Re: [Wikimedia-l] Farewell

[Jeevan Jose]

Hi Fabrice:

Best wishes. Hope we can meet again through Flickr.

Jee

On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 7:43 PM, Ad Huikeshoven  wrote:

> Hi Fabrice,
>
> You will be missed in the movement. Your approach was inspirational to
> many. I've met you first at Wikimania Hong Kong where you took pictures of
> everybody holding a sign with their biggest wish. You reached out to
> connect. Enjoy your future,
>
> Ad Huikeshoven
>
> Ad Huikeshoven
>
> Bestuurslid / Board member Wikimedia Nederland
> Internationaal / International Affairs
> Gemeenschap / Community
>
> tel.(+31) (0)70 3608510
> mob. (+31) (0)6 40293574
>
> Steun vrije kennis! Kijk op wikimedia.nl
> 
> *Postadres*: *
> Bezoekadres:*
> Postbus 167Mariaplaats 3
> 3500 AD  Utrecht Utrecht
>
> ABNAMRO NL33 ABNA 0497164833 - Kamer van Koophandel 17189036
>
> 2015-06-18 18:25 GMT+02:00 Fabrice Florin :
>
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > After three great years working at the foundation, the time has come to
> > say goodbye.
> >
> > I will be leaving WMF at the end of June, to spend more time with my
> > family, focus on personal art projects and consult part-time on worthy
> > causes.
> >
> > I would like to thank all the community and team members I have had the
> > pleasure to work with over the years. It has been an honor to serve our
> > movement together — and to help our contributors share free knowledge
> with
> > each other and the world.
> >
> > I’m particularly grateful to Katherine Maher and our WMF communications
> > team for being such wonderful collaborators. I really enjoyed working
> with
> > them to manage and edit the Wikimedia blog, help grow our team and
> publish
> > some great stories together, to celebrate the heroes of our movement.
> >
> > Going forward, WMF's Juliet Barbara will manage the Wikimedia blog, in
> > close collaboration with Ed Erhart. As many of you know, Ed is the former
> > editor-in-chief of the Wikipedia Signpost and has now joined our team for
> > the summer. I've worked with him for nearly a month now and find him
> > uniquely qualified for this project. Starting today, please contact them
> > directly with any questions about the blog (they are Cc:d on this
> message).
> >
> > After June 30, you can reach me at  — or follow
> > me on Twitter ( @fabriceflorin ) or on my blog (
> http://fabriceflorin.com
> > ).
> >
> > The last three years have been an incredible experience for me, and I am
> > grateful for all that I have learned from so many of you. You’ve been an
> > inspiration to me and I have many fond memories of our time together. I
> > wish you all the best with the next chapter of the Wikimedia movement and
> > can’t wait to see what you’ll come up with next.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> >
> > Fabrice
> >
> > ___
> >
> > Fabrice Florin
> > Movement Communications Manager
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fabrice_Florin_(WMF)
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Veteran Malayalam Wikipedian BabuG signed off...

[Jeevan Jose]

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 1:46 AM, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Eduardo Testart 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I was thinking, it is possible to create some sort of hall of fame
> from/for
> > Wikipedia? It would be nice that stories like this one get a place to
> stay
> > in time.
> >
>
> Many wikis have a project-space page to commemorate deceased
> Wikipedians[1].  There also exists a putative central location on Meta, but
> it's underutilized.  Nonetheless, because I agree this was a eulogy worth
> sharing, I have now pasted it there[2].
>
>Asaf
>

An admin added the username to
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Deceased_contributors#to_do.2Fadd

Jee
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Veteran Malayalam Wikipedian BabuG signed off...

[Jeevan Jose]

My deep condolences.

Jee

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 8:37 PM, ViswaPrabha (വിശ്വപ്രഭ) 
wrote:

> Dear Wikimedians all over the world,
>
> One of our stalwarts at ml Wikimedia community, Wikiuser:BabuG
>  (
> https://ml.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Babug)  expired yesterday night.
>
> Despite having paralyzed due to a severe stroke and severely affected by
> several subsequent health problems, he was guided to Wikipedia by his son,
> Dr. Ajay, another prominent Malayalam Wikipedian, as a possible remedy to
> escape perpetual loneliness.
>
> His real world name was G. Balachandran.He was born on 14th October 1938 in
> a small village off North Parur, Ernakulam District, Kerala, the
> Southernmost state of India.He  joined the Armed Forces Engineering College
> and then continued to serve the Indian Armed forces for long many years.
>
> He started contributing to Wikimedia, particularly to Malayalam Wikipedia,
> in the year 2008.
>
> His initial contributions to Malayalam Wikipedia were based upon a
> pulp-converted digital Encyclopedia, released by the Government through
> GFDL licence then.  He continued to create even more full-featured articles
> on his own, later. By 2014 October 18 - the day he edited last in
> Wikipedia- he had 1935 full-blown articles initiated and expanded by
> himself in ml.wikipedia.org. Besides, he also contributed more than 350
> images to Wikimedia commons and a handsome  amount of contributions to
> Wikisource, Wikidata and Wiktionary.
>
> He always attributed his renewed energy and life's aspirations to the
> Wikimedia mission, for having returned to a meaningful life after a 20-year
> long and frustrating solitude while constrained to an immobile chair. Ever
> since 2008, he stood up and started walking and moving around. His was an
> extreme example for us in Malayalam WP to showcase how Wikipedia can change
> lives.
>
> In almost all our Wikipedia Outreach sessions, we utilized this great
> example to motivate and excite the newcomers to WP.
>
> Tory Read mentioned about BabuG thus, in a document
> , a  review
> on the state of Indian Wikimedia Communities, in 2011:
>
> G. Balachandran, a septuagenarian who lives outside of Ernakulum in Kerala
> > state, said that working on Malayalam Wikipedia helped him recover after
> a
> > stroke left him paralyzed. “He’s much sharper now,” said his wife
> Jagadamma
> > K. “He’s made a lot of new friends, and that’s been good for his health.”
>
>
> For us in Malayalam Wikipedia, today is a black day, for having lost a
> great beacon on our voyage to ultimate openness and freedom in knowledge
> and wisdom.
>
>
> Yet, we feel, BabuG has made his life stamped immortal for ever and has
> shown us the pathway we should follow in continuing our humble
> contributions to the ultimate cause of mankind.
>
>
> -ViswaPrabha
> (On behalf of Malayalam Wikimedia Community)
> http://ml.wikipedia.org
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who are the nicest people on our projects ?

[Jeevan Jose]

Glad to see me there. :)

Regards,
Jee

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Richard Farmbrough  wrote:

> Who was most thanked?
>
> On 5 February 2015 at 15:47, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > After reading an interesting related discussion on GenderGap, I have
> > queried the top 10 users of the thanks feature last month, on both the
> > English Wikipedia and Commons. Snapshot image attached and report link
> > below.
> >
> > Perhaps someone might think of a suitable barnstar and award these
> > folks for "being nice"? :-)
> >
> > Link:
> >
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:F%C3%A6/sandbox&oldid=149050523
> >
> > P.S. This is a long query to run, taking 20 to 30 minutes due to the
> > nature of the logging tables. However if someone wanted to make a
> > monthly summary on-wiki somewhere, part of an active "be nice"
> > campaign, I would be happy to set up an automated monthly report (if
> > someone discovers this is already reported somewhere, that's cool we
> > can use that).
> >
> > Fae
> > --
> > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Landline (UK) 01780 757 250
> Mobile (UK) 0798 1995 792
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons / OTRS is broken

[Jeevan Jose]

An there is much stress for our volunteer (unpaid) job too. I definitely
need to slow down:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Request_to_confirm_release_from_the_artist.2C_rather_than_the_gallery_-_Joep_van_Liefland

Regards,
Jee

On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Michael Maggs  wrote:

> I mentioned a few basic things in my previous email. There's probably
> little point in my writing a comprehensive wish list unless you or some
> other volunteer can agree to work on providing an API against which a tool
> could be written.
>
> Michael
>
> Michael
> >> On 4 Feb 2015, at 12:19, Krd  wrote:
> >>
> >> Am 02/04/15 um 13:14 schrieb Michael Maggs:
> >> Yes, I do. That is updated manually, at irregular intervals, applies
> >> only to one Commons list, and doesn't provide anything like the
> >> information that should I think be available.
> >
> > ...which is in detail?
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons / OTRS is broken

[Jeevan Jose]

On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:

> Well - regarding permission-commons ques the current problem with mass
> upload agreements is Common's regulation that ticket-templates has to be
> added by OTRS volunteers themselves, except, when you are using GLAM tool,
> but GLAM tool is tailored for really huge mass uploads as it requires lot
> of preliminary preparations. So, there is no good path for mid-size mass
> uploads - say from 10 till 100-500 files.
>
> This is incredibly boring job to add 100 templates to 100 files. There are
> some semiautomatic tools for this - but it still requires small programming
> and/or direct personal assistance - with at least 2 clicks per file.  So
> OTRS volunteers - when they see agreements for for example100 pictures -
> are avoiding this, becasue handing this means not only aswering for E-mail
> but also 100 boring edits...
>
> I was addressing the issue on OTRS e-mail list, around a year ago, but the
> answer was, that this is not the problem. But in fact - whenever there is
> such semi-mass-upload agreement - you can observe that OTRS volunteers are
> avoiding answering them.


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:VisualFileChange.js can be used for
mass edits.

Jee
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons / OTRS is broken

[Jeevan Jose]

We have a 57 days backlog now (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/backlog) and we are
processing first-come, first-served. In case of emergencies, please make a
note at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard or on
my talk page.

Regards,
Jee

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 10:57 AM, John Cummings <
john.cummi...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:

> Depending on where the content is coming from uploading the images to
> Flickr and then importing them may be an option. When I worked for the
> Science Museum we simply changed the licence of some of the images on their
> Flickr account and I used Flickr2Commons to import them, it also records
> the attribution and which CC licence the images used. I'm currently working
> with UNESCO to release some of their archive and will most probably suggest
> this route which as a bonus creates a second large audience for the content
> on Flickr.
>
> Hope this is helpful
>
> John
> On 2 Feb 2015 22:52, "James Heilman"  wrote:
>
> > OTRS does not even bother replying to the consents I send them. Thus the
> > images I have received releases for get deleted. Going forwards I am
> simply
> > uploading to En Wikipedia. Not ideal but not sure what the solution is.
> >
> > --
> > James Heilman
> > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> >
> > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> > www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

[Jeevan Jose]

I don't think Commons has a clear stand in this matter. I see many old DRs
closed as kept.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Beer_bottles

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Bottle_of_Duff.jpg

Regards,
Jee

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Russavia 
> wrote:
>
> > Nathan
> >
> > To answer the tractor question first. Of course not, there is nothing
> > copyrightable in this image.
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Trademarked is never a
> > reason for deletion. The logo is clearly PD-textlogo and is de minimis
> > in that situation -- i.e. it's inclusion is incidental
> >
> > In relation to the car in Tunisia, it could be trickier. It would
> > depend a lot on Tunisian law. It could be de minimis, it might not be.
> > It would depend.
> >
> > Mario
> >
> > If copyright holders are happy to have their materials on Commons it
> > is the copyright holder who needs to speak up for this, and there are
> > ways to go about this. Otherwise
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:PRP is the policy that is drawn
> > upon here.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Russavia
> >
> >
> >
> The logo is not a text logo - see here for a clearer rendering:
> http://pictures.tractorfan.nl/groot/f/fendt/795254-logo-fendt.jpg
>
> So perhaps in this case the fact that the design logo can't be seen clearly
> is a defense against deletion, but what if it were clearer and more
> squarely in frame? Surely there are many thousands of images where this
> comes up - a design element included in a photo of an object, scene or
> person that is copyrighted. In photos of Wikimedia events, there are
> individuals wearing clothing with copyrighted design elements. Delete?
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wrong attribution in PDF output of Wikipedia atricles

[Jeevan Jose]

I tried to make the PDF of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-6_Twin_Otter

It credits "File:WinAir De Havilland Canada DHC-6-300 Twin Otter
Breidenstein.jpg  Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:WinAir_De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-6-300_Twin_Otter_Breidenstein.jpg
 License: unknown  Contributors: Timo Breidenstein"

License is still "unknown"

Regards,
Jee


On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 1:00 AM, Russavia 
wrote:

> Mike et al
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Michael Peel  wrote:
>
> > I've swapped it for a CC-licensed file that does allow for commercial
> > reuse. Problem solved?
> >
>
> GFDL is a free licence. You can licence under the free GFDL licence and
> also licence it under an -NC licence. So long as one licence is free on
> Commons, you can have other combinations.
>
> But the problem isn't solved.
>
> I have numerous aviation photographers and friends who have licenced their
> works under GFDL -- many of which are irreplaceable, or are the best
> illustration of the subject. Examples being:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Abramovich_Chukotka.jpg
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Singapore_Airlines_Airbus_A380_woah%21.jpg
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Singapore_Airlines_Airbus_A380_Wallner.jpg
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Myanmar_Air_Force_Shaanxi_Y-8_MRD.jpg
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PLAAF_Xian_HY-6_Li_Pang.jpg
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WinAir_De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-6-300_Twin_Otter_Breidenstein.jpg
>
> and the list goes on.
>
> If there is an issue with how the PDFs are presenting the licencing
> information, this is still very much an issue, and if it isn't working as
> it should at this moment, the PDF feature should be switched off.
>
> Cheers
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wrong attribution in PDF output of Wikipedia atricles

[Jeevan Jose]

>
> I don't know, it seems to me that deploying new software ASAP before it has
> been exhaustively tested by the end user base has caused a few headaches
> lately ;-).
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>

Just disable the "Download as PDF" and  "Create a book" options till
testing is over. Even CC 4.0 licenses require any license violation must be
fixed within 30 days. :)

Jee
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wrong attribution in PDF output of Wikipedia atricles

[Jeevan Jose]

Thanks Mark for pointing me to the new PDF exporter; hope it will improve
the accuracy of data gathering from file pages.

BTW, I improved the file page [1], and now contributor is attributing
properly [2]. But it still failed to fetch the license. So my understanding
is that the current script is trying to fetch information from author and
license fields. If that attempt fails, it simply lists the editors of the
file page which is wrong.

As Mark mentioned above, this is not a GFDL issue. We need to improve our
software in both sides; at the Commons page where data is collected, and at
tools which gather the data available there. Hope developers at both side
([3], [4]) will consider this.

1.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Cheetah_Feb09_02.jpg&action=history
2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Cheetah
(export pdf)
3. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/PDF_rendering
4. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data

Regards,
Jee


On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:31 AM, Jean-Frédéric 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> This is definitely a loop worth closing
>
>
> This is mentionned in the Talk page discussion, but for the benefits of all
> list readers who might not check it out :):
> please see
> <
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/AppropriatelyLicensed
> >
>
> --
> Jean-Fred
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Wrong attribution in PDF output of Wikipedia atricles

[Jeevan Jose]

Try to "download as PDF" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheetah

Check Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors.

It attributes File:Cheetah Feb09 02.jpg Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Cheetah_Feb09_02.jpg
License: unknown Contributors: Fir0002, Peteforsyth

This is very wrong as license is not fetched  and photographer is only Fir;
not all people edited that "file" page.

I raised this complaint earlier (in Commons). This is mentioned at EN too
by Stefan:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copying_within_Wikipedia#For_legal_team_review

I think this is a serious violation and need immediate attention.

Regards,
Jee
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer

[Jeevan Jose]

On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Gergo Tisza  wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:58 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> > That doesn't, however, help the concern that millions of users are
> pulling
>
> up the images without immediately seeing the license requirements and
>
> author information.
>
>
> To the contrary, Media Viewer displays the license, author and source as an
> always visible part of the image. On a typical file page, you have to
> scroll down to find any of this information; most users won't do that, if
> what they are looking for is the image, and that is available without
> scrolling. (It is well known in web usability
>  that relatively
> little attention is given to things above the fold; one of the main
> benefits of Media Viewer is that it brings the most important things above
> it.)


Agree. The best practices for "marking a work" is to "*make sure that the
license information is clearly visible underneath (or otherwise next to)
the image."  [1] [2]*

*1. **http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking_your_work_with_a_CC_license
*

*2. 
http://www.newmediarights.org/guide/how_to/creative_commons/best_practices_creative_commons_attributions
*

*Unfortunately our "file description page" give more importance for subject
description and bury the attribution parameters in a negligible location.
As a result most reuses end up with an attribution, "Credit:Wiki[m/p]edia".
 :(*

*Jee*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer

[Jeevan Jose]

I agree with Erik here. Media Viewer may have some bugs that need to be
fixed. But there are plenty of issues in other places too (like license
tags). They also need to improved. See this ongoing discussion. [1]

See my comment on RfC on Commons. [2]

Jee

Links:

1.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Propose_to_update_CC_license_tags_to_comply_with_the_new_wordings_in_CC_deeds

2.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Requests_for_comment/Media_Viewer_software_feature&diff=128434830&oldid=128433051


On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> Just a note that I am drafting a request to the Board about governance of
> WMF product launches. Similar problems have happened enough times that
> I think the Board needs to step in with a more active role. I am also
> taking
> a look at the policies around office actions as they relate to product
> launches,
> and will likely request that the Board examine that policy as well.
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:02 PM, John Mark Vandenberg  >
> > wrote:
> > > Or .. sometimes the licensing and attribution information isnt
> > > correct
> >
> > In the common case, Media Viewer provides more prominent and
> > appropriate attribution and license information than the File: page.
> > The author name, license, license URL, and source URL are all
> > immediately accessible below the image, whereas on the File: page
> > there are sometimes screenfuls of metadata between the image and this
> > crucial information.
> >
> > This is actually a pretty remarkable accomplishment given that this
> > information comes from a huge number of different templates that vary
> > across wikis. Media Viewer makes use of standardized CSS classes to
> > extract metadata, and the team has actively worked with the community
> > to broaden their use:
> >
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/multimedia/2014-March/000135.html
> >
> > Ultimately we'll want to use proper structured data for this, but
> > these changes lay the groundwork, and there's already an API (used by
> > Media Viewer but open to anyone) that exposes this information.
> >
> > Where no license is detected, Media Viewer still falls back to a "View
> > license" link. The more problematic cases are where actual errors
> > occur and important information is not extracted, and there will
> > certainly inevitably be some cases where this happens, but this can
> > only be worked on over time. The expectation that an unbounded problem
> > like this is completely solved prior to deployment of a feature is
> > unreasonable -- it's similar to TemplateData, in that the positive
> > feedback loop into Media Viewer should actually help encourage more
> > and consistent use of machine-readable data.
> >
> > > sometimes you get resolutions which are silly (especially
> > > svgs at launch, but also slideshows on a file page include a very
> > > large license logo)
> >
> > Can you give a specific, current example?
> >
> > > it takes extra clicks to get to the full-size version,
> >
> > It takes exactly one click using the "View original file" button.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Erik
> >
> >
> > --
> > Erik Möller
> > VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

[Jeevan Jose]

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Pete Forsyth 
wrote:

> What I *did* want, and am still waiting for, is some explanation from Erik
> Möller, the WMF's Deputy Director, about his inflammatory claim that the
> Wikimedia Commons community may be turning into a "CLUB OF ZEALOTS"
> (emphasis mine).
>

Please stop asking explanation from people who are coming to Commons with a
helping mind. I agree his comment had a insisting tone. But does Commoners
are too immature to tolerate any small criticism? If we start attacking
people and ask explanation or apology for every comment they make, no one
is going to visit Commons.

Instead we should welcome Erik, SJ, Jimmy or any body else who have an idea
to improve Commons.

Jee
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

[Jeevan Jose]

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Indeed, and as there is a notice on the Wikilegal article stating that it
> is not legal advice, it can and will be ignored by those who think they
> know better.
> Cheers,
> Peter


That message on their every "advice" as part of [1] because they can't
advise the community.

Jee

1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

[Jeevan Jose]

> Well, just yesterday I saw a (good but slightly amateurish-looking) image
> that is to be deleted because the metadata embedded in the /other/ images
> of the uploader indicates multiple cameras were used. Clearly, no one has
> more than one camera, so it must be a copyright violation. (would post the
> URL but forgot which image)
>
> Childish fears indeed.
>
> Magnus


Indeed. The old days had gone. Now people have so many gadgets. Further,
forensic research is not our business. Another grey area is the handling of
selfies.  People need evidence that the photo is taken by themselves. They
even do dummy tests to verify if it is possible from such an angle. Tired
by the arguments, Legal released [1].

Links:

1.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Authorship_and_Copyright_Ownership

Jee

Regards,
Jeevan Jose


On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Pipo Le Clown  wrote:

> Aren't you mixing things a little bit ?
>
> Nobody denies that there are problems with video support, Search engine and
> image display. But this is not (completely) the responsability of the
> Commons community. The software is provided by the foundation, and we deal
> with what they give us. If you want to point fingers, point them in the
> right direction.
>
> Regarding the URAA shitstorm in a teacup, I will stand on my position:
> Saying "It's not our problem, and we won't provide legal advice or help if
> there is any problem" (ie: "I wash my hands of it") is not very helpfull.
> The position of the BoT and the statement from the legal team are at least
> confusing and a open door to problems.
>
> The current situation at hand is messy, and not very well handled by the
> community, I will admit that. Quoting from a famous movie: "it's a huge
> shit sandwich, and we're all gonna have to take a bite", but adding manure
> to shit will not help to sweeten the taste.
>
> Pleclown.
> Le 27 juin 2014 09:22, "MZMcBride"  a écrit :
>
> > Pete Forsyth wrote:
> > >On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Erik Moeller 
> > wrote:
> > >>than aggressively purging content in the fear that a single byte of
> > >> potentially non-free content may infect the repository.
> > >
> > >You're attacking a straw man. I hope you do not sincerely believe
> anybody
> > >acts out of such a childish fear. Rather, we have committed volunteers
> at
> > >Commons who take seriously our commitment to the world, to provide a
> > >repository of files that can be (pretty) reliably reused under a free
> > >license, or as public domain materials. Maintaining the integrity of the
> > >collection, in the face of literally hundreds of problematic uploads
> every
> > >single day, is a big job, and certainly some less-than-ideal decisions
> > >will be made along the way.
> > >
> > >Apart from the moaning I see on this email list, I generally hear good
> > >things from those who visit Wikimedia Commons. "Tragedy?" Citation
> needed,
> > >for real.
> >
> > Uploading media to Commons isn't as awful today as it once was. That's
> > nice. But video support is pretty awful. Search support is pretty awful.
> > Even browsing images is pretty bad. Support for moving (renaming) files
> is
> > rudimentary and restricted. And there are many other flaws... but you're
> > right that it probably doesn't amount to a tragedy quite yet. There's
> > plenty of moaning on this e-mail list, but the issues are alive and real.
> >
> > I largely agree with Erik. Users at the extremes have the power at
> Commons
> > and this reality is actively damaging the wiki culture. Commons isn't
> > alone in having this problem: the defensive (and hostile) response to the
> > firehose is expected and predictable. But it still remains a real
> problem.
> >
> > MZMcBride
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

[Jeevan Jose]

Hi Erik:

Thanks for your comment. I noticed your comment at [[1]] so hope they are
related.

Yes; making proper attributions and satisfying all license requirements are
a bit complicated and time consuming. See my proposal at [[2]].

I requested the help of CC team; but didn't get any response so far.

I requested the help of the WMF legal; Luis Villa (WMF)  commented that "Yup,
I understand - it is a difficult situation, and we'd like to help. But
interpreting the license obligations for the public is also tricky for us,
so we're working on it. " [[3]]

Any further help is highly appreciated.


Regards,
Jee

Links:

1.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peteforsyth#Some_recent_speedies.
..

2.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Propose_to_update_CC_license_tags_to_comply_with_the_new_wordings_in_CC_deeds

3. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LuisV_(WMF)#Attribution


On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan  wrote:
>
> > The problem is the behavior of a certain core set of Commons admins; time
> > and time and time again we have it reported here, we see it on Commons.
> > While not lawyers, they attempt to be extraordinarily demanding when it
> > comes to "legal" accuracy. Far more than the actual WMF lawyers have
> > required, incidentally.
>
> Yes, agreed. Deletion is frequently applied in an overzealous manner
> based on arbitrary interpretations and lack of nuance. It would be
> appropriate to more frequently apply tags like {{Disputed}} and to
> rely more on social contact to resolve incomplete metadata, rather
> than aggressively purging content in the fear that a single byte of
> potentially non-free content may infect the repository.
>
> It is correct that I proposed Commons as a repository of freely
> re-usable media -- indeed, that is a key characteristic which
> distinguishes it from other sites and services, as others have pointed
> out. I think it's absolutely crucial to maintain that aspect of its
> identity. I worry that the creation of any kind of non-free repository
> would dramatically alter the incentive structure for contributing to
> our projects. Especially when negotiating releases of large
> collections, it will be much harder to argue for free licensing if it
> becomes trivial to upload and re-use non-free files.
>
> But maintaining that commitment requires that we also maintain a
> capacity for nuance in how we enforce it, or we turn into a club of
> zealots nobody wants to be part of rather than being effective
> advocates for our cause. That includes understanding that some
> situations in international copyright law are ambiguous and
> unresolved, that some files may present a minimal level of risk and
> can reasonably be kept unless someone complains, and that copyright on
> all bits that make up a work can be difficult to trace, identify and
> document comprehensively and consistently. Moreover, it should include
> (in policy and application) an emphasis on communication and
> education, rather than deletion and confrontation.
>
> In that way, the problems in the application of Commons policy are not
> that different from the problems in the application of policy on
> Wikipedia. It's just that Wikipedians who are used to operating under
> the regime of Wikipedia's policies frequently get upset when they are
> subjected to an entirely different regime. Their experience is not
> that different from that of a new user whose article gets speedied
> because the source cited to establish its notability doesn't quite
> cross the threshold applied by an admin.
>
> In my view, it would be appropriate for WMF to take a more active role
> not in the decision-making itself, but in the training of and support
> for administrators and other functionaries to ensure that we apply
> policy rationally, in a manner that's civil and welcoming. That goes
> for these types of deletion decisions just as much as for civility and
> other standards of conduct. WMF is now organizationally in a position
> where it could resource the consensus-driven development of training
> modules for admins across projects to create a more welcoming,
> rational environment - on Commons and elsewhere.
>
> Erik
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Lets delete everything from commons (was The tragedy of Commons)

[Jeevan Jose]

I think following the opinion of Carl Lindberg is the best option [1]: "I
would personally be happy about not having to delete governmental works
which have expired in their own country... those always have felt different
to me than privately-held copyrights."

Hope Fae will support me when I start a mass de-admin request followed
by my self admin request. :)

Links:
1.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2014/04#New_URAA_policy_and_the_rule_of_the_shorter_term

Jee


On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Fæ  wrote:

> On 23 June 2014 13:42, Lodewijk  wrote:
> > The question is whether that is implicit, and whether that is necessary
> at
> > all. I find the argument that for government works we only have to bother
> > about the law of the source country, very persuasive.
>
> I can see no point in this discussion. Folks had every opportunity to
> give viewpoints during the RFC on Commons in April. No opinion in this
> list makes any tangible difference to the existing on-Commons RFC,
> on-Commons policies or published U.S. copyright law, even though it
> may be a good way of blowing off steam.
>
> GUIDE TO PLACES TO COMPLAIN ON COMMONS AND MAKE A DIFFERENCE:
>
> A. If anyone thinks that the April RFC was unclear as to the process
> that administrators should follow, they can create another.[1]
>
> B. If anyone feels that a particular admin is misusing their powers,
> then AN/U is a good place to complain, where it might make a
> difference or ensure that admin publicly justifies their
> actions.[2][3]
>
> C. A useful place to discuss copyright is the noticeboard on Commons
> for copyright, the advantage being that the same things do not get
> said several times over and where it is possible to correct something
> you write after you press 'send'.[4]
>
> D. Become an admin and do it yourself, or de-sysop an admin you feel
> has misused their powers, using simple standard processes.[2][5]
>
> Links
> 1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment
> 2. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-June/072926.html
> 3.
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems
> 4. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright
> 5. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators
>
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Lets delete everything from commons (was The tragedy of Commons)

[Jeevan Jose]

https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:%D7%AA%D7%92%D7%95%D7%91%D7%AA_%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%93_%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A4%D7%98%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9F_%D7%96%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%99%D7%95%D7%A6%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D.jpg

Such a statement from GOI can't override US copyright law for all works
originated from Israel. (as Geni said above)

But one thing they can do. They can make a statement that they have no plan
to claim copyright for Govt works per URAA in USA. So all the works of
Israel will become PD in USA too when they become PD in Israel.

I think this is the opinin expressed by  Carl Lindberg at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2014/04#New_URAA_policy_and_the_rule_of_the_shorter_term

Jee


On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Fæ  wrote:

> On 22 June 2014 12:08, Craig Franklin  wrote:
> ...
> > parody/satire angle, my understanding is that a CC licence does not
> > extinguish things such as moral rights that are not related to copyright.
>
> This is fundamentally misleading. Please refer to
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_%28copyright_law%29
>
> If you have not read up on IP law, or are confused about copyright
> terms, I suggest having the discussion on-wiki rather than on an email
> list, where corrections like this either get skipped, leading to later
> readers thinking that these are factual statements, or we end up
> repeating basic copyright law endlessly.
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

[Jeevan Jose]

All ended in a good way as Sven Manguard unblocked her.  Hope the Hebrew
Wikipedia will recover from the painful memories soon.

Regards,
Jee


On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 2:33 AM, Yann Forget  wrote:

> Suite of the drama.
>
> A request for a topic ban against LGA, who made these deletion
> requests, was started by Hanay, a user from the Hebrew Wikipedia.
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:LGA
>
> Now she is blocked for one week for "canvassing", because she informed
> the Hebrew Wikipedia of the request.
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Block_of_Hanay_for_cross-wiki_canvassing
>
> This affair is going to degenerate in a full war between Commons and
> some Wikipedias, if a solution is not found.
>
> Regards,
>
> Yann
>
> 2014-06-17 5:04 GMT+05:30 Yann Forget :
> > Hi,
> >
> > Some Commons contributors like to ask impossible requirements, and
> > threaten to delete files if these are not met. We have now a case of
> > famous pictures from the government of Israel and Israel Defense
> > Forces.
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#Files_and_pages_that_were_deleted_by_User:Fastily_that_I_am_aware_of_them
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beba_Idelson_Ada_Maimon1952.jpg
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abba_Hushi_1956.jpg
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aharon_Meskin_-_Ben_Gurion_-_Israel_Prize1960.jpg
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Avraham_Shlonsky_1952.jpg
> >
> > These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured
> > pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia. These files have already been
> > deleted and restored 3 times. When the URAA issue was not convincing
> > enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication
> > details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can
> > understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they
> > were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition,
> > publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in
> > Israel.
> >
> > After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a
> > delete-only account:
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Yann
> > There, more contributors argue on this issue.
> >
> > By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these
> > contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will
> > lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons.
> > Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is
> > gone.
> >
> > Instead of looking for a reason to destroy these files, they should
> > try to find a reason to keep them.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Yann
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

[Jeevan Jose]

"Accidentally, I have one of these FFD nomination pages on my watchlist.
Yesterday it was renominated for the THIRD time by the same user (the
second one was keep as well). And I can not act on it anymore. Apparently,
at some point the user will get an admin with a stricter interpretation of
the policies, and the file gets deleted."

Could you give the DR link? We can think about topic ban him from any URAA
related DRs.

Jee


On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter 
wrote:

> On 17.06.2014 16:47, Osmar Valdebenito wrote:
>
>> If you take a look at the undeletion requests after the URAA discussion,
>> most of the images restored were deleted afterwards anyway.[1][2] The only
>> exception that I've seen are some German stamps that haven't been deleted
>> (yet).
>> The problem is that, at this moment, most of the people whose valid images
>> were quickly deleted and re-deleted are tired and have no intention to
>> start again defending their contributions when they will be deleted no
>> matter what.
>>
>>
> I personally kept several Argentinian flies arguing that the URAA can not
> be the sole reason for deletion.
>
> Accidentally, I have one of these FFD nomination pages on my watchlist.
> Yesterday it was renominated for the THIRD time by the same user (the
> second one was keep as well). And I can not act on it anymore. Apparently,
> at some point the user will get an admin with a stricter interpretation of
> the policies, and the file gets deleted.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons and OCILLA

[Jeevan Jose]

BTW, why we have separate policies for Commons and Wikipedia? I just
noticed that photographs deleted from Common per "not free in source
country" are restored by our own (Commons) admins in English Wikipedia.


Jee


On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 5:18 PM, geni  wrote:

> On 8 June 2014 12:21, matanya  wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Commons licensing policy determines media should be free in source
> > country and in US. I want to propose We change the policy to be: "free
> > in source country" only, and to cope with US laws where the servers are
> > hosted found a "DMCA take down notice" Team in OTRS, that will handle
> > requests to remove Items that are non-free in the US after verifying
> > proper grounds for the claim.
> >
> > This approach to copyright will prevent issues like URAA issues, shorter
> > term issues and restored copyright issues.
> >
>
> No it it won't. UK restored a bunch of copyrights when EU went life+70
>
>
>
> >
> > It will enrich commons with many files that are FREE (mostly PD) in
> > source country, but not on commons due to US laws. Unless the copyright
> > holder (mostly Gov's and archives) will not request removal, and they
> > won't since they released the media, we will be using those files.
> >
>
> If the government held the copyright then you contact them and ask them
> about their position on potential overseas copyrights.
>
>
> > I'm not a lawyer, so I probably missed most of the legal implication,
> > But I do volunteer to found and lead the team, if this idea is accepted
> > and commons community would want this policy change. I'm seeking input
> > from copyright experienced users and lawyers, before i start an official
> > policy change on commons.
>
>
>
> The main problem that you hit is that  "free in source  country and in US"
> is a pretty good proxy for "free pretty much anywhere" (well unless the
> source country is the US but that's a separate problem). For example
> depending on how you read Saudi law there are a bunch of photos that are
> free in Saudi Arabia and pretty much nowhere else (Switzerland perhaps) but
> unless our resuser know their way around over 100 copyright systems they
> probably aren't going to know that. Thus from a reuse POV commons goes from
> being useful (as long as you allow for US weirdness) to being (from a
> copyright perspective) a radioactive mess.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Importance of educating the media contributors

[Jeevan Jose]

"As far as I am aware, the CC-by-sa comes in many flavours. One for
each country
and all of them are different in their own way. Specific country specific
implementations may exactly allow for things people are not aware off."

True up to version 3.0; but it seems they stopped it for version 4.0 and
started calling it "International License".

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_are_the_international_.28.E2.80.9Cunported.E2.80.9D.29_Creative_Commons_licenses.2C_and_why_does_CC_offer_.E2.80.9Cported.E2.80.9D_licenses.3F

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Should_I_choose_an_international_license_or_a_ported_license.3F

Jee


On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> As far as I am aware, the CC-by-sa comes in many flavours. One for each
> country and all of them are different in their own way. Specific country
> specific implementations may exactly allow for things people are not aware
> off. Yes the INTENTION is for them to be the same.
>
> As to why things go wrong? They do.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
>
> On 7 June 2014 04:51, Jeevan Jose  wrote:
>
> > CC does NOT say anything that people can understand clearly. That is the
> > sole problem here.
> >
> > 1. They said "If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified
> > form), You must: retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor
> > with the Licensed Material: a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material
> to
> > the extent reasonably practicable." must !=  to the extent reasonably
> > practicable
> >
> > 2. "You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1)
> > <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode#s3a1> in any
> > reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You
> > Share the Licensed Material." What is the meaning of it? It means nothing
> > to anyone have some commonsense.
> >
> > 3. "As with most copyright questions, it will depend on applicable law."
> > Then why our admins punishing a user who try to follow the judgement by
> the
> > court of his country?
> >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Luftbild_Grindelhochh.C3.A4user_Hamburg.jpg
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jee
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:10 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > The CC does NOT say that the license of a low resolution image allows
> for
> > > the use of a high resolution image. This is because it depends on the
> law
> > > of the land. Some countries consider them to be the same where other do
> > > not.
> > > Thanks,
> > >  GerardM
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5 June 2014 07:59, Jeevan Jose  wrote:
> > >
> > > > In many recent discussions in Wikimedia Commons, I noticed that many
> of
> > > our
> > > > media contributors are not well aware of the terms of licenses they
> > > grant.
> > > > Main confusions are in three areas:
> > > > 1. Attribution: Many people think we can demand attribution near the
> > work
> > > > used in off wiki cases. But according to CC, a mere link/hyper link
> to
> > > the
> > > > source is enough for attribution as we practiced in WMF projects. I
> > don't
> > > > know whether all courts agree with it; but our contributors should be
> > > aware
> > > > of it. Anyway there is no separate agreement between the contributors
> > and
> > > > Wikimedia; people can't expect more for off wiki uses. Moreover, many
> > > > uploads are by third parties; so no chances for such special
> > agreements.
> > > (
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Luftbild_Grindelhochh.C3.A4user_Hamburg.jpg
> > > > )
> > > > 2. File resolution: Recently CC clarified that the license is
> > applicable
> > > > for the copyright eligible works; so it may applicable for high
> quality
> > > > file of that work too. (
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Could_someone_please_post_a_summary_of_this.3F
> > > > )
> > > > 3. Personality/privacy rights in case of self portraits: Here also CC
> > > > advised that such 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Importance of educating the media contributors

[Jeevan Jose]

CC does NOT say anything that people can understand clearly. That is the
sole problem here.

1. They said "If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified
form), You must: retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor
with the Licensed Material: a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to
the extent reasonably practicable." must !=  to the extent reasonably
practicable

2. "You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1)
<https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode#s3a1> in any
reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You
Share the Licensed Material." What is the meaning of it? It means nothing
to anyone have some commonsense.

3. "As with most copyright questions, it will depend on applicable law."
Then why our admins punishing a user who try to follow the judgement by the
court of his country?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Luftbild_Grindelhochh.C3.A4user_Hamburg.jpg

Regards,
Jee


On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:10 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> The CC does NOT say that the license of a low resolution image allows for
> the use of a high resolution image. This is because it depends on the law
> of the land. Some countries consider them to be the same where other do
> not.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
>
> On 5 June 2014 07:59, Jeevan Jose  wrote:
>
> > In many recent discussions in Wikimedia Commons, I noticed that many of
> our
> > media contributors are not well aware of the terms of licenses they
> grant.
> > Main confusions are in three areas:
> > 1. Attribution: Many people think we can demand attribution near the work
> > used in off wiki cases. But according to CC, a mere link/hyper link to
> the
> > source is enough for attribution as we practiced in WMF projects. I don't
> > know whether all courts agree with it; but our contributors should be
> aware
> > of it. Anyway there is no separate agreement between the contributors and
> > Wikimedia; people can't expect more for off wiki uses. Moreover, many
> > uploads are by third parties; so no chances for such special agreements.
> (
> >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Luftbild_Grindelhochh.C3.A4user_Hamburg.jpg
> > )
> > 2. File resolution: Recently CC clarified that the license is applicable
> > for the copyright eligible works; so it may applicable for high quality
> > file of that work too. (
> >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Could_someone_please_post_a_summary_of_this.3F
> > )
> > 3. Personality/privacy rights in case of self portraits: Here also CC
> > advised that such rights may affected. (
> >
> >
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#How_are_publicity.2C_privacy.2C_and_personality_rights_affected_when_I_apply_a_CC_license.3F
> > ,
> >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Uploaded_by_the_depicted_person
> > )
> >
> > In most cases, people reveal such things very late, try to defend, and
> > ended up in edit wars and even a block. So do we have a responsibility to
> > educate the contributors than misusing their ignorance in such cases?
> > Regards,
> > Jee
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Importance of educating the media contributors

[Jeevan Jose]

"If someone can prove their copyright is not respected they'll get the
content deleted, end of story."

Good; but shouldn't be this an eye opening for WMF to approach copyright
matters seriously. Or we can amend the Commons:PCP: #6. If someone can
prove their copyright is not respected they'll get the content deleted, end
of story.

Regards,
Jee


On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) 
wrote:

> Jeevan Jose, 05/06/2014 14:04:
>
>  So uploading third party images to Commons is a risky business?
>>
>
> IANAL, but: not under DMCA unless a zealous attorney uses the new ToU to
> file criminal charges against you under CFAA. If someone can prove their
> copyright is not respected they'll get the content deleted, end of story.
>
>
> Nemo
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Importance of educating the media contributors

[Jeevan Jose]

See. I upload a freely licensed photo from Flickr to Commons and another
user added it to a Wikipedia article. A court concluded that mere linking
to file description page in commons.wikimeda.org is not enough for
attribution. Who is responsible for this infringement? Me, the user who
added it, or WMF?

We have a similar case here:
http://bilderklau.lucan.de/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/LG-M%C3%BCnchen-I-37-O-9798-11-Endurteil.pdf

It says "In this case , the Court considers that a duty to name the author
( "copyright notice" ) requires a mention of the filings by the creator's
name in the immediate spatial context of the photograph. Specifying the
picture authors in a linked site, the first by clicking the light image can
be achieved, in contrast, does not meet the requirements of the license
conditions."

"The Creative Commons license provides that the name of the author /
copyright holder is to be called in the manner determined by it. This is to
be understood that the author indicated in the image information page under
"author"  the name, pseudonym must be etc. are mentioned ."

"At Wikipedia you reach the image description page of Wikipedia , which is
on the same server." - It is not fully true; they are different domains
owned by WMF.

"Moreover, it is conceivable that the image description page , which is so
far on a "foreign" server sometimes is unreachable." - True; sometimes
Wikimedia Commons is down even if Wikipedia is available.

So uploading third party images to Commons is a risky business?

Regards,
Jee


On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Jeevan Jose  wrote:

> "For us, point 1 is covered by ToU - Nemo"
>
> But my understanding is Tou (7 g) is only applicable for Wikimedian who
> contribute their own works. We have so many third party uploads and they
> all must meet exact license terms.
>
> Regards,
> Jee
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) 
> wrote:
>
>> Jeevan Jose, 05/06/2014 07:59:
>>
>>  So do we have a responsibility to
>>> educate the contributors than misusing their ignorance in such cases?
>>>
>>
>> The three points you raise are legally untested in most countries and
>> even CC's FAQ is not legal advice. For us, point 1 is covered by ToU, but
>> for 2 and 3 it would be inappropriate to have a ghost CC FAQ, while giving
>> legal advice is out of question.
>>
>> The licensing tutorial shown by UploadWizard can certainly be improved in
>> some way, please propose tweaks: <https://commons.wikimedia.
>> org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Commons_licensing_tutorial>
>> In general however, rather than controversial edge cases, it's better to
>> focus the little licensing outreach we manage to have on the really crucial
>> aspects/mission, in particular how copyleft/-SA is the way while -NC and
>> -ND generally do the opposite of what folks expect.
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Free_knowledge_based_on_
>> Creative_Commons_licenses
>>
>> Nemo
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Importance of educating the media contributors

[Jeevan Jose]

"For us, point 1 is covered by ToU - Nemo"

But my understanding is Tou (7 g) is only applicable for Wikimedian who
contribute their own works. We have so many third party uploads and they
all must meet exact license terms.

Regards,
Jee


On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) 
wrote:

> Jeevan Jose, 05/06/2014 07:59:
>
>  So do we have a responsibility to
>> educate the contributors than misusing their ignorance in such cases?
>>
>
> The three points you raise are legally untested in most countries and even
> CC's FAQ is not legal advice. For us, point 1 is covered by ToU, but for 2
> and 3 it would be inappropriate to have a ghost CC FAQ, while giving legal
> advice is out of question.
>
> The licensing tutorial shown by UploadWizard can certainly be improved in
> some way, please propose tweaks: <https://commons.wikimedia.
> org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Commons_licensing_tutorial>
> In general however, rather than controversial edge cases, it's better to
> focus the little licensing outreach we manage to have on the really crucial
> aspects/mission, in particular how copyleft/-SA is the way while -NC and
> -ND generally do the opposite of what folks expect.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Free_knowledge_based_on_
> Creative_Commons_licenses
>
> Nemo
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

[Wikimedia-l] Importance of educating the media contributors

[Jeevan Jose]

In many recent discussions in Wikimedia Commons, I noticed that many of our
media contributors are not well aware of the terms of licenses they grant.
Main confusions are in three areas:
1. Attribution: Many people think we can demand attribution near the work
used in off wiki cases. But according to CC, a mere link/hyper link to the
source is enough for attribution as we practiced in WMF projects. I don't
know whether all courts agree with it; but our contributors should be aware
of it. Anyway there is no separate agreement between the contributors and
Wikimedia; people can't expect more for off wiki uses. Moreover, many
uploads are by third parties; so no chances for such special agreements. (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Luftbild_Grindelhochh.C3.A4user_Hamburg.jpg
)
2. File resolution: Recently CC clarified that the license is applicable
for the copyright eligible works; so it may applicable for high quality
file of that work too. (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Could_someone_please_post_a_summary_of_this.3F
)
3. Personality/privacy rights in case of self portraits: Here also CC
advised that such rights may affected. (
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#How_are_publicity.2C_privacy.2C_and_personality_rights_affected_when_I_apply_a_CC_license.3F,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Uploaded_by_the_depicted_person
)

In most cases, people reveal such things very late, try to defend, and
ended up in edit wars and even a block. So do we have a responsibility to
educate the contributors than misusing their ignorance in such cases?
Regards,
Jee
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] About Wikipedia medical entries

[Jeevan Jose]

Wikipedia discourages self diagnosis and treatment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Medical_disclaimer

And I think professionals are capable enough to verify the credibility of
the referred sources instead of blindly reading the articles.

Regards,
Jee


On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Lane Rasberry wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I am a participant in WikiProject Medicine on English Wikipedia and know
> about this case. I also have talked to the researcher who published this
> paper since its publication.
>
> Lots of people have lots of objections to Wikipedia. In my opinion, the
> study itself is correct for what it reports, but no newspaper or other
> media understands what the study is saying and they are reporting all kinds
> of silly things. Here is the discussion of this paper in WikiProject
> Medicine -
> <
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_48#Poor_paper_.5B4.5D_on_Wikipedia
> >
> That is in the archives, so if someone has more to say, post to the main
> forum.
>
> While I think this study is being perceived negatively, I appreciate any
> research team who does any kind of research on Wikipedia's health content.
> Here is a list of what has been done:
> <
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Research_publications
> >
>
> @geni - "The problem is the number of doctors who use wikipedia."
>
> I disagree. I feel that the problem is that for all of history there has
> never been health information accessible to doctors and patients. Wikipedia
> at least says that people should have health information, whereas every
> government and health organization in the world (NIH, NHS, WHO and the
> rest) are still saying "Not yet, it is not important, nobody wants this"
> and not providing any alternative. There are no alternatives or competitors
> to Wikipedia for what it does, so of course doctors use it. The problem is
> that no one else thinks doctors need ready access to good information right
> now, and Wikipedia is just doing the best it can to meet the existing
> demand that is otherwise ignored.
>
> @Todd Allen - "ask your doctor" should always be the end of the process."
>
> The number of people how have as much access to their doctors as they wish
> is definitely not more than 20% of the English speaking world and the
> reality is probably closer to 2-3% of people. Doctors simply do not have
> more than minutes to answer questions and many people would like to study
> for hours over their lifetimes. Referring people to doctors ignores the
> problem that people do not get as much access to healthcare as they would
> like, and doctors are not ready to provide health information on demand. At
> the same time, patients are being encouraged to make more health decisions
> with their doctors, but not given educational resources to help them make
> those decisions.
>
> I wish there were enough doctors, and people should try hard to ask them
> lots of questions, but something more is needed too.
>
> yours,
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> > Actually, "Don't diagnose yourself" is just generally good advice. Even
> if
> > the medical information you have is accurate, there might be other
> possible
> > causes or factors that need to be considered.
> >
> > Internet information, Wikipedia or otherwise, might be a good place to
> get
> > things to ask your doctor about, but "ask your doctor" should always be
> the
> > end of the process.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Marc A. Pelletier 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 05/27/2014 10:18 AM, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
> > > > From what I remember from it is that
> > > > what is called Osteopathy in the UK isn't the same thing that's
> called
> > > > Osteopathy in the US
> > >
> > > Ah, that explains it.  :-)
> > >
> > > Regardless, "Don't diagnose yourself with Wikipedia" seems to be
> > > infinitely good advice, regardless of any hyperbole about article
> > accuracy!
> > >
> > > -- Marc
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Lane Rasberry
> user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
> 206.801.0814
> l...@bluerasberry.com
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wiki

Re: [Wikimedia-l] COM:IDENT?

[Jeevan Jose]

Thanks all for your opinions, suggestions and advice. I was away due to a
personal emergency; just back home today. I read all the responses above,
including Pierre-selim's advise on how to handle such cases in future. I
agree, and my intention was not to ignore in Commons discussions and make a
"commons is broken" rant as Pleclown complained above. I was in the midst
of switching off my computer and run as one of my relative just admitted in
hospital. The repeated revert on that page increased my blood pressure and
I forwarded it to here as I know I can't participate in that thread for at
least a few days.

I disagree with Pierre-selim's opinion that "In the end I just think we are
having this thread because of the topic being related to nudity (which is
clearly a not consensual topic in our communities, probably because it is
cultural) and not really because of any real breach of privacy." As a
husband of a woman who had undergone TAH-BSO at the age of twenty (ten
years before our marriage), I'm well aware of the value of our reproductive
system and the importance of educating common people about the
healthy maintenance of them. I know how photographs are more helpful than
graphical illustrations in some occasions. But we should be more careful on
verifying whether the subjects are fully consented in such cases. Moreover,
there is no need to reveal the identity of non notable persons in such
cases.

(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Smoking_Crack.jpg is another
similar case where no relation to nudity; but clear real breach of privacy.
There people even tried to revert Odder. Finally I had to bring it at AN to
revedelete other versions. I still believe such a picture is not good for
our projects as we have no evidence of consent and the person can be
easily identifiable from the external links.)

Now I (glad to) see Russavia did some homework and made an alert to another
crat and (as a result) most links are removed. (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MichaelMaggs#Paedophile_advocate_needs_blocking
).

Regards,
Jee


On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 1:59 AM, Chris Keating
wrote:

> Though in this case it does seem that Commons has given sound advice that
> any photos submitted should be accompanied by a model release.
>
> If only more photos on Commons had model releases!
>
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Chris Keating
> wrote:
>
> >
> > @Risker: I was thinking the same, hence my disagreement with Odder's
> >> decision. But I've visited the linked website (NSFW) and one can only
> >> assume that the person on the pictures is fully aware of the implication
> >> of
> >> said photos on the internet and willing to see them diffused.
> >
> >
> > I don't think "there are pictures of someone on the internet" can in any
> > circumstances imply "that person has given their consent for those
> pictures
> > to be on the internet".
> >
> > Even if it is clear that the person concerned gave permission for the
> > picture to be taken, that is no evidence that they have given any consent
> > for those pictures to be circulated.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] COM:IDENT?

[Jeevan Jose]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Odder&oldid=124445321#Commons_talk:Nudity

Is this the way Commons:Photographs of identifiable people works?

Regards,
Jee
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

[Jeevan Jose]

Hi Kevin:

Sorry if you are ill treated in Commons earlier. But hope you aware that
there is lot of people in Commons still trying to renovate it by positive
contributions, self criticisms and listening to outside opinions. And hope
you aware that the last Board resolution is an answer to our requests. (
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Media_about_living_people)

That said, Commons is a multi cultural project. So there is chance for
friction between the English community in many areas. In my culture (I'm
from India), it is common that pictures of brutal murders are published on
newspaper front pages. I assume culture in other places may
different.  Anyway we are open for discussions and willing to make changes.

I had alredy commented on the main page and opened a discussion on FPC talk
since MOTD talk is not active. (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#COM:MOTD)
Every body is welcome to there. I agree the current handling of MOTD is not
good considering the importance of the main page.

My only complaint is trying to generalize this matter. The more
you generalize matters, the more "some people who think Commons=them" make
benefit it from.

Sincerely expecting to your contributions and a warm welcome to the "New
Commons".

Regards,
Jee


On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:

> Hi Yann -
>
> Commons is unique in that AFAIK it's our only project that, by it's very
> nature, effects other projects, as well as outside collaborations.  As have
> been brought up by Risker earlier in this conversation, Common's MOTD on
> that day was transcluded to the mainpages of projects that do not use one
> of the five languages in which context for the video was provided.
> Combining that fact with the fact Commons' has a history of not wanting to
> comply with WMF board resolutions and the fact that the last time I was
> heavily active on Commons we stumbled across a page where a couple sysops
> were chatting about whether or not they could indef me for being disruptive
> (when I was, pretty literally, only trying to enforce WMF board
> resolutions,) I view bringing it up at a wider venue as absolutely
> appropriate, especially given that without this discussion, I'd bet that
> Fuzheado's and Eddie's ignored comments would still be, well, ignored,
> rather than there now being a rather active discussion on that page.
>
> Best,
> Kevin Gorman
>
>
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Yann Forget  wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am puzzled than you launch such a Wikimedia-wide protest about this,
> > and that you are even not active on Commons.
> > If there is something which you don't like, come to Commons and
> > participate!
> > Sending you opinion accross without doing anything won't help...
> >
> > Yann
> >
> >
> > 2014-05-09 7:40 GMT+05:30 Kevin Gorman :
> > > Hi all -
> > >
> > > This is a slightly unusual email for me, in that I'm wearing more hats
> > than
> > > I usually do. I'm writing as a community member, but also as someone
> > > currently employed by one of the best public universities in the world
> > in a
> > > department that is, at least in decent part, aimed at ensuring that
> > > injustices of the past do not go forgotten.  This email represents my
> own
> > > opinions alone, mostly because I don't want to go through the process
> of
> > > getting approval for any sort of formal statement, and also don't view
> > > doing so as necessary, but it does highlight my views as someone
> actively
> > > employed by a major university, and not just as an editor.
> > >
> > > Today, Common's front page highlighted a video taken shortly after the
> > > liberation of Buchenwald, one of the largest concentration camps to
> > operate
> > > on German soil during the second world war, where more than 50,000
> people
> > > lost their lives. (Since Commons apparently uses UTC, it's already
> > changed
> > > to a different piece of media.)  For reasons that baffle me a bit, the
> > > video screenshot displayed on Commons' frontpage is that of a stack of
> > > corpses, taken from a five minute long video (that is primarily not
> > stacks
> > > of corpses.)  To make things worse: because Commons only supports open
> > > video formats, an overwhelming majority of people who look at the
> Commons
> > > frontpage in any one day are not using a browser that can view the
> actual
> > > video - so they would've only been able to see a photo of stacked up
> > > corpses, with no accompanying video (and no accompanying explanation if
> > > they didn't speak english or one of four other languages.)  The caption
> > of
> > > the video does hyperlink to the English Wikipedia's article about
> > > Buchenwald, but displays only after the graphic image and video link.
> > >
> > > I want to be clear: I'm not objecting in any way whatsoever to the fact
> > > that the Wikimedia Commons contains a video of Buchenwald.  I would be
> > > disturbed if we /didn't/ have a video like

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

[Jeevan Jose]

I replied to a few questions at the main page talk:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Dead_bodies.3F

Regards,
Jee


On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:

> *contradictory meanings, not ideas - I just woke up from a nap and am
> typing like a sleepy person.
>
>
> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:
>
> > Heh, I probably shouldn't have chosen a word with two more or less
> > contradictory ideas that also refers to a mediawiki userright.  I meant
> > oversight as in scrutiny by other Wikimedians to ensure the process
> doesn't
> > go off the rails, not oversight as in negligence or oversight as in what
> we
> > do to especially nasty content instead of revdel.  (I would consider any
> > process that gets large graphics on to prominent pages on the projects
> with
> > so few checks on it as lacking sufficient oversight.)
> >
> > -
> > Kevin Gorman
> > Wikipedian-in-Residence
> > UC Berkeley
> >
> >
> > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Pete Forsyth  >wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:
> >>
> >> > there's something seriously weird about the fact that a project that
> all
> >> > other projects depend on has the media it displays on it's front page
> >> > selected by pretty much one person with no
> >>
> >>
> >> I was with you up until the last word. Did you really mean:
> >>
> >>
> >> > oversight.
> >> >
> >>
> >> ???
> >>
> >> -Pete
> >> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org<
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> >>
> >
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

[Jeevan Jose]

See the comment by Pristurus<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pristurus>
 at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Dead_bodies.3F

Regards,
Jee


On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 10:57 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Jeevan Jose  wrote:
>
> > Already answered on the talk page by the editor who had chosen it.
> Comment
> > there if you really want to help us. Continue the comments here if other
> > interests. ;)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jee
> >
> >
> >
> I don't think it was answered, it wasn't even asked.  My question isn't how
> the video was selected, it's how the *still* from the video was selected.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

[Jeevan Jose]

Already answered on the talk page by the editor who had chosen it. Comment
there if you really want to help us. Continue the comments here if other
interests. ;)

Regards,
Jee


On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Andrew Lih  wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 4:26 AM, ENWP Pine 
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I agree that posting a notification to this list was appropriate, but
> not
> > > with forking or moving the discussion to here.
> >
> >
> > I wish there was actually a discussion to fork. Both The_ed17 and I
> raised
> > it on the Main_page Talk and the Commons administrator's noticeboard,
> where
> > things of urgency are normally monitored. Silence. Crickets.
> >
> > If it comes to a choice of keeping images of emaciated concentration camp
> > corpses on the front page of a high profile Wikimedia project and raising
> > this issue on Wikimedia-L, I choose the latter.
> >
> > -Andrew
>
>
> Indeed. No need to beat around the bush here - the purpose of e-mailing
> this list was explicitly to canvass for more opinions, more participants.
> The policy on en.wp is of mixed usefulness, imho, and often abused to
> restrict the availability of useful input and illumination. It doesn't
> apply to this list or to Commons or Meta.
>
> On the actual topic - what's the base process for selecting a still from a
> featured video? Is it automatic once the video is selected? Does the user
> have to specify a particular frame?
>
> ~Nathan
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community consultation + Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director selection process

[Jeevan Jose]

Founder of the Wikimedia Foundation = One who founded/established the
foundation? Sorry; I didn't get your question.

Regards,
Jee


On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Fæ  wrote:

> Thanks for the assurance that the community "directly and indirectly
> influences 100% of the board".
>
> Could someone point me to where this happened for the founder of the
> Wikimedia Foundation?
>
> Thanks again,
> Fae
>
> On 21 January 2014 17:28, Jan-Bart de Vreede 
> wrote:
> > Hey
> >
> > I am sure it is technically feasible, its just not realistic from a
> hiring perspective. I cannot tell a potential candidate that process
> includes a public vetting process, this is something that is just not going
> to happen. We are hiring an ED for the Wikimedia Foundation, and the Board
> of Trustees of that Foundation is simply the body that is responsible for
> the final decision on this.
> >
> > I am not going to debate the different kinds of movement representation
> in the board, but I would argue that the community directly and indirectly
> influences 100% of the board, as appointed members are appointed by
> (s)elected members and the founder of the Wikimedia Foundation.
> >
> > Jan-Bart
> >
> >
> >
> > On 21 Jan 2014, at 15:57, MZMcBride  wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for getting back to me.
> >>
> >> Jan-Bart de Vreede wrote:
> >>> There is no "community consultation" period in the selection proces.
> It's
> >>> simply not feasible or desirable to have someone have a public
> "vetting"
> >>> phase.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure I understand how it would be infeasible. It's 2014, not
> 1814.
> >> I think we've figured out how to solicit feedback in a timely manner.
> >>
> >> It seems less desirable to me to reduce the Wikimedia community to
> waiting
> >> for the white smoke.
> >>
> >> The new Executive Director will be publicly vetted, to be sure, it just
> >> sounds as though it'll happen after or he or she has been firmly
> appointed
> >> by the Board. It would be dishonest to suggest that there's no merit to
> >> this approach, but I do wonder if it's in line with Wikimedia's values.
> >>
> >>> The good news is that you elected representatives on the board who
> >>> have a strong voice in the selection process and final approval.
> >>
> >> I'm not quite sure who "you" is, but only three of ten Board seats are
> >> directly elected. I suppose that's a strong voice?
> >>
> >> MZMcBride
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
>
>
> --
> fae...@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm
> Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[Jeevan Jose]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_151#Resolution:Media_about_living_people

Hope this helps.

Jee


On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 1:16 AM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski  wrote:

> While I appreciate the lengthy discussion about the scope of the
> resolution and about the ways it can be implemented in on-wiki processes, I
> would like to raise a different question.
>
> I note with some interest that Jimmy's vote is not recorded at <
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Media_about_living_people>,
> and I wonder what are the exact reasons behind that, and how this lack of
> information relates to a March 30, 2012 resolution on Board of Trustees
> Voting Transparency,  org/wiki/Resolution:Board_of_Trustees_Voting_Transparency>.
>
> Perhaps it might also be worth mentioning that there are two additional
> resolutions approved after March 30, 2012 that do not comply with the
> Voting Transparency resolution:
>
> *  reappointment_2013>
> *  de_Vreede_reappointment_2013>
>
> I believe that the Board or Foundation lawyers might want to have a look
> at those.
>
>   Tomasz
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[Jeevan Jose]

And an application at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Contact_us/Problems#Suggested_change

Jee


On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Jeevan Jose  wrote:

> "Is there a discussion happening on Commons somewhere about the
> implications of this resolution? - John Vandenberg"
>
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Resolution:Media_about_living_people
>
> Jee
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 10:24 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Craig Franklin
>>  wrote:
>> > Hi Jane,
>> >
>> > I am concerned about the issue surrounding the comment "the real BLP
>> >> problems happen when heavyweight (in edit count terms) Wikipedia users
>> >> swing their weight around"
>> >>
>> >
>> > I think the problem is that if you ask ten different people about the
>> > reason why we have BLP problems, you'll get ten different answers.  All
>> ten
>> > would probably have some truth in them, but any one in isolation would
>> be
>> > inadequate.
>>
>> The list of problems becomes even longer for images.
>>
>> The 2009 resolution on biographies of living people was about
>> identifiable people, given they were the subject of a biography.  This
>> new 'media about living people' resolution doesn't make any such
>> distinction for media, which I guess will result in lots of confusion
>> about whether the scope includes images of unidentifiable people.  It
>> should, but ...
>>
>> This resolution appears to be asking for verifiability regarding
>> images of living people.  We are going to need some clarity around
>> what the board considers to be verifiability (how do we prove the
>> photo was taken at a public event and it is real? etc), and whether
>> that includes unidentifiable people.
>>
>> "Ensuring that all projects in all languages that describe or show
>> living people have policies in place calling for special attention to
>> the principles of neutrality and verifiability in those articles;.."
>>
>> On English Wikipedia we have some guidance regarding photos of living
>> people, but I can't find anything relating to verifiability or
>> neutrality.
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Original_images
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Images
>>
>> Wikimedia Commons has a policy which rejects 'neutrality', and it
>> doesnt have a verifiability policy.
>>
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Neutral_point_of_view
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people
>>
>> Is there a discussion happening on Commons somewhere about the
>> implications of this resolution?
>>
>> > My own point of view is that our policies and procedures are actually
>> > pretty good on paper, but they're just very unevenly and inconsistently
>> > applied in the real world.  The "Tier 1" biographies, such as those of
>> > Messrs Obama, Cameron, and Abbott are pretty safe from BLP hijinx, but
>> > there is a massive underbelly of poorly defended BLPs on minor
>> celebrities,
>> > local politicians, and the like, which are not watched consistently and
>> > where hagiography or defamation can take root.  This is why, while
>> things
>> > like the BoT's declaration are not unwelcome, I feel that they don't
>> have
>> > any practical effect in fixing the problem.  All it takes is for one
>> > negatively written bio to slip through the net to do real harm to
>> someone
>> > in the real world.
>>
>> I agree with you Craig up to here ..
>>
>> > My preferred way of dealing with this on en.wp would be to massively
>> > tighten the notability criteria where they related to biographies of
>> living
>> > or possibly living people, but this would no doubt be met with cries of
>> > "deletionism!".
>>
>> And agree your preferred approach could help.  On English Wikipedia, I
>> think we have an article/editor ratio problem, which is only getting
>> worse as articles increase and editors leave, and is meaning
>> watchlists are less useful to scan for problematic edits.
>>
>> The test for this is what is the average length of time between an
>> edit of an old page (e.g. created in 2005) to the point in time that
>> the edit a) appears on a watc

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[Jeevan Jose]

"Is there a discussion happening on Commons somewhere about the
implications of this resolution? - John Vandenberg"

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Resolution:Media_about_living_people

Jee


On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 10:24 PM, John Vandenberg  wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Craig Franklin
>  wrote:
> > Hi Jane,
> >
> > I am concerned about the issue surrounding the comment "the real BLP
> >> problems happen when heavyweight (in edit count terms) Wikipedia users
> >> swing their weight around"
> >>
> >
> > I think the problem is that if you ask ten different people about the
> > reason why we have BLP problems, you'll get ten different answers.  All
> ten
> > would probably have some truth in them, but any one in isolation would be
> > inadequate.
>
> The list of problems becomes even longer for images.
>
> The 2009 resolution on biographies of living people was about
> identifiable people, given they were the subject of a biography.  This
> new 'media about living people' resolution doesn't make any such
> distinction for media, which I guess will result in lots of confusion
> about whether the scope includes images of unidentifiable people.  It
> should, but ...
>
> This resolution appears to be asking for verifiability regarding
> images of living people.  We are going to need some clarity around
> what the board considers to be verifiability (how do we prove the
> photo was taken at a public event and it is real? etc), and whether
> that includes unidentifiable people.
>
> "Ensuring that all projects in all languages that describe or show
> living people have policies in place calling for special attention to
> the principles of neutrality and verifiability in those articles;.."
>
> On English Wikipedia we have some guidance regarding photos of living
> people, but I can't find anything relating to verifiability or
> neutrality.
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Original_images
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Images
>
> Wikimedia Commons has a policy which rejects 'neutrality', and it
> doesnt have a verifiability policy.
>
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Neutral_point_of_view
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people
>
> Is there a discussion happening on Commons somewhere about the
> implications of this resolution?
>
> > My own point of view is that our policies and procedures are actually
> > pretty good on paper, but they're just very unevenly and inconsistently
> > applied in the real world.  The "Tier 1" biographies, such as those of
> > Messrs Obama, Cameron, and Abbott are pretty safe from BLP hijinx, but
> > there is a massive underbelly of poorly defended BLPs on minor
> celebrities,
> > local politicians, and the like, which are not watched consistently and
> > where hagiography or defamation can take root.  This is why, while things
> > like the BoT's declaration are not unwelcome, I feel that they don't have
> > any practical effect in fixing the problem.  All it takes is for one
> > negatively written bio to slip through the net to do real harm to someone
> > in the real world.
>
> I agree with you Craig up to here ..
>
> > My preferred way of dealing with this on en.wp would be to massively
> > tighten the notability criteria where they related to biographies of
> living
> > or possibly living people, but this would no doubt be met with cries of
> > "deletionism!".
>
> And agree your preferred approach could help.  On English Wikipedia, I
> think we have an article/editor ratio problem, which is only getting
> worse as articles increase and editors leave, and is meaning
> watchlists are less useful to scan for problematic edits.
>
> The test for this is what is the average length of time between an
> edit of an old page (e.g. created in 2005) to the point in time that
> the edit a) appears on a watchlist, or b) is viewed as a diff, or c)
> is loaded as a page view, or d) leads to another edit.  Then compare
> those averages with the averages from a year before, to determine
> whether edits are slipping past watchlists and recentchanges. I'm
> guessing that the length of time from edit to (a) or (b) is
> increasing, while (c) may be decreasing as Wikipedia readership
> increases.
>
> A smaller Wikipedia scope means there are less articles, with more
> editors watching and editing the pages the BLP problems appear on.
>
> I think it is necessary to add here that FlaggedRevs (Pending Changes)
> also helps, as any BLP problems are held in a queue.  The 'volume of
> edits' can be a problem with FlaggedRevs in practise, but a) the
> 'size.
>
> > Indeed, I don't think it's possible to adequately address
> > the issue on large projects like en.wp or commons without a massive
> > cultural shift and sweeping changes to policy that would cause immense
> > disruption in the community; something the BoT is understandably

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[Jeevan Jose]

"I would like to know where subjects can post their complaint besides on
the talk page, since putting complaints there is still a form of
publication and only serves to propagate the sensitive information that
subjects want removed. - Jane Darnell"

Yes; we are working on it. See
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Undiscussed_addition
and 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Contact_us/Problems#Consent_Issues

Jee

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski  wrote:

> Fæ wrote:
>
>  I hope this is a coincidence.
>>
>
> How naive of you, Fæ: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/
> index.php?oldid=6705202#Personal_and_Moral_Rights.3F
>
>   Tomasz
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,