Re: [Foundation-l] New Business Partnership with Orange
Kul Takanao Wadhwa wrote: > Hi All, > > I am spreading the news around (I just posted to the internal list) > about a new announcement going out in a couple hours. For the past few > months I have been working on a deal with Orange (France Telecom) on a > new kind of multi-platform (web, mobile, IPTV) partnership for the > Wikimedia Foundation. This partnership will extend co-branding > opportunities and have Wikipedia's knowledge brought to some new > audiences. It will also allow for us to experiment with new technologies > to improve the functionality and delivery of our content. Furthermore, > this is an additional revenue stream to build on our most important > revenue stream - our successful fundraising campaigns. My congratulations to Kul, and thanks for his hard work over the last few months to mould this deal into a form which is both lucrative for Wikimedia and likely to be acceptable to the community. -- Tim Starling ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] New Business Partnership with Orange
2009/4/23 Kul Takanao Wadhwa : > Feel free to contact me or the list if you have any questions. > > > --Kul Will there be at least a rough guide to where this deal will result in the logo turning up legitimately? Will any of the orange products support wikipedia's video format and by what mechanism? -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] New Business Partnership with Orange
2009/4/23 Kul Takanao Wadhwa : > I am spreading the news around (I just posted to the internal list) > about a new announcement going out in a couple hours. For the past few > months I have been working on a deal with Orange (France Telecom) on a > new kind of multi-platform (web, mobile, IPTV) partnership for the > Wikimedia Foundation. This partnership will extend co-branding > opportunities and have Wikipedia's knowledge brought to some new > audiences. It will also allow for us to experiment with new technologies > to improve the functionality and delivery of our content. Furthermore, > this is an additional revenue stream to build on our most important > revenue stream - our successful fundraising campaigns. In the Slashdot firehose, please vote up: http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=4259249 - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] New Business Partnership with Orange
Hi All, I am spreading the news around (I just posted to the internal list) about a new announcement going out in a couple hours. For the past few months I have been working on a deal with Orange (France Telecom) on a new kind of multi-platform (web, mobile, IPTV) partnership for the Wikimedia Foundation. This partnership will extend co-branding opportunities and have Wikipedia's knowledge brought to some new audiences. It will also allow for us to experiment with new technologies to improve the functionality and delivery of our content. Furthermore, this is an additional revenue stream to build on our most important revenue stream - our successful fundraising campaigns. This partnership will start in four European territories: France, UK, Poland and Spain. I already notified the chapter reps in Poland, UK, and France (3 of the 4 territories where we have chapters). They've had a couple days to process the info and prepare for any media questions they may come their way. Here is the announcement that will go out soon: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Orange_and_Wikimedia_announce_partnership_April_2009 Also, here is the Q&A that should address some of the basic questions about this partnership. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Orange_and_Wikimedia_announce_partnership_April_2009Q Feel free to contact me or the list if you have any questions. --Kul Head of Business Development ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] NPOV as common value?
2009/4/22 Samuel Klein : > Science is not yet neutral. The 'scientific method' we currently use > as a meterstick is a fairly casual method, often producing biased or > context-free results, which would be improved by a bit of the same > self-reflection required to describe something with NPOV. That's why NPOV and Scientific Point Of View are different things. (speaking here as a sceptical atheist who considers Richard Dawkins entirely too moderate, I have had occasion to suggest to other sceptics that they tone it down for Wikipedia - anyone who disagrees won't listen, and anyone unconvinced will be put off by a didactic tone.) It's where the apparently-odd en:wp phrase "verifiability not truth" comes in: we're mere humans, we don't have access to cosmic truth in all its glory; verifiable references are all we have to go on and show to others. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] NPOV as common value?
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:25 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: > Some of the NPOV-related problems may be solved by talking about > context. If we say that a single piece of art (or propaganda or > whatever) is not a context, then problems related to Commons are > solved. Yes. Context is relevant to any assessment of neutrality. An overall systemic bias among article topics, even if each article is neutrally written, is not itself neutral. This extends to whole projects as well as across/among projects. > In relation to your Wikiquote example, I think that you were talking > there about notability, not about NPOV. Well, there is neutral balance in selection of sources from which quotes are drawn. You can have a thousand quotes from napoleon, each represented neutrally in English with notes about any disagreements in the translation, but if every one of them is about death and horses, it will be a biased view of the man and his sense of the world. > But, is it useful to move sense of NPOV at more and more higher > levels? I think so. > While it is hard, but (I think) possible to make NPOV > educational books up to the secondary school level, it is not possible > to make educational courses according to NPOV. Ideological demands to > educational courses are totalitarian. I don't agree with the first statement, and don't understand the tone of the second. > fundamentals of natural sciences (I am not talking about > non-scientific disagreements with scientific facts, but about > disagreements between scientists; and, unlike an encyclopedic article, > it may be impossible to make a course by mixing approaches). One wouldn't need to mix approaches, and no article includes in detail all sides of the issue. One would need to provide reflective annotation about parts of the course which were dictated by limitations in time and format, and about parts where major processes and sequences differ among the most prominent course-creating bodies or schols of thought. > NPOV is a very good starting point for writing an encyclopedia. But, > it is not any kind of general knowledge which may be implemented > everywhere. And, if it is treated as such, then it is an ideology. Neutrality has nothing to do with 'encyclopedia'. It has something to do with leavine one's ego and personal expertise out of the picture when sharing knwoledge with others. It has a LOT to do with creating any universal resource to which uncoordinated people can contribute what they have to teach or share, with a minimum of destructive opposition and reversion. > If the Board is not able to make a general scientific framework for > projects other than Wikipedia, I think that it should hire some > scientists to do so. Science is not yet neutral. The 'scientific method' we currently use as a meterstick is a fairly casual method, often producing biased or context-free results, which would be improved by a bit of the same self-reflection required to describe something with NPOV. You are right to use Mathematics as an example of a neutral science, but it took millennia before this happened, even after it first became a measurable and respected science and not only an element of language and business and mysticism. SJ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] NPOV as common value?
Nemo_bis, 22/04/2009 23:49: > this NPOV policy has been really useful on it.wikiquote. I forgot to mention that we have also policies on original research (http://it.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:NRO) and notability (http://it.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Wikiquote#Significativit.C3.A0): it was very useful to adapt such notions to Wikiquote (again, en.wikiquote does not have policies on that). Nemo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] NPOV as common value?
Michael Snow, 22/04/2009 06:52: > For example, in Wikiquote, I think an expression of neutral point of > view would be to focus on the question of what is actually "quotable". Read more here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view_on_Wikiquote Regrettably, en.wikiquote does not have a real NPOV policy (there's only an old import from Wikipedia): this NPOV policy has been really useful on it.wikiquote. Nemo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Alternating sitenotices is kinda confusing
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Mark Wagner wrote:
> Since I regularly access Wikipedia from four different computers, that
> would explain why I'm swatting a sitenotice every day or two.
>
You can disable it in your .css if you want to. Adding
"#centralNotice {display:none !important;}" to
should
work.
--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023
---
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Alternating sitenotices is kinda confusing
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 18:40, Casey Brown wrote: > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Mark Wagner wrote: >> I just hope you guys settle down on something soon. I'm tired of >> playing whack-a-mole with the sitenotices. >> > > Hmm? This is the only time we changed it. :-) The cookies expire > after a week, if you're referring to the notices re-appearing. Since I regularly access Wikipedia from four different computers, that would explain why I'm swatting a sitenotice every day or two. -- Mark [[en:User:Carnildo]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderation? (was: Board statement regarding biographies of living people)
Are all your emails showing up at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-April/author.html Birgitte SB --- On Wed, 4/22/09, Gregory Kohs wrote: > From: Gregory Kohs > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board statement regarding biographies of living > people > To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org, wikipe...@verizon.net > Date: Wednesday, April 22, 2009, 2:09 PM > Am I on moderation? > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Gregory Kohs > wrote: > > > Says Michael Snow: > > > > The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the > global Wikimedia > > community to uphold and strengthen our commitment to > high-quality, > > accurate information > > > > ++ > > > > So, the "community" is urged to do this work at the > request of the Board, > > but the > > Board itself is going to do virtually nothing (other > than this collection > > of words > > that urges the community to work harder) to strengthen > the commitment to > > high-quality, accurate information. > > > > How many Board members were in attendance in Berlin, > and what was the mean > > travel distance of the Board attendees for this > excursion? > > > > -- > > Gregory Kohs > > > > > ___ > 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] Board statement regarding biographies of living people
2009/4/22 Gregory Kohs : > Am I on moderation? Not that I can see. Your previous email came through OK. However, note that even if you tell it to, Gmail will *not* show you a copy of messages you sent to a list. This is, apparently, for your comfort and convenience. If you're not sure if a message made it through, checking the archive page is useful (though it doesn't update instantly and can sometimes have a delay of hours). - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board statement regarding biographies of living people
Am I on moderation? On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Gregory Kohs wrote: > Says Michael Snow: > > The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia > community to uphold and strengthen our commitment to high-quality, > accurate information > > ++ > > So, the "community" is urged to do this work at the request of the Board, > but the > Board itself is going to do virtually nothing (other than this collection > of words > that urges the community to work harder) to strengthen the commitment to > high-quality, accurate information. > > How many Board members were in attendance in Berlin, and what was the mean > travel distance of the Board attendees for this excursion? > > -- > Gregory Kohs > > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statement regarding biographies of living people)
I would love to see these adopted for Commons photographers. The issue will become knowing when these principles are being violated. For example, if you're going to alter audio to serve your own POV, you're not going to make it obvious you've done so. Detection is one problem, but even if you've detected that the audio was edited, there's no telling what the audio should have been, and whether the editing was deceptive. So, as a practical matter, I don't see that this is easily resolved. As a matter of principle, I think these represent an ideal we should strive for as a community. -Mike On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 12:57 -0400, Anthony wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Anthony wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Brianna Laugher < > > brianna.laug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> 2009/4/21 Michael Snow : > >> > The Wikimedia Foundation takes this opportunity to reiterate some core > >> > principles related to our shared vision, mission, and values. One of > >> > these values which is common to all our projects is a commitment to > >> > maintaining a neutral point of view. > >> > >> I find it a bit strange to talk of Wikimedia Commons as having a NPOV > >> policy. > > > > > > Should commons allow images which are biased? > > > > More concretely, in terms of photography, should photographs adhere to the > > standards of ethics adopted by photojournalists? > > > > Here's the NPPA Code of ethics: > >1. Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects. >2. Resist being manipulated by staged photo opportunities. >3. Be complete and provide context when photographing or recording >subjects. Avoid stereotyping individuals and groups. Recognize and work to >avoid presenting one's own biases in the work. >4. Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Give special >consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime or >tragedy. Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an >overriding and justifiable need to see. >5. While photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to, >alter, or seek to alter or influence events. >6. Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' >content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any >way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects. >7. Do not pay sources or subjects or reward them materially for >information or participation. >8. Do not accept gifts, favors, or compensation from those who might seek >to influence coverage. >9. Do not intentionally sabotage the efforts of other journalists. > > 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 all deal with neutrality. Should they apply to > photos made for commons? > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statement regarding biographies of living people)
Hoi, There is a difference between the way photo journalists work and the way most of the illustrations come to Commons. The NPPA code of ethics are clearly written for active press journalists. They get paid for what they do. Also the NPPA is a USA national entity and consequently their rules do not take into account the people that provide us with illustrations and the fact that they are from all over the globe. Another important difference is that the intent of our illustrations is to illustrate encyclopaedic and other educational works. This means that a slight exageration in an illustration may actually serves our purposes well. Many of the subjects that are covered are historical and consequently we have to make use of the materials available to us. There are best practices about historic and other material and they are not universally shared. * Having access to the original material and providing information where this material can be found * Preferably including the meta data as available from the library, archive or musuem * When material is altered, the alterations have to be documented to enable people to assess the illustration * High reolution material is always preferable to low resolution images * Non compressed material is always preferable to compresssed material for original material * Compressing material can always be done before material is actually served from our Wikis Thanks, GerardM 2009/4/22 Anthony > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Anthony wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Brianna Laugher < > > brianna.laug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> 2009/4/21 Michael Snow : > >> > The Wikimedia Foundation takes this opportunity to reiterate some core > >> > principles related to our shared vision, mission, and values. One of > >> > these values which is common to all our projects is a commitment to > >> > maintaining a neutral point of view. > >> > >> I find it a bit strange to talk of Wikimedia Commons as having a NPOV > >> policy. > > > > > > Should commons allow images which are biased? > > > > More concretely, in terms of photography, should photographs adhere to > the > > standards of ethics adopted by photojournalists? > > > > Here's the NPPA Code of ethics: > > 1. Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects. > 2. Resist being manipulated by staged photo opportunities. > 3. Be complete and provide context when photographing or recording > subjects. Avoid stereotyping individuals and groups. Recognize and work > to > avoid presenting one's own biases in the work. > 4. Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Give special > consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime > or > tragedy. Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an > overriding and justifiable need to see. > 5. While photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to, > alter, or seek to alter or influence events. > 6. Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' > content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in > any > way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects. > 7. Do not pay sources or subjects or reward them materially for > information or participation. > 8. Do not accept gifts, favors, or compensation from those who might seek > to influence coverage. > 9. Do not intentionally sabotage the efforts of other journalists. > > 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 all deal with neutrality. Should they apply to > photos made for commons? > ___ > 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] foundation-l Digest, Vol 61, Issue 44
> > The Wikimedia Foundation takes this opportunity to reiterate some core > > principles related to our shared vision, mission, and values. One of > > these values which is common to all our projects is a commitment to > > maintaining a neutral point of view. > > I find it a bit strange to talk of Wikimedia Commons as having a NPOV > policy. Should commons allow images which are biased? More concretely, in terms of photography, should photographs adhere to the standards of ethics adopted by photojournalists? There are few suggestions more destructive than good ideas misapplied. Let's look at a few featured pictures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Racistcampaignposter1.jpg Blatantly racist and disrespectful of basic human dignity. Also historic and very encyclopedic. It illustrates the en:wiki article 'Racism', also the article on 'Disfranchisement after Reconstruction era (United States)' and the individual biographies of two politicians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:J_accuse.jpg Certainly not neutral: it accuses the president of France of gross misconduct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trumpetcallsa.jpg Again, not neutral. It's a war recruitment poster. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Napoleon's_exile_to_Elba3.jpg Blatant trolling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iowa_and_Nebraska_lands10.jpg Try viewing this from the perspective of the indigenous peoples whose ancestral lands were being sold. Those aren't photographs, you might say? Apply the principle only to photography? Okay, neutralize this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Woody_Guthrie_2.jpg And although this last one is not hosted on Commons and may never be (due to German law), think of the historic value here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vote_number_1b.jpg (shakes head) -Durova On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:18 AM, wrote: > Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to >foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at >foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of foundation-l digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Board statement regarding biographies of living people > (Gregory Kohs) > 2. Re: NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statementregarding > biographies of living people) (David Gerard) > 3. Re: Board statement regarding biographies of living people > (Thomas Dalton) > 4. Re: NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statementregarding > biographies of living people) (Milos Rancic) > 5. Re: NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statementregarding > biographies of living people) (David Gerard) > 6. Re: NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statementregarding > biographies of living people) (Milos Rancic) > 7. Re: NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statementregarding > biographies of living people) (Anthony) > 8. Re: Anarchopedia changed its license (Jussi-Ville Heiskanen) > 9. Re: NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statementregarding > biographies of living people) (Anthony) > 10. Re: NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statementregarding > biographies of living people) (David Gerard) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 09:23:16 -0400 > From: Gregory Kohs > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board statement regarding biographies of >living people > To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Message-ID: ><14b1e7be0904220623k556519dai7e02fce4aaab4...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Says Michael Snow: > > The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia > community to uphold and strengthen our commitment to high-quality, > accurate information > > ++ > > So, the "community" is urged to do this work at the request of the Board, > but the > Board itself is going to do virtually nothing (other than this collection > of > words > that urges the community to work harder) to strengthen the commitment to > high-quality, accurate information. > > How many Board members were in attendance in Berlin, and what was the mean > travel distance of the Board attendees for this excursion? > > -- > Gregory Kohs > > > -- > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:32:00 +0100 > From: David Gerard > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board >statement regarding biographies of living people) > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=U
Re: [Foundation-l] NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statement regarding biographies of living people)
--- On Wed, 4/22/09, Ting Chen wrote: > From: Ting Chen > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statement > regarding biographies of living people) > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Wednesday, April 22, 2009, 6:11 AM > Hallo Brianna, > > NPOV is mainly a principle of Wikipedia, later also used by > Wikibooks > and Wikinews. There is at least one project (Wikiversity) > which > explicitely allow participants not to follow NPOV, but the > Disclosure of > Point of Views in Wikiversity follow in principle the ideal > of NPOV: It > tells the reader and participants that the content has a > point of view > and thus gives the reader and participants to be aware of > this and > accordingly to adjust their judgement in reading and > writing the content. > > The question here is about projects like Commons or > Wikisource. Mainly > they collect free content and serve as a shared repository > for other > projects so that these other projects can use these > content. The content > themselves may have POV, that's for sure, and we don't make > edits or > comments in these sources to make them NPOV. But we do > category them. > And at least here we do make sort of comment in the source. > Let me take > an example that actually happend on Commons. It makes a > diffrence if we > categorize a caricature of an israeli bus in form of a > coffin to the > very neutral Category:Bus or to more commentary category > Category:Political caricature or to the very strong > commentary category > Category:Anti-israeli caricature. It makes very big > difference how > Commons categorize such images. And I am in these cases > more for the > implementation of a similar policy like Wikiversity's > Disclosure of > Point of View: A source with a very strong bias of point of > view should > be accordingly categorized. With that we do nothing else as > to hold our > principle ideal of NPOV on projects like commons. I don't think of NPOV as being a common value, but rather I think NPOV as being Wikipedia's answer to the common value of avoiding editorial bias. Wikipedia has much more fine-grained editorial input than Wikisource or Commons. Wikisource and Commons must avoid editorial bias in the presentation of the works we host, rather than within the works themselves. Wikisource for example does not allow excerpts of published works (as opposed to published excerpts). While we host biased material, we aim to avoid biased presentations of material. So far it seems to have been successful, even where there have been initial accusations of bias or inaccuracy to be worked out. I think the people who are saying NPOV is a common value, are just using this acronym as shorthand. If you really examine how NPOV is defined; it simply doesn't hold up for other projects. The real value behind this issue if the "sum of all human knowledge". Bias in the form that excludes other information or interpretations is taboo, yet bias itself is not excluded. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statement regarding biographies of living people)
2009/4/22 Milos Rancic : > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 5:20 PM, David Gerard wrote: >>> And if you want to force any kind of neutrality there, you would get >>> the same kind of scientific production which existed in East European >>> countries during 50s and 60s: A (very good) book about ancient Greek >>> literature starts with 20-30 pages of Preface in which author explains >>> relations between ancient Greek literature and Marxism. But, there >>> were a lot of not so good books which had a lot of grotesque >>> connections between Marxism and its content not just inside of their >>> prefaces.> >> I'm not clear on the connection between neutrality and Marxism ... >> could you explain the logical steps between the two clauses of your >> first sentence? > I wanted to say that if neutrality is forced in a field which is not > possible to present neutrally, you'll get bizarre explanations why > some course or book is neutral. (As young revolutionary authorities > demanded connection between any field of knowledge and Marxism.) Yes, that makes sense :-) > Even further... Book in elementary algebra may be written well > according to the NPOV (but, not by following neutrality!) because NPOV > has clause which is related to the "common knowledge". But, if you try > to make a book with a specific approach to a number of micro and macro > dimensions in the Universe, by using NPOV or neutrality, you would get > a book which is not useful: en:wp has experienced this - the arbcom finally had to say "no, peer-reviewed journals are more reliable sources on global warming than Rush Limbaugh radio transcripts or Michael Crichton novels, and fifty faith-based science advocates don't get to vote the UK's top climate scientist off the island. Don't be bloody stupid." In a few more words than that. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statement regarding biographies of living people)
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Brianna Laugher < > brianna.laug...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 2009/4/21 Michael Snow : >> > The Wikimedia Foundation takes this opportunity to reiterate some core >> > principles related to our shared vision, mission, and values. One of >> > these values which is common to all our projects is a commitment to >> > maintaining a neutral point of view. >> >> I find it a bit strange to talk of Wikimedia Commons as having a NPOV >> policy. > > > Should commons allow images which are biased? > > More concretely, in terms of photography, should photographs adhere to the > standards of ethics adopted by photojournalists? > Here's the NPPA Code of ethics: 1. Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects. 2. Resist being manipulated by staged photo opportunities. 3. Be complete and provide context when photographing or recording subjects. Avoid stereotyping individuals and groups. Recognize and work to avoid presenting one's own biases in the work. 4. Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Give special consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime or tragedy. Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see. 5. While photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to, alter, or seek to alter or influence events. 6. Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects. 7. Do not pay sources or subjects or reward them materially for information or participation. 8. Do not accept gifts, favors, or compensation from those who might seek to influence coverage. 9. Do not intentionally sabotage the efforts of other journalists. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 all deal with neutrality. Should they apply to photos made for commons? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Anarchopedia changed its license
Crazy Lover wrote: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism > > Just by the way, completely inconsequentially to anarchopedia; the foundational proponent of Agorism was a genuinely awesome dude, and whoever got to know him in real life, was blessed. I somehow think Konkin would have grokked wikipedia, if he'd lived to see it flourish. SEK3 was the kind of guy wikipedia articles talk pages could sorely need more of. Defending courteus disagreement in discourse, even when odious in the subject matter to many. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statement regarding biographies of living people)
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Brianna Laugher wrote: > 2009/4/21 Michael Snow : > > The Wikimedia Foundation takes this opportunity to reiterate some core > > principles related to our shared vision, mission, and values. One of > > these values which is common to all our projects is a commitment to > > maintaining a neutral point of view. > > I find it a bit strange to talk of Wikimedia Commons as having a NPOV > policy. Should commons allow images which are biased? More concretely, in terms of photography, should photographs adhere to the standards of ethics adopted by photojournalists? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statement regarding biographies of living people)
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 5:20 PM, David Gerard wrote: >> And if you want to force any kind of neutrality there, you would get >> the same kind of scientific production which existed in East European >> countries during 50s and 60s: A (very good) book about ancient Greek >> literature starts with 20-30 pages of Preface in which author explains >> relations between ancient Greek literature and Marxism. But, there >> were a lot of not so good books which had a lot of grotesque >> connections between Marxism and its content not just inside of their >> prefaces.> > > I'm not clear on the connection between neutrality and Marxism ... > could you explain the logical steps between the two clauses of your > first sentence? I wanted to say that if neutrality is forced in a field which is not possible to present neutrally, you'll get bizarre explanations why some course or book is neutral. (As young revolutionary authorities demanded connection between any field of knowledge and Marxism.) Even further... Book in elementary algebra may be written well according to the NPOV (but, not by following neutrality!) because NPOV has clause which is related to the "common knowledge". But, if you try to make a book with a specific approach to a number of micro and macro dimensions in the Universe, by using NPOV or neutrality, you would get a book which is not useful: If A, B, C and D are some logical structures, statement "A x B = C" is not a neutral statement. If there is some other approach which has statement that "A x B = D", the author of the book will have to mention and explain that as well. And this is a kind of a recursive process. We may rationally say that we won't demand from contributors to do that. But, then, the approach is not according to NPOV or neutrality. There are other important principles, too, like verifiability and NOR. Both of them may be applied fully to Wikibooks if we say that we really don't want OR in books. At Wikiversity, NOR may be applied for sources. It is not reasonable to apply those principles for didactic methods because didactics of teaching and learning on Internet is not well developed. And it is not possible to implement those principles for the process of teaching and learning: course in any applied science must have OR during the process (and OR is not verifiable). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statement regarding biographies of living people)
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:32 PM, David Gerard wrote: > I think the point is to have whatever would be the locally relevant > version of neutrality. On Wikipedia it's NPOV. On Commons or > Wikisource, I expect it would be neutrality of subject matter. Etc. > The key point would be (something like) that Wikimedia projects are > not for pushing views. NPOV transformation to general neutrality will work in the most of the cases. A clear example for such transformation is Wikinews. Even called as "NPOV", Wikinews neutrality is a different kind of approach because it is a journalistic one. *But*, even neutrality is not always possible. Wikiversity is the case because, for example, you are not able to teach/learn about impressionist critics of art by applying any kind of neutrality. While this is an extreme example, a lot of scientific fields are more or less there. And if you want to force any kind of neutrality there, you would get the same kind of scientific production which existed in East European countries during 50s and 60s: A (very good) book about ancient Greek literature starts with 20-30 pages of Preface in which author explains relations between ancient Greek literature and Marxism. But, there were a lot of not so good books which had a lot of grotesque connections between Marxism and its content not just inside of their prefaces. There should be a way how to protect projects' integrity, but it is not insisting on NPOV or neutrality if it is not possible. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statement regarding biographies of living people)
2009/4/22 Milos Rancic : > NPOV transformation to general neutrality will work in the most of the > cases. A clear example for such transformation is Wikinews. Even > called as "NPOV", Wikinews neutrality is a different kind of approach > because it is a journalistic one. And even then, some of the most interesting original content is interviews, which are all about the subjective POV of the interviewee. > And if you want to force any kind of neutrality there, you would get > the same kind of scientific production which existed in East European > countries during 50s and 60s: A (very good) book about ancient Greek > literature starts with 20-30 pages of Preface in which author explains > relations between ancient Greek literature and Marxism. But, there > were a lot of not so good books which had a lot of grotesque > connections between Marxism and its content not just inside of their > prefaces. I'm not clear on the connection between neutrality and Marxism ... could you explain the logical steps between the two clauses of your first sentence? - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board statement regarding biographies of living people
2009/4/22 Gregory Kohs : > Says Michael Snow: > > The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia > community to uphold and strengthen our commitment to high-quality, > accurate information > > ++ > > So, the "community" is urged to do this work at the request of the Board, > but the > Board itself is going to do virtually nothing (other than this collection of > words > that urges the community to work harder) to strengthen the commitment to > high-quality, accurate information. Basically, yes. Content has always been the responsibility of the community. > How many Board members were in attendance in Berlin, and what was the mean > travel distance of the Board attendees for this excursion? This was far from the only thing they did while in Berlin. Their schedule was even more crowded than that of the Chapters' representatives, and I found the chapters meeting the most exhausting thing I've ever done. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statement regarding biographies of living people)
2009/4/22 Ting Chen : > NPOV is mainly a principle of Wikipedia, later also used by Wikibooks > and Wikinews. There is at least one project (Wikiversity) which > explicitely allow participants not to follow NPOV, but the Disclosure of > Point of Views in Wikiversity follow in principle the ideal of NPOV: It > tells the reader and participants that the content has a point of view > and thus gives the reader and participants to be aware of this and > accordingly to adjust their judgement in reading and writing the content. I think the point is to have whatever would be the locally relevant version of neutrality. On Wikipedia it's NPOV. On Commons or Wikisource, I expect it would be neutrality of subject matter. Etc. The key point would be (something like) that Wikimedia projects are not for pushing views. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board statement regarding biographies of living people
Says Michael Snow: The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to uphold and strengthen our commitment to high-quality, accurate information ++ So, the "community" is urged to do this work at the request of the Board, but the Board itself is going to do virtually nothing (other than this collection of words that urges the community to work harder) to strengthen the commitment to high-quality, accurate information. How many Board members were in attendance in Berlin, and what was the mean travel distance of the Board attendees for this excursion? -- Gregory Kohs ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statement regarding biographies of living people)
Hallo Brianna, NPOV is mainly a principle of Wikipedia, later also used by Wikibooks and Wikinews. There is at least one project (Wikiversity) which explicitely allow participants not to follow NPOV, but the Disclosure of Point of Views in Wikiversity follow in principle the ideal of NPOV: It tells the reader and participants that the content has a point of view and thus gives the reader and participants to be aware of this and accordingly to adjust their judgement in reading and writing the content. The question here is about projects like Commons or Wikisource. Mainly they collect free content and serve as a shared repository for other projects so that these other projects can use these content. The content themselves may have POV, that's for sure, and we don't make edits or comments in these sources to make them NPOV. But we do category them. And at least here we do make sort of comment in the source. Let me take an example that actually happend on Commons. It makes a diffrence if we categorize a caricature of an israeli bus in form of a coffin to the very neutral Category:Bus or to more commentary category Category:Political caricature or to the very strong commentary category Category:Anti-israeli caricature. It makes very big difference how Commons categorize such images. And I am in these cases more for the implementation of a similar policy like Wikiversity's Disclosure of Point of View: A source with a very strong bias of point of view should be accordingly categorized. With that we do nothing else as to hold our principle ideal of NPOV on projects like commons. The example of the caricatures also show that although the majority of our Commons community are indeed interested in free content and NPOV, but there are seemingly also people who had discovered Commons as a medium to broadcast their political agenda. And for me this is a very strong abuse of our principles. IMHO the community should not close its eyes and does so as if this is not real. Commons is a very unique project, you see this alone on its URL, it is not de or en or fr or ar.commons.org, but commons.wikimedia.org. I recognize what you said about the two possible natures of Commons, but I also think that Commons is both. It is a service project, but it is not a zombie or a gollem without its own insights and ideals. Ting Brianna Laugher wrote: > Hi, > > I think the Board's statement is quite commendable if unremarkable > (which is I guess part of the reason for the silence - nothing new, > which is as it should be!). Only one comment actually surprised me. > > 2009/4/21 Michael Snow : > >> The Wikimedia Foundation takes this opportunity to reiterate some core >> principles related to our shared vision, mission, and values. One of >> these values which is common to all our projects is a commitment to >> maintaining a neutral point of view. >> > > I find it a bit strange to talk of Wikimedia Commons as having a NPOV > policy. Like Wikiquote, our "unit" of interest is something that > typically has a strong authorial voice rather than being a synthesis > of multiple contributions. (Unlike WQ, it does in some circumstances > make sense to edit a file, unlike a quote -- but usually if the edit > radically changes the meaning, it should become a separate, derived > work.) > > We are also, like WQ, bound by the creations of others, especially in > relation to past events. If there is some past conflict, where the > (free) media is available only represents one side of the conflict, > there is nothing we can do to "balance" that. So there is an external > limit on how "neutral" we are able to be. > > I also find there is some tension between the views of 1) "Wikimedia > Commons as a service project" and 2) "Wikimedia Commons as a project > in its own right". > According to 1), the files in Commons are "context-free", waiting to > be used somewhere and given context. And context is a major part of > NPOV. As a service project, it would not be up to us to decide > questions of "proportional representation", because that would all > depend on how they are used in the projects. > According to 2), the Commons community would have a role to play in > deciding appropriate proportional representation, and we would assume > the Wikimedia Commons itself is a context of use for the files. > > This plays into the question of how much autonomy the Wikimedia > Commons community has. If we have a curatorial role beyond being > "license police" and enforcing our necessarily very broad project > scope, then that must be negotiated between these two views. I > definitely believe it is not Common's role to decide "for" projects, > which free media they should use. So this is something of a constraint > for (2). > > It *may* make sense to talk to NPOV for Wikimedia Commons, but I don't > think it is necessarily obvious, or that it should be assumed everyone > has a shared understanding of what that means. > > Of inte
