Re: [Commons-l] Pikiwiki project problems

[Luiz Augusto]

I didn't readed the entire discussion here on mailing list neither on COM:AN
simply because I don't have enought time to look for productive comments and
to ignore the flamewar pieces.

Talking only on the logo issue: after months of inactivity (I will be back
on July for 4-8 weeks, returning again on December and leaving again on
February or March 2010) I've logged-in my [[User:555]] account to take a
look at

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=File%3APikiwiki_logo.jpg&file=fvfbm30g1hvr48knmrxjvfrln2uw17o.jpg&token=4d837b022f1ab77e01d2cbc2e3471a8f%2B\

and I've found a non-copyrightable image!

1) The text is PD according to
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-textlogo ;

2) The blue background is simply a blue background. You can't claim for
copyrights on a colour. If you don't see the blue background as a
background, no problem: there is
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-shape for you;

3) The piece that is a good attempt on showing a photography is or a
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-shape or a derivative from
copyleft icons like
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nuvola_apps_background.png or
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vista-folder_images.png or
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vista-kview.png or thousands more
that depicts the sky with a mountain.

Fortunately I'm no more a copyright paranoid.

Fell free to open a undeletion request mentioning this message *if* the
Wikimedia Israel guys agrees that the logo for this project don't have
anything with enough creative work to get copyrighted.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Trademarked may or may not apply
for this image.

/me going back to get madden with their college researchs

On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:

> First up correct me I'm making the wrong assumption here
>
> Pikiwiki is hosted on Israeli servers
> Commons is hosted on US servers
>
> The problem that is arising is that there are differences between the
> copyright laws of the two countries and what is an acceptable free image use
> in Israel is significantly different to what applies in the US and its with
> this difference that problems have arisen. Some how we need to explain the
> differences to the Pikiwiki community and get their help in addressing the
> information we need to host images on US servers.
>
> As a separate issue the purpose, position, and expectations of Commons
> within the wider Wikimedia community needs to clarified, when I came to
> Commons it was as repository of free media, primarily to design to support
> cross project use of that media without the need to have multiple copies of
> the same file stored on the servers. From where it sit that hasnt changed,
> the people/admins of Commons havent gone rogue but at the moment it appears
> that we as members of that community are under seige. While Cary's comments
> on commons, and this discussion have helped to stimulate further discussion
> I think the approach of take all the files fromPikiwiki then you(Commons
> community) can sort the copyright problems later, because that what your
> there for isnt helpful or reasonable.
>
> I agree with Dror involving the Foundation in this because its a
> fundamental concern that needs to be fixed and something that has the
> potential to bite at the core of our society. Whats needed from the
> Foundation is physical assistance in assessing, transfering the images and
> ensuring that before they are hosted on Commons servers the image do comly
> with US and source copyright laws what isnt need is further bashing of the
> people on Commons who are trying to ensure the image can be hosted.
>
>
>
> 2009/6/5 W Knight 
>
> Just a point of fact: the upload bot is still blocked at this time:
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3APikiwikisrael
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Abigor wrote:
>>
>>> Gerard,
>>>
>>> The PikiWiki project is lead by three organisations and not only
>>> wikimedia
>>> Israel.
>>>
>>> I don't think the problem is Commons accepting the project. But even if
>>> we
>>> see it as one of our sisterprojects it still needs to follow Commons
>>> Policies. The same counts for En.Wiki the can't upload fair use on
>>> Commons
>>> because the policy. There are other project that al almost the same like
>>> Http://www.wikiportret.nl or photosubmission project on En.wiki both the
>>> projects need to get otrs permission for every upload and give as source
>>> the projectsite. I think this would be a good way to go with Pikiwiki.
>>>
>>> About the block, as far as I know the bot is already unblocked. But we
>>> have like 2.500 images already on Commons that need to be fixed before we
>>> upload even more images.
>>>

Re: [Commons-l] Commons licensing for chapter-owned copyrights

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 7:11 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
> 2009/6/4 Pedro Sanchez :
>
>> once you start thinking on "possible liabilities" you're walking the fair
>> use lane on commons.
>> Commons is by definition a free content file repo. That's akin to saying
>> "let's host some nonfree articles copied from wikipedia if we can determine
>> we won't get in trouble"
>
>
> He's talking about WMF chapter images, not any random crap! Claiming
> this is a "slippery slope" danger is, frankly, utterly ridiculous and
> not to be taken seriously.

Chapter images? Like ... educational works authored by the chapters?

…

The best way to avoid wanky idiocy is to *BE* *SPECIFIC*. If you can't
be specific then perhaps slippery slope arguments do apply.

I suggest a simple criteria: How about we allow copyright restricted
uploads only of trademarked marks from organizations with a trademark
licensing agreement with the WMF?  I think that limits the whom it
applies to without needlessly special casing chapters, and it removes
any slippery slope argument because it tightly confines the scope.

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Commons licensing for chapter-owned copyrights

[geni]

2009/6/5 David Gerard :
> 2009/6/4 Pedro Sanchez :
>
>> once you start thinking on "possible liabilities" you're walking the fair
>> use lane on commons.
>> Commons is by definition a free content file repo. That's akin to saying
>> "let's host some nonfree articles copied from wikipedia if we can determine
>> we won't get in trouble"
>
>
> He's talking about WMF chapter images, not any random crap! Claiming
> this is a "slippery slope" danger is, frankly, utterly ridiculous and
> not to be taken seriously.
>


Zee problem kicks in with defineing chapeter images. Meetup pic for
example. In practice is is probably something better dealt with
through the foundation chapter agreement but it involves elements that
commons doesn't really have control over.



-- 
geni

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Pikiwiki project problems

[Gnangarra]

First up correct me I'm making the wrong assumption here

Pikiwiki is hosted on Israeli servers
Commons is hosted on US servers

The problem that is arising is that there are differences between the
copyright laws of the two countries and what is an acceptable free image use
in Israel is significantly different to what applies in the US and its with
this difference that problems have arisen. Some how we need to explain the
differences to the Pikiwiki community and get their help in addressing the
information we need to host images on US servers.

As a separate issue the purpose, position, and expectations of Commons
within the wider Wikimedia community needs to clarified, when I came to
Commons it was as repository of free media, primarily to design to support
cross project use of that media without the need to have multiple copies of
the same file stored on the servers. From where it sit that hasnt changed,
the people/admins of Commons havent gone rogue but at the moment it appears
that we as members of that community are under seige. While Cary's comments
on commons, and this discussion have helped to stimulate further discussion
I think the approach of take all the files fromPikiwiki then you(Commons
community) can sort the copyright problems later, because that what your
there for isnt helpful or reasonable.

I agree with Dror involving the Foundation in this because its a fundamental
concern that needs to be fixed and something that has the potential to bite
at the core of our society. Whats needed from the Foundation is physical
assistance in assessing, transfering the images and ensuring that before
they are hosted on Commons servers the image do comly with US and source
copyright laws what isnt need is further bashing of the people on Commons
who are trying to ensure the image can be hosted.



2009/6/5 W Knight 

> Just a point of fact: the upload bot is still blocked at this time:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3APikiwikisrael
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Abigor wrote:
>
>> Gerard,
>>
>> The PikiWiki project is lead by three organisations and not only wikimedia
>> Israel.
>>
>> I don't think the problem is Commons accepting the project. But even if we
>> see it as one of our sisterprojects it still needs to follow Commons
>> Policies. The same counts for En.Wiki the can't upload fair use on Commons
>> because the policy. There are other project that al almost the same like
>> Http://www.wikiportret.nl or photosubmission project on En.wiki both the
>> projects need to get otrs permission for every upload and give as source
>> the projectsite. I think this would be a good way to go with Pikiwiki.
>>
>> About the block, as far as I know the bot is already unblocked. But we
>> have like 2.500 images already on Commons that need to be fixed before we
>> upload even more images.
>>
>> huib
>>
>> Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor
>> msn: abi...@forgotten-beauty.com
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Commons-l mailing list
>> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>>
>
>
> ___
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>


-- 
GN.
http://gnangarra.redbubble.com/
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Commons licensing for chapter-owned copyrights

[David Gerard]

2009/6/4 Pedro Sanchez :

> once you start thinking on "possible liabilities" you're walking the fair
> use lane on commons.
> Commons is by definition a free content file repo. That's akin to saying
> "let's host some nonfree articles copied from wikipedia if we can determine
> we won't get in trouble"


He's talking about WMF chapter images, not any random crap! Claiming
this is a "slippery slope" danger is, frankly, utterly ridiculous and
not to be taken seriously.


- d.

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Commons licensing for chapter-owned copyrights

[Pedro Sanchez]

On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Cary Bass  wrote:

> Mike.lifeguard a écrit :
> > Some time ago, I suggested using Meta for this purpose. That would be
> > the best solution; the second-best being to use Commons and expanding
> > the scope to chapter logos and the like (as I suggested already:
> >
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Pikiwiki_logo.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=22003706
> )
> > <
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Pikiwiki_logo.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=22003706%29
> >
> >
> > Either would be acceptable. The status quo is not.
> >
> > -Mike
> >
> Another instance where our policies run contrary to our mission.  We
> definitely need to reinvestigate why we are so much in a rush to delete
> images such as these which provide no liability on Commons whatsoever,
> where the distribution of the logo is entirely acceptable and does not
> water down the copyright.
>
> Cary
>

once you start thinking on "possible liabilities" you're walking the fair
use lane on commons.
Commons is by definition a free content file repo. That's akin to saying
"let's host some nonfree articles copied from wikipedia if we can determine
we won't get in trouble"
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

[Commons-l] firefogg local encode & new-upload branch update.

[Michael Dale]

As you may know I have been working on firefogg integration with 
mediaWiki. As you may also know the mwEmbed library is being designed to 
support embedding of these interfaces in arbitrary external contexts.  I 
wanted to quickly highlight a useful stand alone usage example of the 
library:

http://www.firefogg.org/make/advanced.html

This "Make Ogg" link will be something you can send to a person so they 
can encode source footage to a local ogg video file with the latest and 
greatest ogg encoders (presently the thusnelda theora encoder  & vorbis 
audio). Updates to thusnelda and other free codecs will be pushed out 
via firefogg updates.

For commons / wikimedia usage we will directly integrate firefogg (using 
that same codebase) You can see an example of how that works on the 
'new-upload' branch here: 
http://sandbox.kaltura.com/testwiki/index.php/Special:Upload ... 
hopefully we will start putting some of this on testing.wikipedia.org 
~soonish ?~

The new-upload branch feature set is quite extensive including the 
script-loader, jquery javascript refactoring, the new upload-api, new 
mv_embed video player, add media wizard etc. Any feedback and specific 
bug reports people can do will be super helpful in gearing up for 
merging this 'new-upload' branch.

For an overview see:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Media_Projects_Overview

peace,
--michael

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Pikiwiki project problems

[W Knight]

Just a point of fact: the upload bot is still blocked at this time:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3APikiwikisrael


On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Abigor  wrote:

> Gerard,
>
> The PikiWiki project is lead by three organisations and not only wikimedia
> Israel.
>
> I don't think the problem is Commons accepting the project. But even if we
> see it as one of our sisterprojects it still needs to follow Commons
> Policies. The same counts for En.Wiki the can't upload fair use on Commons
> because the policy. There are other project that al almost the same like
> Http://www.wikiportret.nl or photosubmission project on En.wiki both the
> projects need to get otrs permission for every upload and give as source
> the projectsite. I think this would be a good way to go with Pikiwiki.
>
> About the block, as far as I know the bot is already unblocked. But we
> have like 2.500 images already on Commons that need to be fixed before we
> upload even more images.
>
> huib
>
> Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor
> msn: abi...@forgotten-beauty.com
>
>
> ___
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Commons licensing for chapter-owned copyrights

[David Gerard]

2009/6/4 Andrew Turvey :
> - "David Gerard"  wrote:

>> This has been proposed more than once and rejected.

> Do you have a link to this previous discussion?


As I said in the paragraph you didn't quote, no :-)


- d.

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Commons licensing for chapter-owned copyrights

[Andrew Turvey]

- "David Gerard"  wrote: 
> From: "David Gerard"  
> To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List"  
> Sent: Thursday, 4 June, 2009 19:19:20 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, 
> Portugal 
> Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Commons licensing for chapter-owned copyrights 
> 
> 2009/6/4 Robert Rohde : 
> 
> > My personal opinion is that non-free materials owned by the Foundation 
> > (or chapters, or other authorized uses, etc) should really be shunted 
> > to a separate repository with Commons reserved for truly free works. 
> 
> 
> This has been proposed more than once and rejected. 

Do you have a link to this previous discussion? 

Andrew 
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Commons licensing for chapter-owned copyrights

[Cary Bass]

Mike.lifeguard a écrit :
> Some time ago, I suggested using Meta for this purpose. That would be
> the best solution; the second-best being to use Commons and expanding
> the scope to chapter logos and the like (as I suggested already:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Pikiwiki_logo.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=22003706)
> 
>
> Either would be acceptable. The status quo is not.
>
> -Mike
>
Another instance where our policies run contrary to our mission.  We
definitely need to reinvestigate why we are so much in a rush to delete
images such as these which provide no liability on Commons whatsoever,
where the distribution of the logo is entirely acceptable and does not
water down the copyright.

Cary




___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Commons licensing for chapter-owned copyrights

[Mike.lifeguard]

Some time ago, I suggested using Meta for this purpose. That would be
the best solution; the second-best being to use Commons and expanding
the scope to chapter logos and the like (as I suggested already:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Pikiwiki_logo.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=22003706)

Either would be acceptable. The status quo is not.

-Mike

On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 11:16 -0700, Robert Rohde wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Andrew Turvey
>  wrote:
> > I've started a discussion at
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Wikimedia_Chapter_Copyrights
> > regarding the policy of Commons on images where the copyright is owned by a
> > recognised chapter.
> >
> > Commons already recognises an exception for images whose copyrights are
> > owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. This proposal would widen that to cover
> > images whose copyrights are owned by recognised Wikimedia chapters.
> 
> For some time Mediawiki has had the technical capacity to use more
> than one shared media repository simultaneously.
> 
> My personal opinion is that non-free materials owned by the Foundation
> (or chapters, or other authorized uses, etc) should really be shunted
> to a separate repository with Commons reserved for truly free works.
> 
> This could be accomplished either by setting up a new wiki
> specifically for that purpose or by converting an existing wiki, such
> as Meta, to also serve as a shared repository.  The latter is my
> preference.  Move all the unfree content to Meta and configure the
> shared repository settings to also pull from Meta so that the various
> logos and what not would still be accessible to all the projects
> exactly as they are now.
> 
> I think the advantage of clearly separating free and unfree content
> outweighs the disadvantage of having to maintain two repositories.
> 
> -Robert Rohde
> 
> 
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Commons licensing for chapter-owned copyrights

[Eugene Zelenko]

Hi!

I agree that Meta is good place for WMF-owned logos. At least many
purist talks on Commons will be finaly resolved.

Eugene.

On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Robert Rohde  wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Andrew Turvey
>  wrote:
>> I've started a discussion at
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Wikimedia_Chapter_Copyrights
>> regarding the policy of Commons on images where the copyright is owned by a
>> recognised chapter.
>>
>> Commons already recognises an exception for images whose copyrights are
>> owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. This proposal would widen that to cover
>> images whose copyrights are owned by recognised Wikimedia chapters.
>
> For some time Mediawiki has had the technical capacity to use more
> than one shared media repository simultaneously.
>
> My personal opinion is that non-free materials owned by the Foundation
> (or chapters, or other authorized uses, etc) should really be shunted
> to a separate repository with Commons reserved for truly free works.
>
> This could be accomplished either by setting up a new wiki
> specifically for that purpose or by converting an existing wiki, such
> as Meta, to also serve as a shared repository.  The latter is my
> preference.  Move all the unfree content to Meta and configure the
> shared repository settings to also pull from Meta so that the various
> logos and what not would still be accessible to all the projects
> exactly as they are now.
>
> I think the advantage of clearly separating free and unfree content
> outweighs the disadvantage of having to maintain two repositories.
>
> -Robert Rohde
>
> ___
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Commons licensing for chapter-owned copyrights

[David Gerard]

2009/6/4 Robert Rohde :

> My personal opinion is that non-free materials owned by the Foundation
> (or chapters, or other authorized uses, etc) should really be shunted
> to a separate repository with Commons reserved for truly free works.


This has been proposed more than once and rejected.

If our mailing list archives were searchable in Google I'd track down
what the rationales for the rejections were ... does anyone remember
off the top of their heads?


- d.

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Commons licensing for chapter-owned copyrights

[Robert Rohde]

On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Andrew Turvey
 wrote:
> I've started a discussion at
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Wikimedia_Chapter_Copyrights
> regarding the policy of Commons on images where the copyright is owned by a
> recognised chapter.
>
> Commons already recognises an exception for images whose copyrights are
> owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. This proposal would widen that to cover
> images whose copyrights are owned by recognised Wikimedia chapters.

For some time Mediawiki has had the technical capacity to use more
than one shared media repository simultaneously.

My personal opinion is that non-free materials owned by the Foundation
(or chapters, or other authorized uses, etc) should really be shunted
to a separate repository with Commons reserved for truly free works.

This could be accomplished either by setting up a new wiki
specifically for that purpose or by converting an existing wiki, such
as Meta, to also serve as a shared repository.  The latter is my
preference.  Move all the unfree content to Meta and configure the
shared repository settings to also pull from Meta so that the various
logos and what not would still be accessible to all the projects
exactly as they are now.

I think the advantage of clearly separating free and unfree content
outweighs the disadvantage of having to maintain two repositories.

-Robert Rohde

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Pikiwiki project problems

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Key in my mind is that this is a project of the Israeli chapter. These other
organisations are cooperating by growing OUR content. The fact that there
are other organisations involved is not that important to me. The fact that
they collaborate and realise our commons goal is.

Given that my point of view is substantially different from yours you "ass u
me d" that I did not have a look.
Thanks,
   GerardM

2009/6/4 Abigor 

> Gerard,
>
> Did you even check things before you are shouting? The first English page
> on the pikiwiki website say's
>
> "This project is a joint venture of  the Israel Internet Association
> (ISOC-IL),  the Israeli Wikimedia chapter  and the Center for Educational
> Technology (CET) as part of promoting the concept of free content on the
> Web" (source: http://www.pikiwiki.org.il/index.php?action=content&id=21)
>
> The userpage say's
> "Pikiwiki is a joint initiative of Wikimedia Israel (WM-IL), the Israel
> Internet Association (ISOC-IL) and the Center for Educational Technology
> aiming at collecting free-licensed images of special interest, related to
> Israel, from the Israeli public."
>
> On the metapage you can find a complete list with all organisation that
> join this project.
> (
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Israel_free_image_collection_project#Participating_bodies
> )
>
> This pretty much proofs you didn't check anything before you give your
> opinion
>
>
> > Hoi,
> > As far as I am aware this is a project of the Israeli chapter and as such
> > you are wrong.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > 2009/6/4 ChrisiPK 
> >
> >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> Gerard Meijssen schrieb:
> >> > Hoi,
> >> > I would argue that any of the WMF chapters and its projects should be
> >> seen
> >> > as our "own". When this is not accepted it means that Commons is
> >> indeed
> >> an
> >> > island with the drawbridge closed. Truly reconsider because this hurts
> >> us
> >> as
> >> > an organisation. We are not divided by chapters we are organised with
> >> > chapters as our representative.
> >> > Thanks,
> >> >   GerardM
> >>
> >> Pikiwiki is _not_ a chapter, it is an independent third party project.
> >> (Or
> >> did
> >> I get it wrong?)
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> ChrisiPK
> >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
> >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> >>
> >> iEYEARECAAYFAkon8/sACgkQzjPUOXJa0duecwCglWJHUFcgjn3u5sUTW9TU2J+2
> >> VuEAoLoqcmYb0TDjdvoj83EVwgxwIWqn
> >> =XhW1
> >> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Commons-l mailing list
> >> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
> >>
> > ___
> > Commons-l mailing list
> > Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
> >
>
>
> Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor
> msn: abi...@forgotten-beauty.com
>
>
> ___
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Pikiwiki project problems

[Abigor]

Gerard,

Did you even check things before you are shouting? The first English page
on the pikiwiki website say's

"This project is a joint venture of  the Israel Internet Association
(ISOC-IL),  the Israeli Wikimedia chapter  and the Center for Educational
Technology (CET) as part of promoting the concept of free content on the
Web" (source: http://www.pikiwiki.org.il/index.php?action=content&id=21)

The userpage say's
"Pikiwiki is a joint initiative of Wikimedia Israel (WM-IL), the Israel
Internet Association (ISOC-IL) and the Center for Educational Technology
aiming at collecting free-licensed images of special interest, related to
Israel, from the Israeli public."

On the metapage you can find a complete list with all organisation that
join this project.
(http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Israel_free_image_collection_project#Participating_bodies)

This pretty much proofs you didn't check anything before you give your
opinion


> Hoi,
> As far as I am aware this is a project of the Israeli chapter and as such
> you are wrong.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> 2009/6/4 ChrisiPK 
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Gerard Meijssen schrieb:
>> > Hoi,
>> > I would argue that any of the WMF chapters and its projects should be
>> seen
>> > as our "own". When this is not accepted it means that Commons is
>> indeed
>> an
>> > island with the drawbridge closed. Truly reconsider because this hurts
>> us
>> as
>> > an organisation. We are not divided by chapters we are organised with
>> > chapters as our representative.
>> > Thanks,
>> >   GerardM
>>
>> Pikiwiki is _not_ a chapter, it is an independent third party project.
>> (Or
>> did
>> I get it wrong?)
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> ChrisiPK
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>>
>> iEYEARECAAYFAkon8/sACgkQzjPUOXJa0duecwCglWJHUFcgjn3u5sUTW9TU2J+2
>> VuEAoLoqcmYb0TDjdvoj83EVwgxwIWqn
>> =XhW1
>> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>>
>> ___
>> Commons-l mailing list
>> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>>
> ___
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>


Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor
msn: abi...@forgotten-beauty.com


___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Pikiwiki project problems

[Ting Chen]

Hello Huib,

at first I want to make clear that I write this mail as a normal 
community member and not as a board member, and that I am expressing my 
personal opinion and in no way stance of the foundation or the board. 
Just to avoid any possible confusion about this point.

I read the threads about the blocking of the bot and Dror and I think I 
can agree with most of what you said. But in a few points I don't agree 
with you, especially with what you said in this special mail.

Abigor wrote:
> I fail to see why the Foundation is involved. The bot isn't giving enough
> information regarding source and permission and is therefor blocked by
> policy.
>
> That Drork decided to go to the Foundation is just a stupid action, he
> could better spend his time fixing the bot...
>   
There are a few issues here. First of all, this is not only a problem 
inside the community. There are a few parties involved, inside the 
community, for example the Commons, the chapter, and outside the 
community, for example the volunteers and NGOs that are cooperating with 
the Pikiwiki project. The Foundation has a mission and we encourage 
people to put their content free. I see here that you agree with this 
mission:
> I think the project that he is leading is a great idea but it must stay
> within the Commons policys we can't let somebody have other rules than the
> other people.
>   
This mission had inspired a lot of volunteers, including our chapters. 
The German Chapter with the Bundesarchiv was the first of such projects 
that had third party content involved. And this example had again 
inspired a lot of other volunteers and chapters. I remember on the 
Berlin chapters meeting this April Dror told me the session lead by 
Matthias Schindler about the Bundesarchiv project was the best of the 
meeting. I have no doubt that Dror, you, me, we all agree with our mission.

Every project of the foundation has its own culture. In most cases this 
does not matter, because the communities between the projects have only 
very little intersections (in my opinion sadly). Commons is a very 
special project, because it has potentially with every other project 
intersections. People from a smaller community, where most differences 
can be resolved with discussion and concensus can get a culture shock 
when they first have contact with Commons. I don't know if you have this 
rule on commons: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers 
but I think commons administrators should especially sensitive to this 
rule because it has such a wide spread intersection with other projects. 
I have often the feeling that this failed on commons because I know 
quite a lot of people who try to avoid commons because they are afraid 
of the admins there. If inside of our communities such cultural 
differences is such a big issue, what do you imagine how difficult it 
could be if a third party is involved?

Now to Dror specitically. I think there are two reasons why blocking him 
is disastrous. First, for me blocking is something like to say someone 
is an enemy or at least an unwilcome person of the project. Even though 
if that block is only temperal or lifted later, that person is marked in 
some sense. We saw on board election or stewardship election people 
pointing out this person was blocked once or twice, or that person had 
issues with copyright on commons. Dror is a board member of one of the 
Wikimedia chapters. Per definition he is a very trusted person of the 
foundation. So blocking him is like to say a very trusted person of the 
foundation is an unwilcome person of the project. This doesn't help to 
ease the relations between commons and other communities.

Second reason, and in my opinion the more important reason. As I said 
above this is in reality an issue that involves not only commons, 
another wikimedia project or chapter, but also third parties and 
volunteers of third parties. As far as I know Dror is the only link 
person between the two ends (commons on one side and the chapter and 
third party on the other side). I think as a person who works on a 
project that has intersections with all other projects and all the 
different cultures you should also recognize his difficulty in sitting 
between commons and the chapter and the third party. So block him out 
simply cuts off any communication between the two sides.

Personally I don't think Dror wrong in calling help from the foundation. 
At some time the situation is so bad that neither side can resolve the 
problem. I think to call for help is a possibility. The involvement of 
Cary was helpful, at least the whole thing got moving again, and in the 
right direction (a direction, we should all remember this very crucial 
point that we all agree on). It is definitively better than cut off 
communication.

Commons has its rules, and these rules are important. It is important to 
keep copyvios out of commons. But on the other side, dealing with third 
pa

[Commons-l] Pikiwiki project problems

[Andrew Turvey]

> Pikiwiki is _not_ a chapter, it is an independent third party project. (Or 
> did 
> I get it wrong?) 

> Regards, 

> ChrisiPK 

The Pikiwiki Isreal project is run (jointly I think) by Wikimedia Israel, a 
recognised Wikimedia chapter. It should not be treated as "independent" third 
party but indeed part of the broader Wikimedia community. 

Their website is here - http://www.pikiwiki.org.il/ - you can see the WM-Israel 
logo in the top left hand corner. 

Regards, 

Andrew 
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Pikiwiki project problems

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
As far as I am aware this is a project of the Israeli chapter and as such
you are wrong.
Thanks,
  GerardM

2009/6/4 ChrisiPK 

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Gerard Meijssen schrieb:
> > Hoi,
> > I would argue that any of the WMF chapters and its projects should be
> seen
> > as our "own". When this is not accepted it means that Commons is indeed
> an
> > island with the drawbridge closed. Truly reconsider because this hurts us
> as
> > an organisation. We are not divided by chapters we are organised with
> > chapters as our representative.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
>
> Pikiwiki is _not_ a chapter, it is an independent third party project. (Or
> did
> I get it wrong?)
>
> Regards,
>
> ChrisiPK
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkon8/sACgkQzjPUOXJa0duecwCglWJHUFcgjn3u5sUTW9TU2J+2
> VuEAoLoqcmYb0TDjdvoj83EVwgxwIWqn
> =XhW1
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
> ___
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

[Commons-l] Commons licensing for chapter-owned copyrights

[Andrew Turvey]

I've started a discussion at 
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Wikimedia_Chapter_Copyrights
 regarding the policy of Commons on images where the copyright is owned by a 
recognised chapter. 

Commons already recognises an exception for images whose copyrights are owned 
by the Wikimedia Foundation. This proposal would widen that to cover images 
whose copyrights are owned by recognised Wikimedia chapters. 

Please comment there. 

Regards, 

Andrew 
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

[Commons-l] Governance of Commons

[Andrew Turvey]

Cross posting to Commons from internal: 



- "David Gerard"  wrote: 
> From: "David Gerard"  
> To: "Local Chapters, board and officers coordination (closed subscription)" 
>  
> Sent: Thursday, 4 June, 2009 15:26:29 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, 
> Portugal 
> Subject: Re: [Internal-l] Our system is collapsing 
> 
> The issues are ongoing, and well beyond the present case - 
> fundamentally that too many people on Commons don't want it to be a 
> service project. This is unworkable and must be remedied. 

The way the governance is set up at the moment is no different to any other 
project. Maybe if it is to be a "service project", the governance - 
particularly the way admins are selected - should be different from stand-alone 
projects. 

regards, 

Andrew 
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Pikiwiki project problems

[Abigor]

Gerard,

The PikiWiki project is lead by three organisations and not only wikimedia
Israel.

I don't think the problem is Commons accepting the project. But even if we
see it as one of our sisterprojects it still needs to follow Commons
Policies. The same counts for En.Wiki the can't upload fair use on Commons
because the policy. There are other project that al almost the same like
Http://www.wikiportret.nl or photosubmission project on En.wiki both the
projects need to get otrs permission for every upload and give as source
the projectsite. I think this would be a good way to go with Pikiwiki.

About the block, as far as I know the bot is already unblocked. But we
have like 2.500 images already on Commons that need to be fixed before we
upload even more images.

huib

Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor
msn: abi...@forgotten-beauty.com


___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Pikiwiki project problems

[W Knight]

If the bad uploads from the upload bot can eventually be fixed by a fix bot,
then definitely unblock.

On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Mike.lifeguard
wrote:

>  On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 23:26 +0800, Gnangarra wrote:
>
> Is the best move stopping further uploads until resolved, can we work
> around the problems while they are addressed? The basis of the problems is
> the difference between acceptable image licenses and the trail back to the
> source. Commons need the detail Pikiwiki doesnt have enough of it because
> the policies didnt need it due to local laws and the disclaimer they used.
>
>
> I'm not convinced that it is best to keep the bot blocked. Most of the
> uploads are just fine, and it'd be great if we could allow the more reliable
> uploads to continue, even while work is being done to rectify some of the
> issues which were raised. I think it'd be helpful to hear from Drork or
> someone else involved in that project whether such an arrangement could be
> achieved.
>
> -Mike
>
> ___
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Pikiwiki project problems

[Mike.lifeguard]

On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 23:26 +0800, Gnangarra wrote:

> Is the best move stopping further uploads until resolved, can we work
> around the problems while they are addressed? The basis of the
> problems is the difference between acceptable image licenses and the
> trail back to the source. Commons need the detail Pikiwiki doesnt have
> enough of it because the policies didnt need it due to local laws and
> the disclaimer they used.
> 


I'm not convinced that it is best to keep the bot blocked. Most of the
uploads are just fine, and it'd be great if we could allow the more
reliable uploads to continue, even while work is being done to rectify
some of the issues which were raised. I think it'd be helpful to hear
from Drork or someone else involved in that project whether such an
arrangement could be achieved.

-Mike
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Pikiwiki project problems

[ChrisiPK]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Gerard Meijssen schrieb:
> Hoi,
> I would argue that any of the WMF chapters and its projects should be seen
> as our "own". When this is not accepted it means that Commons is indeed an
> island with the drawbridge closed. Truly reconsider because this hurts us as
> an organisation. We are not divided by chapters we are organised with
> chapters as our representative.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM

Pikiwiki is _not_ a chapter, it is an independent third party project. (Or did
I get it wrong?)

Regards,

ChrisiPK
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkon8/sACgkQzjPUOXJa0duecwCglWJHUFcgjn3u5sUTW9TU2J+2
VuEAoLoqcmYb0TDjdvoj83EVwgxwIWqn
=XhW1
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Pikiwiki project problems

[Mike.lifeguard]

On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 15:41 +0200, Maarten Dammers wrote:

> Eugene Zelenko schreef:
> > Upload bot was blocked, not Dror.
> Actually Dror was blocked too. He went on an "I want to get blocked 
> mission" (starting editwars and other disruptive behaviour). This post 
> describes is quite well:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FUser_problems&diff=21997128&oldid=21997107
> 
> Maarten
> 


Yes, that accurately describes his behaviour. Nonetheless, I've
unblocked him and left him some comments. I fully expect that he will be
concentrating on fixing the issues with Pikiwikisrael instead of more
edit warring, thus the block was no longer preventative. If I'm wrong,
then another block may become necessary, provided it is a last resort to
prevent disruption to the project. Drork is aware that he is not getting
a free pass from me.

-Mike
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Pikiwiki project problems

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I would argue that any of the WMF chapters and its projects should be seen
as our "own". When this is not accepted it means that Commons is indeed an
island with the drawbridge closed. Truly reconsider because this hurts us as
an organisation. We are not divided by chapters we are organised with
chapters as our representative.
Thanks,
  GerardM

2009/6/4 Abigor 

> Hello,
>
> I fail to see why the Foundation is involved. The bot isn't giving enough
> information regarding source and permission and is therefor blocked by
> policy.
>
> That Drork decided to go to the Foundation is just a stupid action, he
> could better spend his time fixing the bot...
>
> I think the project that he is leading is a great idea but it must stay
> within the Commons policys we can't let somebody have other rules than the
> other people.
>
> The Pikiwiki logo is nominated for Deletion by me. The reasson therefor is
> simple. Commons does not accept unfree media from different organisations
> than the Foundation itself. Since that logo isn't protected by the
> Foundation is can't stay as all rights reserved on Commons.
>
> Huib
>
> Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor
> msn: abi...@forgotten-beauty.com
>
>
> ___
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Pikiwiki project problems

[Gnangarra]

Folks before this disolves into a pointy session we know the whole process
derailed a long time ago the block Dror was to protect the person and
project there's no reason to disect it on this list.

Whats needed is solutions to resolve the problems with image uploads and
heal the wounds

Is the best move stopping further uploads until resolved, can we work around
the problems while they are addressed? The basis of the problems is the
difference between acceptable image licenses and the trail back to the
source. Commons need the detail Pikiwiki doesnt have enough of it because
the policies didnt need it due to local laws and the disclaimer they used.

Commons issues arent with every file in fact from the way the discussion on
commons is worded it appears to only be about 20% the files. Why cant we
continue to extract the other 80% of images until we can address the issue
with the remaining images?

Is Pikiwiki closing down, can they retain the problematic images there, aka
en with fair use images?

Is there something in the background that isnt being covered, ie server
locations?



2009/6/4 Abigor 

> I am the admin that blocked Drork  for  72 hours.
>
> The reasson I blocked him is very simple... He is/was removing Deletion
> template from images pages and that ended on several places in a editwar.
> By removing templates he did made him self a danger for the system Commons
> works with. He was warned several times by other users than me, so the
> only option to stop it was a block.
>
> I don't see myself as a block happy admin. I patrol the recent changes a
> lot and delete copyvios a lot. In my time as Administrator on Commons I
> placed 38 blocks. By saying it was a bad faith block you are saying that I
> shouldn't have blocked him. I hope you can give some good reassons for
> that.
>
> Btw if I need to defend my block on him I would be happy to do so.. But on
> Commons not on a mailing list.
>
> Huib
> Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor
> msn: abi...@forgotten-beauty.com
>
>
> ___
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>



-- 
GN.
http://gnangarra.redbubble.com/
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Pikiwiki project problems

[Abigor]

I am the admin that blocked Drork  for  72 hours.

The reasson I blocked him is very simple... He is/was removing Deletion
template from images pages and that ended on several places in a editwar.
By removing templates he did made him self a danger for the system Commons
works with. He was warned several times by other users than me, so the
only option to stop it was a block.

I don't see myself as a block happy admin. I patrol the recent changes a
lot and delete copyvios a lot. In my time as Administrator on Commons I
placed 38 blocks. By saying it was a bad faith block you are saying that I
shouldn't have blocked him. I hope you can give some good reassons for
that.

Btw if I need to defend my block on him I would be happy to do so.. But on
Commons not on a mailing list.

Huib
Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor
msn: abi...@forgotten-beauty.com


___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Pikiwiki project problems

[Alex Brollo]

2009/6/4 David Gerard 

>
>
> I'd hope you could substantiate such a claim of bad faith with more
> than a link to another admin (the class under inspection here)
> claiming the same.
>
> ___
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>

I took a look to main discussion I'm so sad  Very unkind, very
confuse. I think, it's very hard for an admin to manage this kind of issues
... how much lost time, how much lost energy. :-(  And this is my single
opinion about.

-- 
Alex
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Pikiwiki project problems

[David Gerard]

2009/6/4 Maarten Dammers :

> Actually Dror was blocked too. He went on an "I want to get blocked
> mission" (starting editwars and other disruptive behaviour).


I'd hope you could substantiate such a claim of bad faith with more
than a link to another admin (the class under inspection here)
claiming the same.


- d.

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Pikiwiki project problems

[Maarten Dammers]

Eugene Zelenko schreef:
> Upload bot was blocked, not Dror.
Actually Dror was blocked too. He went on an "I want to get blocked 
mission" (starting editwars and other disruptive behaviour). This post 
describes is quite well:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FUser_problems&diff=21997128&oldid=21997107

Maarten


___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Pikiwiki project problems

[Eugene Zelenko]

Hi!

Please read entire
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Pikiwikisrael
before making far reaching conclusions.

Upload bot was blocked, not Dror.

Eugene.

On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 6:31 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
> 2009/6/4 Mike.lifeguard :
>
>> Yes, this whole episode has been a failure for all involved - there is no
>> shortage of blame to spread around. However pointing fingers at this point
>> is unlikely to be particularly helpful. Instead, we shoul focus on fixing
>> the problems which were raised (which are real), and reigning in some of the
>> more block-happy admins. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that this
>> couldn't have been resolve amicably and without blocking anyone or anything.
>
>
> So what's likely to happen from Dror now being blocked? Anything?
> Nothing? Even a "don't do it again" to the blocking admin? No?
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Pikiwiki project problems

[David Gerard]

2009/6/4 Mike.lifeguard :

> Yes, this whole episode has been a failure for all involved - there is no
> shortage of blame to spread around. However pointing fingers at this point
> is unlikely to be particularly helpful. Instead, we shoul focus on fixing
> the problems which were raised (which are real), and reigning in some of the
> more block-happy admins. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that this
> couldn't have been resolve amicably and without blocking anyone or anything.


So what's likely to happen from Dror now being blocked? Anything?
Nothing? Even a "don't do it again" to the blocking admin? No?


- d.

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Pikiwiki project problems

[Mike.lifeguard]

On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 12:36 +0100, David Gerard wrote:

> 2009/6/4 Maarten Dammers :
> > David Gerard schreef:
> 
> >> Anyone here have anything to say on the problems?
> 
> > You might want to read
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Pikiwikisrael
> > It pretty much sums up all problems (and possible solutions!).
> 
> 
> From that thread, I think I can conclusively say: if Commons has been
> obstructively bureaucratic to the point that an entire chapter (WM-IL)
> will no longer work with it ... then Commons has *failed utterly* as a
> service project, and will need reining in at the Foundation level.
> 
> 
> - d.
> 



Yes, this whole episode has been a failure for all involved - there is
no shortage of blame to spread around. However pointing fingers at this
point is unlikely to be particularly helpful. Instead, we shoul focus on
fixing the problems which were raised (which are real), and reigning in
some of the more block-happy admins. There is absolutely no reason
whatsoever that this couldn't have been resolve amicably and without
blocking anyone or anything.

-Mike
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Pikiwiki project problems

[Abigor]

Hello,

I fail to see why the Foundation is involved. The bot isn't giving enough
information regarding source and permission and is therefor blocked by
policy.

That Drork decided to go to the Foundation is just a stupid action, he
could better spend his time fixing the bot...

I think the project that he is leading is a great idea but it must stay
within the Commons policys we can't let somebody have other rules than the
other people.

The Pikiwiki logo is nominated for Deletion by me. The reasson therefor is
simple. Commons does not accept unfree media from different organisations
than the Foundation itself. Since that logo isn't protected by the
Foundation is can't stay as all rights reserved on Commons.

Huib

Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor
msn: abi...@forgotten-beauty.com


___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Pikiwiki project problems

[geni]

2009/6/4 David Gerard :
> From that thread, I think I can conclusively say: if Commons has been
> obstructively bureaucratic to the point that an entire chapter (WM-IL)
> will no longer work with it ... then Commons has *failed utterly* as a
> service project, and will need reining in at the Foundation level.

Not an accurate description of events. Commons simply doesn't trust
any 3rd party when it comes to copyright and thus wants information
that can be used to judge and verify claims. WM-IL has reacted to this
is a rather forthright manner.

Foundation can't do anything without some legal stupid statements with
regards to it's position on copyright.

Most of Commons's concerns can be adress without to much difficulty
but WM-IL needs to accept that commons is not doing what it is doing
because it is anti isreal but because it takes copyright seriously.
Equaly commons needs to accept that the situation can be improved.

-- 
geni

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Pikiwiki project problems

[Eusebius]

David Gerard a écrit :

2009/6/4 Maarten Dammers :
  

You might want to read
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Pikiwikisrael
It pretty much sums up all problems (and possible solutions!).


From that thread, I think I can conclusively say: if Commons has been
obstructively bureaucratic to the point that an entire chapter (WM-IL)
will no longer work with it ... then Commons has *failed utterly* as a
service project, and will need reining in at the Foundation level.
  
I'm not much involved in that issue (and don't really want to be), but 
when I see ONE user saying "accept all our pictures without challenging 
their copyright status or I close a whole Wikimedia chapter", I think 
that maybe the other side of the issue can be considered as well: maybe 
that's not only Commons failing to serve anyone willing to be served.


Eusebius
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Pikiwiki project problems

[David Gerard]

2009/6/4 Maarten Dammers :
> David Gerard schreef:

>> Anyone here have anything to say on the problems?

> You might want to read
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Pikiwikisrael
> It pretty much sums up all problems (and possible solutions!).


>From that thread, I think I can conclusively say: if Commons has been
obstructively bureaucratic to the point that an entire chapter (WM-IL)
will no longer work with it ... then Commons has *failed utterly* as a
service project, and will need reining in at the Foundation level.


- d.

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Pikiwiki project problems

[Maarten Dammers]

David Gerard schreef:
> Anyone here have anything to say on the problems?
>   
You might want to read 
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Pikiwikisrael
It pretty much sums up all problems (and possible solutions!).

Maarten


___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Pikiwiki project problems

[David Gerard]

2009/6/4 Gerard Meijssen :

> Well the most basic thing is that the logo of the project has been marked
> for deletion. This is the same old argument as happened over Wikimedia
> Foundation logos.


Sounds like people who don't want Commons to be a service project and
are resorting to bureaucratic obstructionalism.


- d.

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Pikiwiki project problems

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Well the most basic thing is that the logo of the project has been marked
for deletion. This is the same old argument as happened over Wikimedia
Foundation logos.

I do have something to say about this project. It is an issue that I raised
with Dror at some stage... the timing was not opportune he told me.. Given
the description about this current issue, my issue is likely to be
unrelated. However, the amount of info given is such that I might be wrong
at that.,
Thanks,
  Gerard

2009/6/4 David Gerard 

> There are severe public relations problems between WM-IL and some
> Commons admins at present over the Pikiwiki project. They're getting
> attention at the Foundation level.
>
> Anyone here have anything to say on the problems?
>
> (They appear to relate to how much of a service project for other
> Wikimedia projects Commons is, can be and bothers to act like instead
> of being bureacratically obstructive.)
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

[Commons-l] Pikiwiki project problems

[David Gerard]

There are severe public relations problems between WM-IL and some
Commons admins at present over the Pikiwiki project. They're getting
attention at the Foundation level.

Anyone here have anything to say on the problems?

(They appear to relate to how much of a service project for other
Wikimedia projects Commons is, can be and bothers to act like instead
of being bureacratically obstructive.)


- d.

___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l