[Commons-l] Commons-l Digest, Vol 49, Issue 24

Tue Jun 16 12:39:23 UTC 2009

I have ask you before to cancel my name from your mailing list. Jim Click
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <commons-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org>
To: <commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 3:38 AM
Subject: Commons-l Digest, Vol 49, Issue 24


> Send Commons-l mailing list submissions to
> commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> commons-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> commons-l-owner at lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Commons-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: Some reflections about the governance of Commons (Alex Brollo)
>   2. Re: Some reflections about the governance of Commons (Eusebius)
>   3. Re: Some reflections about the governance of Commons
>      (Gerard Meijssen)
>   4. Re: Some reflections about the governance of Commons
>      (Daniel Kinzler)
>   5. Re: Some reflections about the governance of Commons
>      (Daniel Kinzler)
>   6. Re: Some reflections about the governance of Commons
>      (Gerard Meijssen)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:31:37 +0200
> From: Alex Brollo <alex.brollo at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Some reflections about the governance of
> Commons
> To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <b8ab48310906160031i591e78alc94a09b8c1ee6ca6 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 2009/6/16 Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd at yahoo.com>
>
>> If commons is not a service project, what is it? *Unlike other projects
>> which have a measurable output, Commons' sole function appears to be as a
>> repository of free images.* It is therefore very much a service project 
>> as
>> it serves other projects through storage of images.
>>
>
> I don't agree with this statement.
> 1. any wiki project has in part a role of service for other wiki project.
> I.e.: we use la.source as a "repository" of original latin sources for our
> Italian translations of latin classics.
> 2. any shared file (images, movies and so on) is an independent output, 
> that
> can be used both into wiki projects and by any other web user. In
> particular, movies often carry a "complete message" by themselves. But if
> you think about, pictures too carry such a complete message, and sometimes 
> a
> very important one, needing lots of NPOV.
>
> Alex
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20090616/3312ddbc/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:35:04 +0200
> From: Eusebius <wikipedia at eusebius.fr>
> Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Some reflections about the governance of
> Commons
> To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <4A374B28.3080203 at eusebius.fr>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Samuel Klein a ?crit :
>> Actually, I would be content with a less-free repository for media not
>> suitable for commons but still of use to at least one page on one
>> Wikimedia project -- I would like to be able to monitor (and pressure
>> to become totally free) all 'local upload' materials on a single wiki.
>>  The technical advantages of having a single way to call a file from
>> multiple namespaces would still apply, but there could be strong
>> pressure to replace any non-free media with free media ... while
>> releasing some of this kneejerk pressure on Commons.
> You mean having a kind of central repository for "fair use" media, for
> instance? I'm not sure it is a good idea, because local "fair use" (and
> generally non-free) policies are based on local laws and regulations. A
> non-free use which is acceptable in some country might not be acceptable
> in some other.
> Maybe I haven't totally understood what you meant, though.
>
> Eusebius
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:54:16 +0200
> From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Some reflections about the governance of
> Commons
> To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <41a006820906160054q4768ba2ama87072eceadee1c3 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hoi,
> When you leave it up to Commons to decide its role, you forget the need it
> provides. As it is not an option to ditch Commons when it does not want to
> fulfill its role, it is not an option to leave it only to Commons.
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
> 2009/6/16 Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd at yahoo.com>
>
>> If commons is not a service project, what is it? Unlike other projects
>> which have a measurable output, Commons' sole function appears to be as a
>> repository of free images. It is therefore very much a service project as 
>> it
>> serves other projects through storage of images.
>>
>> I think the discussion here is especially important as this is the
>> Wikimedia Commons discussion list. That being said, I feel that there 
>> should
>> be an RfC/Poll on Commons about how it should change.
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Huib Laurens <Abigor at forgotten-beauty.com>
>> *To:* Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>> *Sent:* Monday, June 15, 2009 10:34:38 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Commons-l] Some reflections about the governance of
>> Commons
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I don't think we need to see Commons as a Service project, All Wikimedia
>> projects need the other projects.
>> Wikimedia is build on all the projects and saying that a project is only
>> a service project can make the people feel bad that are working on that
>> project.
>> I think the view that Rama uses can be seen in a lot of ways, and
>> regarding the point of view that you uses you can make all projects into
>> a service project.
>>
>> We have now a discussion in  a "private" place about how people have to
>> change Commons, isn't it a better idea to make this a discussion on
>> Commons or on Meta (if you want a neutral place). Commons has a great
>> communety with people that are spending all there time on Commons, and
>> whe have photographers that can easely make money with there pictures
>> but chooses to release it under a free license.. I rather see a onwiki
>> discussion so we can hear there say's also..
>>
>> Just my view here but I cant send the email without a notice about this..
>>
>> I'm seeing a discussions or even multible discussions about how Commons
>> needs to change to be a better service project. But when Commons needs
>> to change, will we change all other projects also? There are still
>> images getting deleted because we couldn't get the source information or
>> other important information because the file was already deleted local,
>> there is a bug to give Commons adminstrators view permission for deleted
>> files globally, there has been a vote on Meta and still it isn't
>> activated (more than a year waiting time). Things like that will make
>> Commons also a better service project.. Or isn't that important enough?
>>
>> Huib
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Commons-l mailing list
>> Commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Commons-l mailing list
>> Commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>>
>>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20090616/7a72167c/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:01:49 +0200
> From: Daniel Kinzler <daniel at brightbyte.de>
> Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Some reflections about the governance of
> Commons
> To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <4A37516D.6090005 at brightbyte.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Eusebius schrieb:
>> Samuel Klein a ?crit :
>>> Actually, I would be content with a less-free repository for media not
>>> suitable for commons but still of use to at least one page on one
>>> Wikimedia project -- I would like to be able to monitor (and pressure
>>> to become totally free) all 'local upload' materials on a single wiki.
>>>  The technical advantages of having a single way to call a file from
>>> multiple namespaces would still apply, but there could be strong
>>> pressure to replace any non-free media with free media ... while
>>> releasing some of this kneejerk pressure on Commons.
>> You mean having a kind of central repository for "fair use" media, for
>> instance? I'm not sure it is a good idea, because local "fair use" (and
>> generally non-free) policies are based on local laws and regulations. A
>> non-free use which is acceptable in some country might not be acceptable
>> in some other.
>> Maybe I haven't totally understood what you meant, though.
>
> This is simply not possible. A repository of fair use material is a
> contradiction in terms. Fair use, and similar concepts in other 
> jurisdictions,
> depends on the context the image is used in - usually, and editorial 
> context. In
> a repository, such a context is missing, so it would not be legal to have 
> the
> images there. A fair use image is always bound to its context of use, 
> otherwise,
> it's not fair use, it's simply distribution.
>
> -- daniel
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:06:50 +0200
> From: Daniel Kinzler <daniel at brightbyte.de>
> Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Some reflections about the governance of
> Commons
> To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <4A37529A.9050909 at brightbyte.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Gerard Meijssen schrieb:
>> Hoi,
>> When you leave it up to Commons to decide its role, you forget the need
>> it provides. As it is not an option to ditch Commons when it does not
>> want to fulfill its role, it is not an option to leave it only to 
>> Commons.
>> Thanks,
>>        GerardM
>
> Did anyone ever say commons doesn't want to be a service to other wikis? 
> No! The
> point is: it's not just an image store. It's a project in it's own right, 
> with
> it's own community, and it has a purpose besides and beyond hosting images 
> for
> wikipedia etc. al. The commons community wants projects who use the images 
> to
> acknowledge their work, and to abide by the local rules. They don't like 
> to be
> pushed around - "shut up and take the pictures, that's what you are here 
> for".
> This kind of attitude leads to conflict.
>
> -- daniel
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:38:00 +0200
> From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Some reflections about the governance of
> Commons
> To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <41a006820906160138m5939744am767fc73911d16aee at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hoi,
> There is material that can be used for particular purposes and not others.
> For instance logos. Many logos of friendly organisations have been removed
> from Commons because they are not "Free content" They are not free because
> they represent trade marks.
>
> The fact that we have not been able or willing to find a solution for this
> reasonable exemption of Commons policy makes an alternative possible.
>
> Another category are screen dumps. Nobody will protest for using 
> undoctered
> screen dumps. The restrictions are in using the art work of a user 
> interface
> for other user interfaces..
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
> 2009/6/16 Daniel Kinzler <daniel at brightbyte.de>
>
>> Eusebius schrieb:
>> > Samuel Klein a ?crit :
>> >> Actually, I would be content with a less-free repository for media not
>> >> suitable for commons but still of use to at least one page on one
>> >> Wikimedia project -- I would like to be able to monitor (and pressure
>> >> to become totally free) all 'local upload' materials on a single wiki.
>> >>  The technical advantages of having a single way to call a file from
>> >> multiple namespaces would still apply, but there could be strong
>> >> pressure to replace any non-free media with free media ... while
>> >> releasing some of this kneejerk pressure on Commons.
>> > You mean having a kind of central repository for "fair use" media, for
>> > instance? I'm not sure it is a good idea, because local "fair use" (and
>> > generally non-free) policies are based on local laws and regulations. A
>> > non-free use which is acceptable in some country might not be 
>> > acceptable
>> > in some other.
>> > Maybe I haven't totally understood what you meant, though.
>>
>> This is simply not possible. A repository of fair use material is a
>> contradiction in terms. Fair use, and similar concepts in other
>> jurisdictions,
>> depends on the context the image is used in - usually, and editorial
>> context. In
>> a repository, such a context is missing, so it would not be legal to have
>> the
>> images there. A fair use image is always bound to its context of use,
>> otherwise,
>> it's not fair use, it's simply distribution.
>>
>> -- daniel
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Commons-l mailing list
>> Commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20090616/ee0272a6/attachment.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>
> End of Commons-l Digest, Vol 49, Issue 24
> *****************************************