On 06/09/2010, at 11:23, Bod Notbod <bodnotbod(a)gmail.com> wrote: In order to rid ourselves of all this harmful software I propose that we extend this moratorium and dispose with the need for software at all. Instead, we should build the world's first carrier pigeon-based encyclopedia. Insincerely yours, Witty Lama

2010/9/7, Tim Starling <tstarling(a)wikimedia.org>rg>: This is not proactive. Giving more power to the admins is a constitutional change. Usually a constitutional change requires a referendum beforehand (An amendment to the United States Constitution must be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures, WP says). You don't simply switch to the new constitution and tell the people who are unhappy with the new constitution that it is their burden to demonstrate that the older constitution was better. And when a constitutional change changes a democracy into a dictatorship without the freedom of speech, it is too late to express yourself after you have lost the freedom of speech. No and there won't be (at least from me). Because I don't know if it is a bug or a feature. Show me the specification of the pdf tool first. I will see if the specification says that pictures' photographers should be credited. If the specification says so, I will report it as a bug. But if the specification does not say so, it simply means that I disagree with the specification. And I don't think bugzilla is the proper forum to discuss specifications. If there had been a talk before implementing the tool between the developpers and the Wikimedia Commons community, I would have been able to say how I see such a tool. Basically I think that every description page from Commons must be added at the end of every pdf produced. That will make the pdf a bit longer, but it is an easy and secure way to have the pictures properly described, and licenced. This is not my idea. This is what somebody else answered to a newbie asking how to best credit pictures when a wiki article is distributed in printed form. This is part of the common knowledge at wikimedia commons. By the way, the pdf of [[:fr:Valery Giscard d'Estaing]] (1) is properly crediting at least some photographers. But I wonder why File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-1990-0309-027, Dresden, Volkskammerwahl, BFD-Wahlkundgebung.jpg (2) is marked as "public domain" in the pdf instead of "creative commons". My feeling with that pdf tool is that I am the first person ever to care on how pictures are credited. So I think it has never been specified as a requested feature. That means how little the WMF cares about respecting licenses. I think it is partly thoughtlessness, partly an agenda to remove contributor's names from wherever is possible, so that the WMF can dominate the contents and do whatever it wants with them without the contributors being able to control. An agenda to use the volunteers not as partners, but as a pleb available for [[:en:corvée]] (3). The removal of the article's history tab from mobile.wikipedia.org (merely linking to the main websites's history tab is not the same as including it within the mobile.wikipedia.org website) sounds more like an agenda than mere thoughtlessness. (1) http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Val%C3%A9ry_Giscard_d'Estaing (2) http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-1990-0309-027,_D… (but the pdf is not crediting the photographer of Fichier:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F075424-0004, Bonn, Genscher mit Politikern aus Frankreich - crop 2 - Anne-Aymone Giscard d'Estaing.jpg ) (3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corv%C3%A9e

Le mardi 07 septembre 2010 à 20:18 +1000, K. Peachey a écrit : There is absolutely nothing wrong with it on french Wikipedia. About revdelete and oversight, things have already been explained to Teofilo and I'm happy to see that the explanations that were given to him in french wikipedia's community pages are exactly the same as those he receives in this thread : no more power to admins, no more rights, just a tool improvement. I'm not sure this worth an US Constitution amendment... Kropotkine_113

On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:25 AM, Teofilo <teofilowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote: You don't seem to understand how the feature works, despite repeated explanations. I agree that the learning curve for contribution into the development process is probably unnecessarily high for a newcomer. That being said, this feature (along with almost all others) are developed using a public bug tracker, a public code repository, and public code review. Both Bugzilla and Code Review are open for anyone to comment on. If you *want* to become involved in the development of MediaWiki and take interest in what's in store for the software then by all means do so. But don't sit here and make accusations that none of this was ever announced. That is simply not true. As Tim said, this feature was in development for years, and was no secret. The time for commenting has since passed, and I think this thread is going nowhere real quick. -Chad

On 07/09/10 20:01, Teofilo wrote: The feature has been under discussion since 2005. Maybe you should have exercised your freedom of speech some time during those 5 years, instead of waiting until 4 months after admins were given the right to use it before voicing your objection. It was not discussed solely by "WMF big wheels" as you put it earlier, it was requested, discussed and to some extent implemented by community members. You should report it at Bugzilla if you want it to be fixed. Note that the extension in question was not developed by Wikimedia, it was developed by PediaPress. Presumably this conspiracy would have to extend beyond the WMF to PediaPress and Purodha Blissenbach, the developers of Collection and mobile.wikipedia.org respectively. -- Tim Starling

On 7 September 2010 13:03, Teofilo <teofilowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote: You already did: "I think it is partly thoughtlessness, partly an agenda to remove contributor's names from wherever is possible, so that the WMF can dominate the contents and do whatever it wants with them without the contributors being able to control. An agenda to use the volunteers not as partners, but as a pleb available for [[:en:corvée]] (3)." If you don't recall what accusations you've made between messages in the same discussion, then it is possible that you do not have a sufficient practical attention span to have a productive discussion with. - d.

On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Teofilo <teofilowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote: Teofilo - Unless you can provide a concise reason why this is a Foundation-related issue, I strongly urge you to go back to the French language Wikipedia and resolve it locally there. If you can get consensus there that it should be disabled, I am sure that the sysadmins will follow your local request and disable the feature with the config option for your wiki. If you are coming here to attempt to go around a consensus there that it was OK, then you are abusing the Foundation and the mailing list here, and you should stop doing so. If that's what you have done, then it's a sign of disrespect for your compatriots on fr.wikipedia and for those of us here that you attempted to do this in this manner. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

2010/9/9 Teofilo <teofilowiki(a)gmail.com> There was nothing secret about that vote, we announced it on all wiki's and we kept public archives for our mailinglist. -- Regards, Huib "Abigor" Laurens Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

So you're saying that the community is complicit in the agenda against itself? I guess we should just go back to the days when you had to record a half-hour recitation of the GFDL license text in every sound file hosted on Commons. For the record, I was one of the community members on the License Update Committee (which was mainly comprised of community members, not Foundation employees). Ryan Kaldari On 9/8/10 10:19 PM, Teofilo wrote:

On 7 September 2010 11:01, Teofilo <teofilowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote: Given that you report below it's working for some images and not the others, it's very unlikely it's working to spec, unless that specification is itself deeply flawed! Glancing at the image files, it seems that it may be having trouble parsing the author sections of the Commons credits. I'll try and look into this more closely soon - for now, has anyone else identified attribution problems with the PDF generators? -- - Andrew Gray   andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk