On 14/11/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
(...and perhaps we can make the pertinent point, without whining too much, which led some people to consider this option: overwhelming copyvios and underwhelming supply of labour.)
I recall that when en:wp was having problems with vandalism of the Main Page featured article image, Commons admins were remarkably difficult to find. So some asked "could we have an admin on en: made an admin on Commons for this reason?" and got back "well, why don't you make all Commons admins admins on en: first."
Some people in the Commons community seem to want it both ways. Is Commons an entirely independent project or does it, as a service project, need to open itself up to administration by people from other projects to keep up with its actual original purpose?
This discussion appears to demonstrate Commons simply isn't making admins through its own processes anywhere near fast enough and its processes need radical revision.
- d.
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 10:30:13AM +0000, David Gerard wrote: ...
This discussion appears to demonstrate Commons simply isn't making admins through its own processes anywhere near fast enough and its processes need radical revision.
...
for me, this disscussion again clearly demonstrates the principal problem that not everybody understands the mission of Commons in the same way. There are basically two main alternatives
A. Commons as free media library. In a way, free counterpart to stock media agencies and the like. Such libraries have much added value compared to the "raw material" - description, tagging, categories, some copyright inspection, possibly some quality checks.
In this case, Commons are viable as an independent project, which may attract it's own community. Helping to build and improve such library may be interesting.
B. Commons as a Wikimedia-wide file storage facility. Main requirement on storage is security (so a file doesn't suddenly disappear) and maybe ease of access (so any wikimedian can upload a file without much knowledge of commons). The "sweet part" is, the file storage is still expected to have some functions demanding expensive human resources: 1. copyright inspection.
In this case, IMO Commons are not viable as independent project. I can hardly imagine people who would be interested in doing copyright inspection of what would be, in quality terms, mostly pile of poorly described rubbish, dumped from Wikipedias in high speed.
As in this alternative commons are IMO not self-sustainable as a community, Commons tasks would have to be somehow adopted as another janitorial task by other Wikimedia projects (those with a mission which is able to attract people).
Jan Kulveit [[User:Wikimol]]
Commons exists to be a repository for free culture *and* to serve as an inter-wiki storage medium for *free* media. it is not a place to dump stuff, nor is it a place which exists independently of other wikis.
Copyright violations are not a minor or trivial problem. They are a serious problem, for which we are obligated to act when they are properly brought to our attention. This is all nothing new.
If there are Wikimedians who are advocating housing copyrighted media in Commons, speak up now, because we need to get clear on why that is not cool immediately.
-BradP
On 11/14/06, Jan Kulveit jk-wikifound@ks.cz wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 10:30:13AM +0000, David Gerard wrote: ...
This discussion appears to demonstrate Commons simply isn't making admins through its own processes anywhere near fast enough and its processes need radical revision.
...
for me, this disscussion again clearly demonstrates the principal problem that not everybody understands the mission of Commons in the same way. There are basically two main alternatives
A. Commons as free media library. In a way, free counterpart to stock media agencies and the like. Such libraries have much added value compared to the "raw material" - description, tagging, categories, some copyright inspection, possibly some quality checks.
In this case, Commons are viable as an independent project, which may attract it's own community. Helping to build and improve such library may be interesting.
B. Commons as a Wikimedia-wide file storage facility. Main requirement on storage is security (so a file doesn't suddenly disappear) and maybe ease of access (so any wikimedian can upload a file without much knowledge of commons). The "sweet part" is, the file storage is still expected to have some functions demanding expensive human resources: 1. copyright inspection.
In this case, IMO Commons are not viable as independent project. I can hardly imagine people who would be interested in doing copyright inspection of what would be, in quality terms, mostly pile of poorly described rubbish, dumped from Wikipedias in high speed.
As in this alternative commons are IMO not self-sustainable as a community, Commons tasks would have to be somehow adopted as another janitorial task by other Wikimedia projects (those with a mission which is able to attract people).
Jan Kulveit [[User:Wikimol]] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 14/11/06, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
Commons exists to be a repository for free culture *and* to serve as an inter-wiki storage medium for *free* media. it is not a place to dump stuff, nor is it a place which exists independently of other wikis. Copyright violations are not a minor or trivial problem. They are a serious problem, for which we are obligated to act when they are properly brought to our attention. This is all nothing new. If there are Wikimedians who are advocating housing copyrighted media in Commons, speak up now, because we need to get clear on why that is not cool immediately.
There isn't anyone advocating that; this discussion started with a Commons admin threatening to block all es:wp users from Commons to stop copyvios from es:wp, because the Commons admins can't keep up, evidently because their admin process is strict enough that pretty much no-one even bothers trying.
- d.
Or, the es.wp users are all not aware of the restrictions on what is acceptable. Your earlier post appeared to support the es.wp position. This is a problem that should be handled at the source, not creating better tools to fix what should not be happening in the first place. If, say, 90% of the material being uploaded is against the grain, why should we not try to fix the problem at the source? We are clearly not doing a good enough job explaning what is okay and what is not if this kind of situation has evolved.
On 11/14/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/11/06, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
Commons exists to be a repository for free culture *and* to serve as an inter-wiki storage medium for *free* media. it is not a place to dump stuff, nor is it a place which exists independently of other wikis. Copyright violations are not a minor or trivial problem. They are a serious problem, for which we are obligated to act when they are properly brought to our attention. This is all nothing new. If there are Wikimedians who are advocating housing copyrighted media in Commons, speak up now, because we need to get clear on why that is not cool immediately.
There isn't anyone advocating that; this discussion started with a Commons admin threatening to block all es:wp users from Commons to stop copyvios from es:wp, because the Commons admins can't keep up, evidently because their admin process is strict enough that pretty much no-one even bothers trying.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
Or, the es.wp users are all not aware of the restrictions on what is acceptable.
On en.pedia we have tried asking, explaining, pleading, beging and threatening and still the copyvios come.
Rather a lot of the internet doesn't care about copyright. They want their image of dancing pigs and will lie to us to get it.
geni wrote:
On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
Or, the es.wp users are all not aware of the restrictions on what is acceptable.
On en.pedia we have tried asking, explaining, pleading, beging and threatening and still the copyvios come.
Rather a lot of the internet doesn't care about copyright. They want their image of dancing pigs and will lie to us to get it.
Now *that* is a mixed metaphor!
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_pigs
Is it 90%? I haven't seen anyone actually define what the problem is on foundation-l at least. Is it images with no info, or false info? Or is just that the new users aren't using Commons category system unrelated to copyright? I tried to read the Commons-l archive to catch up, but I am still unclear on what scope of the problem is. Does anyone actually have numbers?
Without really knowing the situation, I would say that I believe all communities struggle to keep up on these things. Everyone has backlogs they are working through and these things happen in cycles. One month you make great progress, another month things are overwhelming and ground is lost. Perhaps threatening drastic action is a good way to draw attention and hopefully solutions when the situation gets particularly bad. However I think it would really be useful to talk about the real numbers in this situation. How much worse is it than what others are dealing with?
Birgitte SB
--- Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
Or, the es.wp users are all not aware of the restrictions on what is acceptable. Your earlier post appeared to support the es.wp position. This is a problem that should be handled at the source, not creating better tools to fix what should not be happening in the first place. If, say, 90% of the material being uploaded is against the grain, why should we not try to fix the problem at the source? We are clearly not doing a good enough job explaning what is okay and what is not if this kind of situation has evolved.
On 11/14/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/11/06, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com
wrote:
Commons exists to be a repository for free
culture *and* to serve as
an inter-wiki storage medium for *free* media.
it is not a place to
dump stuff, nor is it a place which exists
independently of other
wikis. Copyright violations are not a minor or trivial
problem. They are a
serious problem, for which we are obligated to
act when they are
properly brought to our attention. This is all
nothing new.
If there are Wikimedians who are advocating
housing copyrighted media
in Commons, speak up now, because we need to get
clear on why that is
not cool immediately.
There isn't anyone advocating that; this
discussion started with a
Commons admin threatening to block all es:wp users
from Commons to
stop copyvios from es:wp, because the Commons
admins can't keep up,
evidently because their admin process is strict
enough that pretty
much no-one even bothers trying.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Brad Patrick General Counsel & Interim Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. bradp.wmf@gmail.com 727-231-0101 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited
In my opinion there are 2 basic problems with images: 1. Image copyright and various Wikimedia policies are very complicated. Most people have no understanding of them or don't even know they exist. 2. (A lesser problem), people who just upload pictures of themselves for the heck of it, with or without malicious intent. This includes vandals and people who want a free webhost.
I'm an admin on en:wp and have done a fair share of image cleanup. But even after reading the image policy pages multiple times, I still feel like I only have maybe a 40% grasp on all the concepts. I don't think we can or should make image policy "simpler" (for legal or whatever other reasons), and I don't have any quick answers. We just have to remain vigilant and fix the problems as they arise. That said, if anyone has ideas I'm all ears. The image delete backlogs are always huge.
Erica User:Fang Aili on various Wikimedia
On 11/14/06, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
Is it 90%? I haven't seen anyone actually define what the problem is on foundation-l at least. Is it images with no info, or false info? Or is just that the new users aren't using Commons category system unrelated to copyright? I tried to read the Commons-l archive to catch up, but I am still unclear on what scope of the problem is. Does anyone actually have numbers?
Without really knowing the situation, I would say that I believe all communities struggle to keep up on these things. Everyone has backlogs they are working through and these things happen in cycles. One month you make great progress, another month things are overwhelming and ground is lost. Perhaps threatening drastic action is a good way to draw attention and hopefully solutions when the situation gets particularly bad. However I think it would really be useful to talk about the real numbers in this situation. How much worse is it than what others are dealing with?
Birgitte SB
On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
If there are Wikimedians who are advocating housing copyrighted media in Commons, speak up now, because we need to get clear on why that is not cool immediately.
Of course we advocate housing copyrighted media in commons. Commons is not limited to public domain material.
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
If there are Wikimedians who are advocating housing copyrighted media in Commons, speak up now, because we need to get clear on why that is not cool immediately.
Of course we advocate housing copyrighted media in commons. Commons is not limited to public domain material.
... permission to stab him, please?
Technically, anything that isn't public domain is copyrighted. Even if it's GFDLed.
But generally in a Wikimedia context, when people say "copyrighted" they're referring to the icky all-rights-reserved stuff.
On 11/14/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
If there are Wikimedians who are advocating housing copyrighted media in Commons, speak up now, because we need to get clear on why that is not cool immediately.
Of course we advocate housing copyrighted media in commons. Commons is not limited to public domain material.
... permission to stab him, please?
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 11/14/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Technically, anything that isn't public domain is copyrighted. Even if it's GFDLed.
But generally in a Wikimedia context, when people say "copyrighted" they're referring to the icky all-rights-reserved stuff.
And therein lies one of the big problems, as what constitutes "the icky all-rights-reserved stuff" is much harder to define and explain to people than "copyrighted media".
Simply referring to "the icky all-rights-reserved stuff" as "copyrighted" only serves to confuse people more. I hope that's not what was happening here.
Anthony
On 11/14/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
If there are Wikimedians who are advocating housing copyrighted media in Commons, speak up now, because we need to get clear on why that is not cool immediately.
Of course we advocate housing copyrighted media in commons. Commons is not limited to public domain material.
... permission to stab him, please?
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I was sloppy and using shorthand. Commons has differently licensed material on it than PD alone, however, we are restrictive in which licenses are acceptable. That should not be controversial, even to you, Anthony.
On 11/15/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 11/14/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Technically, anything that isn't public domain is copyrighted. Even if it's GFDLed.
But generally in a Wikimedia context, when people say "copyrighted" they're referring to the icky all-rights-reserved stuff.
And therein lies one of the big problems, as what constitutes "the icky all-rights-reserved stuff" is much harder to define and explain to people than "copyrighted media".
Simply referring to "the icky all-rights-reserved stuff" as "copyrighted" only serves to confuse people more. I hope that's not what was happening here.
Anthony
On 11/14/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
If there are Wikimedians who are advocating housing copyrighted media in Commons, speak up now, because we need to get clear on why that is not cool immediately.
Of course we advocate housing copyrighted media in commons. Commons is not limited to public domain material.
... permission to stab him, please?
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 11/15/06, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
I was sloppy and using shorthand. Commons has differently licensed material on it than PD alone, however, we are restrictive in which licenses are acceptable. That should not be controversial, even to you, Anthony.
No, it isn't. What's controversial is which licenses are indeed acceptable.
Anthony
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
If there are Wikimedians who are advocating housing copyrighted media in Commons, speak up now, because we need to get clear on why that is not cool immediately.
Of course we advocate housing copyrighted media in commons. Commons is not limited to public domain material.
... permission to stab him, please?
Hoi, All if not most material is copyrighted PD is not. We want material on Commons that is Freely licensed which is a separate thing. So close but no cigar. Thanks, GerardM
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org