that hit > Commons > [3] had been already reported months ago [4] and seemed to be
controled
or > just paused for a while. On Portuguese Wikipedia, one thing that
seemss
to > be clear is that edits are done in good faith. However, they end
by
> being > undone as they are incorrect for some reason, whether being pages
of
files > about themselves or just test edits. One of the users identified > actually > confirm [5] that he is editing through Wikipedia Zero. > > Concerning that more partnerships may occur in future, I think it
is
> time > for us to start talking about ways of dealing with that, other
than
> blocking. Sadly, I don't have an answer to that problem, but I
tend
> to > believe that some way of mass reaching these potential users
should
> be made > out. > > The current process is that editors will be the ones to notice
that
(as
> I > am not aware of any kind of follow up by WMF on that) and they
will
try
to > solve their way, which may cause too many collateral damage. > > I wonder if there is any kind of way to diminish the problem, by > using any > off-wiki strategy. > > Kind regards. > > Teles > > [1] - > >
http://www.telecompaper.com/news/movicel-offers-free-access-to-wikipedia--11...
> [2] - > >
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Steinsplitter&...
> [3] -
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Teles/Angola_Facebook_Case
> [4] - > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Forum&oldid=12835...
> [5] - > >
https://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usu%C3%A1rio_Discuss%C3%A3o:Darwi...
> > > *Lucas Teles* > > *+55 (71) 98290 7553Steward at Wikimedia Foundation.
Administrator
> *at Portuguese Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons.*-
wikipedista.com
> _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- *Adele Vrana* *Strategic Partnerships* Wikimedia Foundation +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6773 avrana@wikimedia.org javascript:;
*Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share
in
the
sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. Donate. https://donate.wikimedia.org/* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>