Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [Commons-l] Making Wikimedia Commons less frightening

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When people from other projects tell me that this is one of the reasons why
they do not bother with Commons, I have to disbelieve them? Try to find
"paard" and you will not be served in the same way as with "horse" the
search result is inferior. Dutch is not the worst option, try "ίππος"  and
you find nothing. This is Greek and it also means horse.

It is indeed ridiculous that for people who do not read / write English,
Commons not a resource that is functional as a resource where you find
freely lincensed pictures. It is however a fact. Do some studies and ask
people to find images, people who do not read English. Try it in Arabic,
Russian, German, Mandarin, French or Dutch. When that does not convince you
try Neapolitan, Nepali, Bangla, Hindi or Xhosa. Have them search for things
that are of interest to a seven year old. Things like a horse...

I have had the financing to create a demonstration project that demonstrates
that this is a problem that can be solved. Our resources were limited so the
result is not as polished as I would hope for, but it does include the
category tree translated.

So the bad news is that Commons is unusable for everyone who does not read
English and the good news is, that it is a solvable problem.
Thanks,
  GerardM

2008/12/9 Brion Vibber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > Commons provides no benefit except for sharing the same picture to people
> > who do not read / write English. They cannot possibly find pictures and
> > consequently for them Commons is useless.
>
> That's simply ridiculous.
>
> Many files, categories, and galleries are labeled in multiple
> languages... or even not in English at all. :)
>
> Certainly it'll be *more useful* as we're able to add more widespread
> tag/category translations to help automate cross-language search, but
> the notion that people "cannot possibly find pictures" or that the site
> is "useless" is ridiculous and undermines the legitimate portion of your
> position (that it would be good to add more multilingual features to
> Commons).
>
> - -- brion
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkk9y5AACgkQwRnhpk1wk45ATACgmK2BtPl5YFs2ht1QcspC1zvE
> TygAoMcWp+0sQtAGo5ky28hl1usgLpTF
> =twDY
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [Commons-l] Making Wikimedia Commons less frightening

[Brion Vibber]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> Commons provides no benefit except for sharing the same picture to people
> who do not read / write English. They cannot possibly find pictures and
> consequently for them Commons is useless.

That's simply ridiculous.

Many files, categories, and galleries are labeled in multiple
languages... or even not in English at all. :)

Certainly it'll be *more useful* as we're able to add more widespread
tag/category translations to help automate cross-language search, but
the notion that people "cannot possibly find pictures" or that the site
is "useless" is ridiculous and undermines the legitimate portion of your
position (that it would be good to add more multilingual features to
Commons).

- -- brion
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkk9y5AACgkQwRnhpk1wk45ATACgmK2BtPl5YFs2ht1QcspC1zvE
TygAoMcWp+0sQtAGo5ky28hl1usgLpTF
=twDY
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] WP edit/access blocking in the UK - statement from the WMF

[Kwan Ting Chan]

Platonides wrote:

David Gerard wrote:

2008/12/8 Jay A. Walsh:



http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Censorship_of_WP_in_the_UK_Dec_2008


http://www.boingboing.net/2008/12/07/how-the-great-firewa.html

How the Great Firewall of Britain works

- d.


Interesting, which urls are they blocking?


AFAWK, an exact match in page request for 
, and 
 and nothing else. 
As been said, any variation to that is unblocked, including when the 
above image is part of any other articles.


KTC

--
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine


PGP.sig
Description: PGP signature
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] fund

[Huib Laurens]

Hi,

I don't have any problems with transfering money to the Wikimedia
Foundation. But i don't give money to Igor.

See ya
Huib

-- 
Leave nothing but footprints, take nothing but pictures

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:SterkeBak

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] fund

[Huib Laurens]

Hi,

I don't have any problems with transfering money to the Wikimedia
Foundation. But i don't give money to Igor.

See ya
Huib

-- 
Leave nothing but footprints, take nothing but pictures

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:SterkeBak

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [Commons-l] Making Wikimedia Commons less frightening

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I would prefer work done on the usability of Commons. Not solving the issues
means that we will never get a repository of images that because of its
composition offers a non biased view of the world.  Once people who do not
speak English share in the benefits of Commons and are able to find images
as well as anyone else we will have largely overcome the bias because once
these people profit from Commons, they are likely to upload to Commons as
well.

Policies and stuff are evolved and determined by discussion,.Commons needs
the adoption of the idea that these other languages need to be supported as
much as English is. Once this idea has been adopted, software can be adopted
or developed that gives Commons relevance in the rest of the world.
Thanks,
 GerardM

2008/12/8 Judson Dunn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > Commons provides no benefit except for sharing the same picture to people
> > who do not read / write English. They cannot possibly find pictures and
> > consequently for them Commons is useless. Add to this the extreme loads
> of
> > work of the Commons admins resulting in an unfriendly attitude towards
> > people who do not frequent Commons and those who do not speak English and
> > you appreciate why Commons has only 3.600.201 media files.
> > Thanks,
> >  GerardM
> >
>
> Right, it's baffling to me why a non-english speaking wikipedia would
> decide to be commons-only. Enwiki doesn't do it, and we speak english,
> why would they? That a new user who doesn't speak english could
> successfully upload an image to commons, and integrate it into their
> local wikipedia is completely unlikely in my opinion.
>
> I would also *very strongly* opposed making enwiki commons only for
> different reasons. I do not support a degradation of people's rights.
> Wikipedia servers should be placed in a country that is most legally
> convenient, and we should follow those laws. Maybe that's the US,
> maybe not. Playing to the most restrictive laws is a losing game, and
> one I don't see any reason to play. It is very much the *game* that
> exists on commons now.
>
> Having said that, I don't see any reason to shutter commons, or even
> talk in that direction. Wikipedia's should have their own images, some
> of which can be moved to commons, by people that care. If commons
> wants to be a repository who are in no way beholden to the other
> projects, and not a service wiki for them I think that's their
> decision to make. People should be aware of that change if it's what
> they want to do though, so they can plan accordingly.
>
> Judson
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Users:Cohesion
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] fund

[John Reaves]

Mod fail?

On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 3:30 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>
> Dear sirs!
>
> My name is IGOR KULAGIN I live in Bulgaria
> I very much wish to receive any money, but me have warned that it is
> all a deceit and
> Swindle.
> If you think that it not so-then pay for delivery of money in my address or
> Into my bank account. I the fair person also will send you half of
> received sum.
> I wait for your actions and you receive exactly 50 % from the sum
> received by me.
>
> You take from them of 50 % for service, and others of 50 % send on mine
> The bank account
>
>   Yours faithfully IGOR KULAGIN
>
>  BULGARIA, 9101, BYALA, Varnenska obl. ul. Kamchia, 3.
>
> POSTBANK, BG 18 BPBI 7945 41 60207201 USD
>  BIC: BPBIBGSF
>
>
>  Ph.00359897374324
>
>
>
> -
>
> Хостинг от 2.60 лв/м|Домейни от 17.46 лв/с ДДС|Сървъри, VPS от 42.00
> лв/м с ДДС
> 12 GB място, Неограничен трафик, Безплатен домейн �C 5.70 лв./м с ДДС!
> 17 GB място, 700 GB трафик, Безплатен домейн �C 11.46 лв./м с ДДС!
>  http://icn.bg/
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
John Reaves
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [Commons-l] Making Wikimedia Commons less frightening

[Judson Dunn]

On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hoi,
> Commons provides no benefit except for sharing the same picture to people
> who do not read / write English. They cannot possibly find pictures and
> consequently for them Commons is useless. Add to this the extreme loads of
> work of the Commons admins resulting in an unfriendly attitude towards
> people who do not frequent Commons and those who do not speak English and
> you appreciate why Commons has only 3.600.201 media files.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>

Right, it's baffling to me why a non-english speaking wikipedia would
decide to be commons-only. Enwiki doesn't do it, and we speak english,
why would they? That a new user who doesn't speak english could
successfully upload an image to commons, and integrate it into their
local wikipedia is completely unlikely in my opinion.

I would also *very strongly* opposed making enwiki commons only for
different reasons. I do not support a degradation of people's rights.
Wikipedia servers should be placed in a country that is most legally
convenient, and we should follow those laws. Maybe that's the US,
maybe not. Playing to the most restrictive laws is a losing game, and
one I don't see any reason to play. It is very much the *game* that
exists on commons now.

Having said that, I don't see any reason to shutter commons, or even
talk in that direction. Wikipedia's should have their own images, some
of which can be moved to commons, by people that care. If commons
wants to be a repository who are in no way beholden to the other
projects, and not a service wiki for them I think that's their
decision to make. People should be aware of that change if it's what
they want to do though, so they can plan accordingly.

Judson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Users:Cohesion

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] fund

[eu777]

Dear sirs!

My name is IGOR KULAGIN I live in Bulgaria
I very much wish to receive any money, but me have warned that it is  
all a deceit and
Swindle.
If you think that it not so-then pay for delivery of money in my address or
Into my bank account. I the fair person also will send you half of  
received sum.
I wait for your actions and you receive exactly 50 % from the sum  
received by me.

You take from them of 50 % for service, and others of 50 % send on mine
The bank account

   Yours faithfully IGOR KULAGIN

  BULGARIA, 9101, BYALA, Varnenska obl. ul. Kamchia, 3.

POSTBANK, BG 18 BPBI 7945 41 60207201 USD
  BIC: BPBIBGSF


  Ph.00359897374324



-

Хостинг от 2.60 лв/м|Домейни от 17.46 лв/с ДДС|Сървъри, VPS от 42.00  
лв/м с ДДС
12 GB място, Неограничен трафик, Безплатен домейн – 5.70 лв./м с ДДС!
17 GB място, 700 GB трафик, Безплатен домейн – 11.46 лв./м с ДДС!
  http://icn.bg/
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Annual Fundraiser 2008 update

[Andrew Gray]

2008/12/8 David Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/12/8 Rand Montoya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> 1) A quick update of the community giving stats (gifts less than
>> $10,000) for the first 35 days of the fundraiser:
>
>
> How many donations in the name of The Scorpions? ;-D

At least one this morning - "Re Scorpions: I disapprove of what you
say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. (Voltaire on
censorship)"

It'd be interesting to see if this whole nonsense helped at all.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Annual Fundraiser 2008 update

[David Gerard]

2008/12/8 Rand Montoya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> 1) A quick update of the community giving stats (gifts less than
> $10,000) for the first 35 days of the fundraiser:


How many donations in the name of The Scorpions? ;-D


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [Commons-l] Making Wikimedia Commons less frightening

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Commons provides no benefit except for sharing the same picture to people
who do not read / write English. They cannot possibly find pictures and
consequently for them Commons is useless. Add to this the extreme loads of
work of the Commons admins resulting in an unfriendly attitude towards
people who do not frequent Commons and those who do not speak English and
you appreciate why Commons has only 3.600.201 media files.
Thanks,
  GerardM

2008/12/8 phoebe ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 1:00 PM, David Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I speak as a big fan of and participant in Wikimedia Commons.
> >
> > But: Is it time to deprecate Commons as a WMF service project? It's
> > clearly failing and the local "community" is actively hostile to
> > contributors from other wikis.
> >
> > Commons appears to have forgotten it was created as a service project
> > for other WMF wikis. It's not doing the job any more.
> >
> > Discussions please. (Not denial that this problem is a problem, thanks.)
>
> I don't participate in Commons (photography's not really my thing).
> But I *do* actively promote it as an awesome place to find free media.
> I was under the impression that the project had some time ago moved
> beyond simply being a technically convenient service project, and
> everyone was pretty well agreed on that. Am I wrong? Is this about the
> idea of Commons per se, or about issues with the individual people
> involved?
>
> -- phoebe
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [Commons-l] Making Wikimedia Commons less frightening

[phoebe ayers]

On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 1:00 PM, David Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I speak as a big fan of and participant in Wikimedia Commons.
>
> But: Is it time to deprecate Commons as a WMF service project? It's
> clearly failing and the local "community" is actively hostile to
> contributors from other wikis.
>
> Commons appears to have forgotten it was created as a service project
> for other WMF wikis. It's not doing the job any more.
>
> Discussions please. (Not denial that this problem is a problem, thanks.)

I don't participate in Commons (photography's not really my thing).
But I *do* actively promote it as an awesome place to find free media.
I was under the impression that the project had some time ago moved
beyond simply being a technically convenient service project, and
everyone was pretty well agreed on that. Am I wrong? Is this about the
idea of Commons per se, or about issues with the individual people
involved?

-- phoebe

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] WP edit/access blocking in the UK - statement from the WMF

[Anthony]

On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Platonides <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Anthony wrote:
> >>> Any page containing the url of the image would make more sense.
> >>>
> >>> Are they blocking
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Killer&oldid=256621147?
> >>
> >
> > I guess http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=256621147 would be a
> It was edited since I send my previous msg :P
>

My point was that the URL I gave doesn't have the image in it.

But apparently they aren't blocking those other URLs anyway.  I
misunderstood what you were saying in your message.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Making Wikimedia Commons less frightening

[Ray Saintonge]

Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> So I will grant you that it is not only language that makes for
> rocky relations. However, people who can read / write English are the ones
> that have the necessary ability to get value out of Commons, they are the
> only ones who really benefit from the project

An extension of that point is that it takes a somewhat greater skill in 
English to participate in policy discussions.


Ec

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] WP edit/access blocking in the UK - statement from the WMF

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Platonides <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> The real test would be checking
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/33/Virgin_Killer.jpg
>
> It's at a different ip and domain, so I wouldn't be too surprised to
> find that they're blocking the article (talking about the image issue)
> and not the image itself which they are supposedly trying to block.

This has been pointed out on the lists and the wiki.
They are not blocking the image itself. They are not even intercepting
the upload.wikimedia.org traffic.

As far as we are aware are blocking only two URL, the article and the
image description pages. The matches appear to be exact matches, all
of the above proposed evasions work.  The image shows fine when placed
in other articles.

Of course, we can't know what else is being done: Other pages could be
blocked, perhaps logs of everything you view are being sold to the
highest bidder?  Can't know. We just know that ISPs are running
servers which pretend to be Wikimedia's IP, which capture the traffic
and produce fake error messages for at least two URLs. That may be all
we'll ever know.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Annual Fundraiser 2008 update

[Rand Montoya]

Hey All--

A couple of updates on the Annual Fundraiser:

1) A quick update of the community giving stats (gifts less than 
$10,000) for the first 35 days of the fundraiser:

2007: 31,956 donors giving a total of $895,405.01. Average gift is $28.02.
2008: 53,519 donors giving a total of $1,542,543.41. Average gift is $28.82.

We're holding steady about $27K to $30K per day. More and full stats 
here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:ContributionStatistics.

2) You can find the latest post about our site notices here: 
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/12/06/site-notices-people-actually-read-them/ 

Long blog post short: People do read the site notices. Sounds crazy, but 
they do. Our messaging matters. People love the "Wikipedia is there when 
you need it - now it needs you"...whereas "Wikipedia: Making Life 
Easier" has not done as well.

3) Next few site notices were delayed, but will be going live this week. 
The first two are here:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NoticeTemplate/view&template=2008_scales
 
(left messaging to be tested/changed)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NoticeTemplate/view&template=2008_wikipedia_has_helped_meter

We should have two more live by mid-week.

4) In addition to getting more site notices up, we will be working on 
increasing our conversion rate (the rate for which donors give after 
they click on a banner). Right now our conversion rate is dropped 
steadily since the beginning of the fundraiser. It started at 12% or so 
and now stands closer to 3.5%. I'll be working with a few tweaks to try 
to push this up a bit...try to close the sale and get those who are 
thinking about donating to donate.

I appreciate all that have contributed ideas and thoughts. You'll be 
seeing some of those ideas soon.

Rand Montoya
Head of Community Giving

-- 
Rand Montoya  
Head of Community Giving
Wikimedia Foundation
www.wikimedia.org
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: 415.839.6885 x615
Fax: 415.882.0495
Cell: 510.685.7030

“At some future time, I hope to have something witty, 
intelligent, or funny in this space.”


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] WP edit/access blocking in the UK - statement from the WMF

[Platonides]

Anthony wrote:
>>> Any page containing the url of the image would make more sense.
>>>
>>> Are they blocking
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Killer&oldid=256621147 ?
>>
> 
> I guess http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=256621147 would be a
It was edited since I send my previous msg :P

The real test would be checking
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/33/Virgin_Killer.jpg

It's at a different ip and domain, so I wouldn't be too surprised to
find that they're blocking the article (talking about the image issue)
and not the image itself which they are supposedly trying to block.


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] WP edit/access blocking in the UK - statement from the WMF

[Anthony]

On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Platonides <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> David Gerard wrote:
>> > 2008/12/8 Jay A. Walsh:
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Censorship_of_WP_in_the_UK_Dec_2008
>> >
>> >
>> > http://www.boingboing.net/2008/12/07/how-the-great-firewa.html
>> >
>> > How the Great Firewall of Britain works
>> >
>> > - d.
>>
>> Interesting, which urls are they blocking?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Killer
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer?bypass_censorship
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Killer&iwf=please_dont_censor_me
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=256646302
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IDW_censors_wikipedia&action=submit&preload=Virgin_Killer
>>
>> Blocking each and every way to access one article on MediaWiki is a bit
>> hard. Unless thay are actually reading the page content and so risk
>> blocking any page containing the words 'Virgin Killer'.
>
>
> Any page containing the url of the image would make more sense.
>
> Are they blocking
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Killer&oldid=256621147 ?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] WP edit/access blocking in the UK - statement from the WMF

[Anthony]

On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Platonides <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> David Gerard wrote:
> > 2008/12/8 Jay A. Walsh:
> >
> >
> >>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Censorship_of_WP_in_the_UK_Dec_2008
> >
> >
> > http://www.boingboing.net/2008/12/07/how-the-great-firewa.html
> >
> > How the Great Firewall of Britain works
> >
> > - d.
>
> Interesting, which urls are they blocking?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Killer
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer?bypass_censorship
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Killer&iwf=please_dont_censor_me
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=256646302
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IDW_censors_wikipedia&action=submit&preload=Virgin_Killer
>
> Blocking each and every way to access one article on MediaWiki is a bit
> hard. Unless thay are actually reading the page content and so risk
> blocking any page containing the words 'Virgin Killer'.


Any page containing the url of the image would make more sense.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] WP edit/access blocking in the UK - statement from the WMF

[Anthony]

On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Platonides <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> David Gerard wrote:
>>> > 2008/12/8 Jay A. Walsh:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Censorship_of_WP_in_the_UK_Dec_2008
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > http://www.boingboing.net/2008/12/07/how-the-great-firewa.html
>>> >
>>> > How the Great Firewall of Britain works
>>> >
>>> > - d.
>>>
>>> Interesting, which urls are they blocking?
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Killer
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer?bypass_censorship
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Killer&iwf=please_dont_censor_me
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=256646302
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IDW_censors_wikipedia&action=submit&preload=Virgin_Killer
>>>
>>> Blocking each and every way to access one article on MediaWiki is a bit
>>> hard. Unless thay are actually reading the page content and so risk
>>> blocking any page containing the words 'Virgin Killer'.
>>
>>
>> Any page containing the url of the image would make more sense.
>>
>> Are they blocking
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Killer&oldid=256621147 ?
>

I guess http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=256621147 would be a
better test.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Making Wikimedia Commons less frightening

[Brion Vibber]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Bryan Tong Minh wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 8:57 PM, Dennis During <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Is there not a record of what projects actually link to commons material? If
>> not, why not
>>
> 
> There is none because nobody made one.
> 
> There is of course Duesentrieb's checkusage, but that only works per image.

Native support for usage tracking would be rather useful; I'm going to
bump priority on this...

- -- brion
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkk9ZXcACgkQwRnhpk1wk44IXQCfZ/m+5JTG6b1ZHAZq8vrb1Cy1
nKYAn2eR7IS6kBfepXbihE9LYGJTqje1
=Yl22
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] WP edit/access blocking in the UK - statement from the WMF

[Platonides]

David Gerard wrote:
> 2008/12/8 Jay A. Walsh:
> 
> 
>> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Censorship_of_WP_in_the_UK_Dec_2008
> 
> 
> http://www.boingboing.net/2008/12/07/how-the-great-firewa.html
> 
> How the Great Firewall of Britain works
> 
> - d.

Interesting, which urls are they blocking?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Killer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer?bypass_censorship
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Killer&iwf=please_dont_censor_me
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=256646302
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IDW_censors_wikipedia&action=submit&preload=Virgin_Killer

Blocking each and every way to access one article on MediaWiki is a bit
hard. Unless thay are actually reading the page content and so risk
blocking any page containing the words 'Virgin Killer'.


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] The new iteration

[Milos Rancic]

On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Milos Rancic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anybody alive?
>
> The iteration goes like:
> * I start to talk about low activity on the list.
> * Erik mentions that new step toward license migration has been happened.
> * Others get some idea to talk about.
> * The new iteration of discussion begins.
>
> So, let's try: This list became dead once again!

I was wrong... I didn't get an email from foundation-l since December
4th. But, I didn't check the archive until I realized that it is very
uncommon not to see any reaction after a joke. So, I saw that
everything is fine; there is no need to repeat the iteration :)

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Making Wikimedia Commons less frightening

[teun spaans]

Cite: Adding to this, a culture of deletionism and arrogance has
infested Wikimedia Commons in the last year or two.  
I think on the whole i can agree with this. And it is not limited to
copyright violations. Commons has turned celf-centered more and more over
the past years.

Out of disgust over its bad organization, i have limited my presence on
commons as much as possible. But one of the last times I logged on, there
was a poll or vote which looked like it was designed to limit voting to hard
code commonists: volunteers had to do at least 20-50 edits a month to be
able to vote. I think it is ridiculous that a small bunch of hard core
volunteers try to lock out those of who are actually contributing the media.
Luckily it was stopped, but mainly on technical grounds, not because it is
ethically incorrect to lock contributors out.

(But may be I am prejudiced, once an enthousiastic supporter of commons, i
nowadays avoid it as much as possible in wiki contexts - which forces me to
use it regularly, much to my charin).

A good question is of cource: why are flickr, webshots and picassa so much
more popular than commons? And: can we create a free alternative that can
compete with them?

Sometimes i wonder if some wikia like organization could do a better
service, with a wider scope of images - if i would try to upload my holiday
pix on commons they would speedily get deleted as "not encyclopedic". But
while some are not encyclopedic, many would qualify for free usage, such as
cities, panoramas, and even some people pix.

I wish you health and happiness,
Teun Spaans


On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 11:31 PM, Lars Aronsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
>
> > That might be a hell of a incentive to change. Before we talk
> > about getting out the torches, I think we should see if we can
> > make Commons functional. The incentive of being shuttered makes
> > it more relevant to those who are in denial. I have made two
> > suggestions on improvements. One is a training program with
> > specific handling, i.e. no more we delete in 7 days, a different
> > template that is more collegial. The second is to cross appoint
> > administrators from underrepresented projects who agree to
> > undergo a boot camp program. Thoughts?
>
> Maybe we are too fast to discuss solutions now, when we should
> first discuss the problem.  I brought this up on commons-l before
> it spread to foundation-l.  With the risk of making myself a
> target for "tl;dr" (too long; didn't read), here's the problem
> that I see:
>
> Wikipedia in many languages is at a stage where the basic articles
> are written (apple is a fruit, Paris is the capital of France) and
> we need to recruit more people who know more areas, both academics
> and people who lived through the politics of the 1960s.  This
> includes events such as Wikipedia Academy and also courses for the
> elderly.  We can't hope that these people are skilled in PHP
> programming or fluent in English, as many people are on this list.
> Some might be able to write good text, but not used to wiki
> markup, and completely disabled in wiki template design.  Perhaps
> they should stick to scanning and uploading their old photos from
> the 1970s.
>
> We still have all kinds of vandalism on Wikipedia.  If patrolling
> is efficient and finds and reverts 95% of vandalism, it might also
> spill over to falsely "fighting" 1% of beginner contributions.
> We're scaring serious people away by our own mistake.  This is
> where we need to improve.  It's like having a zero tolerance on
> crime, without becoming a brutal fascist state. Within each
> (small/medium) language of Wikipedia, this is quite easy.  We all
> speak the same language and we know each other.
>
> But as soon as it comes to image uploading, an area where the
> elderly have decades of photos to contribute, we're sending our
> beginners off to Wikimedia Commons.  Even if the menues and most
> templates are localized in every major language, this is not true
> of the admin community there. If a beginner fails to fill out all
> details of free licensing, their user talk page will receive an
> image deletion request in English. Even if there is a translated
> version of that notification, the user's explanation in a local
> language might not be understood by the admins.  If the user has
> good credentials that are easily verified (retired schoolteacher,
> museum manager, ...) and has built a solid reputation in the local
> language Wikipedia, a Commons admin from another language might
> not fully understand this.
>
> Adding to this, a culture of deletionism and arrogance has
> infested Wikimedia Commons in the last year or two.  So many
> copyright violations and half-free images are deleted, that little
> attention is paid to the individual contributors. The focus is on
> the image, not on the user. This system is also an open target for
> abuse. Sometimes deletions are requested anonymously or without
> substantial reasons, 

Re: [Foundation-l] The new iteration

[Michael Bimmler]

On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Thomas Goldammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/12/8, Milos Rancic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Anybody alive?
>>
>>  The iteration goes like:
>>  * I start to talk about low activity on the list.
>>  * Erik mentions that new step toward license migration has been happened.
>>  * Others get some idea to talk about.
>>  * The new iteration of discussion begins.
>>
>>  So, let's try: This list became dead once again!
>>
>
> This is a very good moment to unsubscribe from this list. A mailing
> list is a platform to announce things and to inform many people of
> something important, it is not a place to discuss.

I think this would be a moment to review the description at

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

which is rather historic and looks funny nowadays...but still...where
was it, ever, said that foundation-l should be a kind of
"announce-only" list?  In fact, I very much favor it for discussions,
if only because you can actually (selectively) quote people's replies
which is as of yet still not possible in MediaWiki (as deployed
currently on the Wikimedia wikis -- talking about extensions which are
not switched on is somewhat pointless here)

Michael



-- 
Michael Bimmler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] The new iteration

[Huib Laurens]

Hi,
I don't believe this list is dead or useless.

I recieve more than one email a day and follow most discussions.
Because the are intressting. (I am not always involved in the
discussion but i read everything.)

Huib

-- 
Leave nothing but footprints, take nothing but pictures

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:SterkeBak

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] The new iteration

[Thomas Dalton]

> This is a very good moment to unsubscribe from this list. A mailing
> list is a platform to announce things and to inform many people of
> something important, it is not a place to discuss.

Since when?

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] The new iteration

[Thomas Goldammer]

2008/12/8, Milos Rancic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Anybody alive?
>
>  The iteration goes like:
>  * I start to talk about low activity on the list.
>  * Erik mentions that new step toward license migration has been happened.
>  * Others get some idea to talk about.
>  * The new iteration of discussion begins.
>
>  So, let's try: This list became dead once again!
>

This is a very good moment to unsubscribe from this list. A mailing
list is a platform to announce things and to inform many people of
something important, it is not a place to discuss. The foundation-l
consists to 99% of absolutely useless discussions about things that
should really be discussed in public (e.g. on Meta or Foundationwiki),
and now people start writing something without even having something
to say and discuss about the "low" activity. Ridiculous.

Th.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] The new iteration

[Milos Rancic]

Anybody alive?

The iteration goes like:
* I start to talk about low activity on the list.
* Erik mentions that new step toward license migration has been happened.
* Others get some idea to talk about.
* The new iteration of discussion begins.

So, let's try: This list became dead once again!

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] WP edit/access blocking in the UK - statement from the WMF

[Tomasz Ganicz]

2008/12/8 Michael Bimmler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Mhmthat would be a risky move for whomever profits from increased
> sales of the album...although coverage is surprisingly pro-Wikipedia
> at the moment, (allegations of) child pornography do not make for very
> good PR in general.
>

Yes.. I rather expect that the claim to block this page was sent to
IWF by someone who requested to delete this picture on Wikipedia and
was unhappy with the negative deletion request result.


-- 
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/en/TomaszGanicz.html

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] WP edit/access blocking in the UK - statement from the WMF

[geni]

2008/12/8 Florence Devouard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> geni wrote:
>> 2008/12/8 Florence Devouard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> A link
>>>
>>> http://stats.grok.se/en/200812/Virgin_Killer
>>>
>>> Ant
>>>
>>
>> More up to date:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Popular_articles
>>
>> If the current rate continued we would be looking at close on half a
>> million views of that article today.
>
> A sudden thought... and what if the whole story had been entirely made
> up ? As in "Amazon staff member made the complain to the UK foundation
> in hope it would give a kick to the album sale ?"
>
> Right, I am dreaming, but I like the "what ifs" :-)
>
> I would be curious to know sales for that album in dec 08 compared to
> other months. My brother also was a big fan of scorpions (and I must
> confess it was the least bad of all heavy metal groups he was listening
> to), and I regret we dumped all these old albums. It feels like it could
> become a collector...

No single item will have a significant effect on Amazon sales and the
Scorpions appear to have long since dissowned the cover.

There is also the factor that it is unlikely that anyone could be sure
that we would be able to figure out that the IWF was invovled.

-- 
geni

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] WP edit/access blocking in the UK - statement from the WMF

[Tomasz Ganicz]

2008/12/8 Michael Bimmler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Florence Devouard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> geni wrote:
>>> 2008/12/8 Florence Devouard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
 A link

 http://stats.grok.se/en/200812/Virgin_Killer

 Ant

>>>
>>> More up to date:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Popular_articles
>>>
>>> If the current rate continued we would be looking at close on half a
>>> million views of that article today.
>>
>> A sudden thought... and what if the whole story had been entirely made
>> up ? As in "Amazon staff member made the complain to the UK foundation
>> in hope it would give a kick to the album sale ?"
>>
>> Right, I am dreaming, but I like the "what ifs" :-)
>>
>
> Mhmthat would be a risky move for whomever profits from increased
> sales of the album...although coverage is surprisingly pro-Wikipedia
> at the moment, (allegations of) child pornography do not make for very
> good PR in general.
>
> I think the consensus on this list (or wikimediauk-l?) was that the
> album cover is rather tasteless and objectionable, albeit not illegal.
> I would guess that the public does not view the image much more
> favorably than the participants of this list, so the band will now
> forever have this "nude child on cover"-story attached to it. As said,
> not really good PR in the long term although surely profits might go
> up at the moment. Though, incidentally, is it not more likely that
> people would only go to the shops (physical or virtual ones) to see
> the cover without actually buying the album itself? I'm not sure
> whether many people think that just because the album has a
> controversial cover, they should buy it (as opposed to "having a look
> at it in-store")
>

Yes.. I rather expect that the claim to block this page was sent to
IWF by someone who requested to delete this picture on Wikipedia and
was unhappy with the deletion request result.


-- 
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/en/TomaszGanicz.html

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] WP edit/access blocking in the UK - statementfrom the WMF

[dex2000]

Thanks to the Foundation for its standing against this censorship. I hope
and expect that this position will be upheld.

Regards
Sir48 (Thyge)
---who resents a record with a cover like that has ever been released.

-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Florence
Devouard
Sendt: 8. december 2008 12:42
Til: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Emne: Re: [Foundation-l] WP edit/access blocking in the UK - statementfrom
the WMF


geni wrote:
> 2008/12/8 Florence Devouard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> A link
>>
>> http://stats.grok.se/en/200812/Virgin_Killer
>>
>> Ant
>>
>
> More up to date:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Popular_articles
>
> If the current rate continued we would be looking at close on half a
> million views of that article today.

A sudden thought... and what if the whole story had been entirely made
up ? As in "Amazon staff member made the complain to the UK foundation
in hope it would give a kick to the album sale ?"

Right, I am dreaming, but I like the "what ifs" :-)

I would be curious to know sales for that album in dec 08 compared to
other months. My brother also was a big fan of scorpions (and I must
confess it was the least bad of all heavy metal groups he was listening
to), and I regret we dumped all these old albums. It feels like it could
become a collector...



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.9.11/1817 - Release Date: 11/28/2008
8:17 AM


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] WP edit/access blocking in the UK - statement from the WMF

[Michael Bimmler]

On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Florence Devouard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> geni wrote:
>> 2008/12/8 Florence Devouard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> A link
>>>
>>> http://stats.grok.se/en/200812/Virgin_Killer
>>>
>>> Ant
>>>
>>
>> More up to date:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Popular_articles
>>
>> If the current rate continued we would be looking at close on half a
>> million views of that article today.
>
> A sudden thought... and what if the whole story had been entirely made
> up ? As in "Amazon staff member made the complain to the UK foundation
> in hope it would give a kick to the album sale ?"
>
> Right, I am dreaming, but I like the "what ifs" :-)
>

Mhmthat would be a risky move for whomever profits from increased
sales of the album...although coverage is surprisingly pro-Wikipedia
at the moment, (allegations of) child pornography do not make for very
good PR in general.

I think the consensus on this list (or wikimediauk-l?) was that the
album cover is rather tasteless and objectionable, albeit not illegal.
I would guess that the public does not view the image much more
favorably than the participants of this list, so the band will now
forever have this "nude child on cover"-story attached to it. As said,
not really good PR in the long term although surely profits might go
up at the moment. Though, incidentally, is it not more likely that
people would only go to the shops (physical or virtual ones) to see
the cover without actually buying the album itself? I'm not sure
whether many people think that just because the album has a
controversial cover, they should buy it (as opposed to "having a look
at it in-store")

Michael




-- 
Michael Bimmler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] WP edit/access blocking in the UK - statement from the WMF

[Florence Devouard]

geni wrote:
> 2008/12/8 Florence Devouard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> A link
>>
>> http://stats.grok.se/en/200812/Virgin_Killer
>>
>> Ant
>>
> 
> More up to date:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Popular_articles
> 
> If the current rate continued we would be looking at close on half a
> million views of that article today.

A sudden thought... and what if the whole story had been entirely made 
up ? As in "Amazon staff member made the complain to the UK foundation 
in hope it would give a kick to the album sale ?"

Right, I am dreaming, but I like the "what ifs" :-)

I would be curious to know sales for that album in dec 08 compared to 
other months. My brother also was a big fan of scorpions (and I must 
confess it was the least bad of all heavy metal groups he was listening 
to), and I regret we dumped all these old albums. It feels like it could 
become a collector...



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] WP edit/access blocking in the UK - statement from the WMF

[geni]

2008/12/8 Florence Devouard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> A link
>
> http://stats.grok.se/en/200812/Virgin_Killer
>
> Ant
>

More up to date:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Popular_articles

If the current rate continued we would be looking at close on half a
million views of that article today.
-- 
geni

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] WP edit/access blocking in the UK - statement from the WMF

[Florence Devouard]

A link

http://stats.grok.se/en/200812/Virgin_Killer

Ant

Jay A. Walsh wrote:
> Many of you have probably noticed the considerable media coverage over the 
> weekend about 
> blocking of WP content in the UK, and much more alarming, the blocking of WP 
> editing for 
> most UK internet users.
> 
> The Wikimedia Foundation is concerned about this situation.  We are in 
> communication with 
> the responsible self-regulatory authority in the UK, the IWF.  To explain our 
> position to 
> the media and among our community of volunteers we will be distributing the 
> following 
> press statement later tonight.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> ---
> Jay Walsh
> Head of Communications
> WikimediaFoundation.org
> +1 (415) 839 6885 x 609
> 
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Censorship_of_WP_in_the_UK_Dec_2008
> 
> ---
> 
> Censorship in the United Kingdom disenfranchises tens of thousands of 
> Wikipedia editors
> 
> Wikimedia Foundation opposes action by internet watchdog group to blacklist 
> encyclopedia
> article
> 
> San Francisco CA, December 7, 2008: As of December 6, 2008, most Internet 
> users in the
> United Kingdom no longer have full access to Wikipedia. Due to censorship by 
> the UK
> self-regulatory agency the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), most UK residents 
> can no
> longer edit the volunteer-written encyclopedia, nor can they access an 
> article in it
> describing a 32-year-old album by German rock group the Scorpions. Wikipedia 
> visitors in
> the UK have also reported performance issues accessing the site.
> 
> The IWF has confirmed to the Wikimedia Foundation that it has added Wikipedia 
> to its
> blacklist, which also had the unintended consequence of rendering UK-based 
> internet users
> unable to edit the encyclopedia, and possibly harming the site's performance 
> inside the UK.
> 
> The IWF says its blacklist is used, on a voluntary basis, by 95% of UK-based 
> residential
> Internet Service Providers. A statement on the IWF website says it added the 
> Wikipedia
> article to the blacklist after the article was reported by a user, and an IWF 
> assessment
> found it to be “potentially illegal.”
> 
> “We have no reason to believe the article, or the image contained in the 
> article, has been
> held to be illegal in any jurisdiction anywhere in the world,” said the 
> Wikimedia
> Foundation's General Counsel, Mike Godwin. “We believe it's worth noting that 
> the image is
> currently visible on Amazon, where the album can be freely purchased by UK 
> residents. It
> is available on thousands of websites that are accessible to the UK public.”
> 
> “The IWF didn't just block the image; it blocked access to the article 
> itself, which
> discusses the image in a neutral, encyclopedic fashion,” said Sue Gardner, 
> Executive
> Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. “The IWF says its goal is to protect UK 
> citizens,
> but I can't see how this action helps to achieve that – and meanwhile, it 
> deprives UK
> internet users of the ability to access information which should be freely 
> available to
> everyone. I urge the IWF to remove Wikipedia from its blacklist.”
> 
> The Wikimedia Foundation is proud of the work done by its volunteer editors, 
> who have
> created an encyclopedia which external studies repeatedly validate as equal 
> or better in
> quality compared with conventional encyclopedias. Wikipedia's editors take 
> care to ensure
> the quality of the content of the encyclopedia, and to safeguard the core 
> community values
> of freedom, independence, and neutrality.
> 
> The Wikimedia Foundation will continue its discussions with IWF to resolve 
> this matter.
> 
> Q/A can be found here:
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Censorship_of_WP_in_the_UK_Dec_2008QA
> 
> 
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> 


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] WP edit/access blocking in the UK - statement from the WMF

[David Gerard]

2008/12/8 Jay A. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:


> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Censorship_of_WP_in_the_UK_Dec_2008


http://www.boingboing.net/2008/12/07/how-the-great-firewa.html

How the Great Firewall of Britain works


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Making Wikimedia Commons less frightening

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When you indicate that the relation between Commons and en.wp is clunky, you
will acknowledge that the policies re images of the English Wikipedia are
rather different. This prevents a common understanding about procedures and
policies. So I will grant you that it is not only language that makes for
rocky relations. However, people who can read / write English are the ones
that have the necessary ability to get value out of Commons, they are the
only ones who really benefit from the project

The big argument for Commons at the time was the ability to share pictures
between the various projects. When you analyse the use of pictures, I do not
doubt that many projects use the same pictures even when quality
alternatives exist. As a whole this is boring. There have been many
initiatives that I do qualify as sensible. When Commons cannot host a
picture under its doctrines it now delinks pictures from other projects. It
now even allows other MediaWiki projects (outside of the WMF) to share
pictures. I think Commons is indeed providing the service it can provide
within its restrictions and its means.

When Commons is to do a "better" job, it is important to realise what it
currently can and cannot do. In my opinion, the lack of usability is why
Commons does not have 25 million pictures. The consequence of the lack of
usability is that fewer uploads are done from people who do not communicate
in English, Commons is consequently not the resource for worldwide education
that it could be.
Thanks,
GerardM

2008/12/7 David Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> 2008/12/6 Bryan Tong Minh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I can think of two solutions here. One is to simply have more
> > multi-project admins. Wikimedia ought to be one big community with a
> > commons goal. Unfortunately (but not unsurprisingly) Wikimedia has
> > been separated into many different islands separated by language
> > borders, which are very hard to open up. Commons was born as a
> > multilingual project, but in that aspect has failed I believe.
>
>
> Relations between Commons and en:wp are clunky at the best of times,
> so it's certainly not just a language issue at all.
>
> It's Commons forgetting it's a service project or Commons admins
> actively working against being a service project, because they want to
> be regarded as a completely independent project.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l