Re: [Foundation-l] Principle and pragmatism with nudity and sexual content

[private musings]

ps. for my proposal see;

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content#Proposal_3_-_Model_ages.2C_releases.2C_and_personality_rights

pps. the general reception for that particular proposal was that I'm a bit
of a crazy person.

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:39 PM, private musings wrote:

> Here are some pointers to commons discussions;
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Nudity
>  - the commons policy on nudity, more focused on whether or not content is
> useful than things like permissions.
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people
>  - mentions 'moral issues', but media generated from a distance can (and
> are) argued to be non identifiable. This guideline would further seem not to
> apply to material which doesn't feature the face (upskirt, downblouse,
> closeup of boob etc.)
>
> Further - the rationale for the outcome of a discussion is often rather
> unpredictable - see
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beach_in_Italy_(302214719).jpg
>
> for a beach shot which was deleted, and
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Topless_Barcelona.jpg
>
> for a beach shot which was kept.
>
> It's my view that the later image should be deleted. Thoughts?
>
> best,
>
> Peter,
> PM.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
>
>> Last post on this thread.
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 5:38 PM, private musings 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > There are many shots clearly 'posed' - which I personally feel means
>> that
>> > permission is clearly granted by the subject - however there are also
>> many
>> > which don't indicate that the subject has any idea the image is being
>> > captured.
>>
>> Where on Commons is the best place to discuss this?  I haven't seen
>> anything that looks like a very good processlist for checking that an
>> image has a model release... though I reckon there's a template for
>> suggesting one does not.
>>
>> > The addition of this material to commons, and to multiple user
>> > galleries (and user pages) - often with captions / titles like 'hot' or
>> > 'sexy' I feel is at best crass, and at worst an embarrassment to the
>>
>> I don't see anything wrong with calling encyclopedic or otherwise
>> useful, release images, hot or sexy, or with making galleries out of
>> them.  you can leave out this tangent.
>>
>>
>> > I believe it's desirable to respect the subjects of photography
>> featuring
>> > nudity to the degree that no matter what the copyright status of the
>> image,
>> > permission of the subject is in some way assessed, and if found wanting
>> -
>> > the media should be deleted.
>>
>> I don't think copyright has anything to do with this; again you can
>> leave out that comment entirely.  Permission of subject should be
>> assessed, period.  If you assess it by saying 'it is from a library
>> archive and is 80 yrs old', that works as a first pass.
>>
>> SJ
>>
>>
>> An aside on work-safety:
>>
>> Earlier, John wrote:
>> > While creating software would be needed for a good solution, I think
>> > we can create a simple solution by renaming all images with nudity so
>> > that they begin with NSFW (not safe for work), as I mentioned here:
>>
>> I don't think this is a good idea in the slightest.
>> I know I mentioned NSFW before, and I meant it in a totally different
>> context.  What I was suggesting is:
>>  - pages which might be unexpectedly come across (name and context
>> don't give away media content) and are considered NSFW by a reasonable
>> minority of people should have some indication on the page [not on the
>> images].
>>
>> It's not meaningful to look for consensus on what is SFW or NSFW, and
>> media cannot be SFW or NSFW without context.  [for any given image or
>> block of text, there is some workplace where it is appropriate if not
>> commonplace]
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Principle and pragmatism with nudity and sexual content

[private musings]

Here are some pointers to commons discussions;

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Nudity
 - the commons policy on nudity, more focused on whether or not content is
useful than things like permissions.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people
 - mentions 'moral issues', but media generated from a distance can (and
are) argued to be non identifiable. This guideline would further seem not to
apply to material which doesn't feature the face (upskirt, downblouse,
closeup of boob etc.)

Further - the rationale for the outcome of a discussion is often rather
unpredictable - see

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beach_in_Italy_(302214719).jpg

for a beach shot which was deleted, and

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Topless_Barcelona.jpg

for a beach shot which was kept.

It's my view that the later image should be deleted. Thoughts?

best,

Peter,
PM.


On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Last post on this thread.
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 5:38 PM, private musings 
> wrote:
>
> > There are many shots clearly 'posed' - which I personally feel means that
> > permission is clearly granted by the subject - however there are also
> many
> > which don't indicate that the subject has any idea the image is being
> > captured.
>
> Where on Commons is the best place to discuss this?  I haven't seen
> anything that looks like a very good processlist for checking that an
> image has a model release... though I reckon there's a template for
> suggesting one does not.
>
> > The addition of this material to commons, and to multiple user
> > galleries (and user pages) - often with captions / titles like 'hot' or
> > 'sexy' I feel is at best crass, and at worst an embarrassment to the
>
> I don't see anything wrong with calling encyclopedic or otherwise
> useful, release images, hot or sexy, or with making galleries out of
> them.  you can leave out this tangent.
>
>
> > I believe it's desirable to respect the subjects of photography featuring
> > nudity to the degree that no matter what the copyright status of the
> image,
> > permission of the subject is in some way assessed, and if found wanting -
> > the media should be deleted.
>
> I don't think copyright has anything to do with this; again you can
> leave out that comment entirely.  Permission of subject should be
> assessed, period.  If you assess it by saying 'it is from a library
> archive and is 80 yrs old', that works as a first pass.
>
> SJ
>
>
> An aside on work-safety:
>
> Earlier, John wrote:
> > While creating software would be needed for a good solution, I think
> > we can create a simple solution by renaming all images with nudity so
> > that they begin with NSFW (not safe for work), as I mentioned here:
>
> I don't think this is a good idea in the slightest.
> I know I mentioned NSFW before, and I meant it in a totally different
> context.  What I was suggesting is:
>  - pages which might be unexpectedly come across (name and context
> don't give away media content) and are considered NSFW by a reasonable
> minority of people should have some indication on the page [not on the
> images].
>
> It's not meaningful to look for consensus on what is SFW or NSFW, and
> media cannot be SFW or NSFW without context.  [for any given image or
> block of text, there is some workplace where it is appropriate if not
> commonplace]
>
> ___
> 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] NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statement regarding biographies of living people)

[Anthony]

I'm not sure what the answer is, and I agree with you that it's not easily
resolved, but it seems to me that some sort of neutrality policy ought to
apply to Commons.

In my opinion the universal form of the NPOV policy is simple - be honest.

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Mike.lifeguard
wrote:

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

[Foundation-l] Usability Study Results (Sneak Preview)

[Parul Vora]

Hi all!

The Wikipedia Usability Initiative conducted a user research study with 
SF based Bolt Peters in late March to uncover barriers new editors face. 
We are in the process of completing a full report on our methodology, 
process and analysis, but wanted to share with you some of the major 
themes and findings in the meantime


Some quotes from our participants that illustrate these findings:

“Usually it’s the most information in the easiest spot to access. It 
always looks very well put together….it boggles my mind how many people 
can contribute and it still looks like an encyclopedia.” – ‘Galen’

“I like Wikipedia because it’s plain text and nothing flashes” – ‘Claudia’

“Rather than making a mess, I’d rather take some time to figure out how 
to do it right."
(later) "There sure is a lot of stuff to read.” – ‘Dan’

“ [I felt] kind of stupid.” – ‘Galen’

“It’d be nice to have a GUI, so you could see what you’re editing. 
You’ve made these changes and you’re looking at it, and you don’t know 
how it’s going to look on the page. It’s a little clumsy to see how it’s 
going to look.” – ‘Bryan’

“[This is] where I’d give up.” – ‘Shaun’


Check out the full post on the foundation blog:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/04/24/usability-study-results-sneak-preview/


We would love to hear any initial thoughts, opinions, and reactions. If 
you have any similar or dissimilar experiences - either personally or in 
your own work/research, we'd love to hear about that too!


Always on your side,
The Usability Team

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

Re: [Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation

[Geoffrey Plourde]

Did you consider starting off with asking for a simple disclaimer? If they 
don't have it uploaded and one was sent, disregard previous statement. 





From: Mike Godwin 
To: Thomas Dalton 
Cc: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 11:53:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the 
foundation

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

>
> The initial letter from Isenberg (isn't that where Saruman lived?) is
> almost entirely about trademarks, so you can understand why people
> would think that was your concern.


Sure, that makes sense. But the Board's resolution had to do with
implementing a trademark policy balancing the requirements of trademark law
with the needs of the community and the chapters. So in that respect, at
least, the Board's resolution did not touch on any matters of the sort that
arose out of our interactions with Wikipedia Art.

That is where my response would have differed from yours. I would have
> started by asking for a disclaimer, rather than asking them to hand
> over the domain. The disclaimer is a good solution, you seem to agree
> with that, and requesting the domain name comes across (however
> carefully you word your request) as an attempt to shut them down so it
> would have been good to completely avoid that potential for
> misinterpretation.


If they had transferred the domain name over to us, we'd have paid all their
expenses and forwarded requests for some period of time to any new domain
name they chose to register. There are other alternatives we might have
considered as well. But, take my word for it, we had no interest at all in
shutting down their site (which, so far as I can tell, is a very low-traffic
site in any case).

At any rate, disagreements resolved through negotiations typically lead to
compromises, and so it makes sense sometimes to make your strongest
arguments first, so that you can fall back into a reasonable compromise.

Personally, I find WR even more frustrating that foundation-l, so I
> avoid it, but I fully agree with everyone that it is legally and
> morally acceptable to use the Wikipedia trademark in such a way.
>

I'm a bit perverse, but I enjoy the performance art of WR rather more than
that of Wikipedia Art.


--Mike
___
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] ID requirements proposed for Germans using video sites

[Mark Williamson]

I think he was joking. I got a pretty nice laugh out of that.

skype: node.ue



2009/4/23 Sebastian Moleski :
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Thomas Dalton  
> wrote:
 ...The WMF has
 always said that it intends to follow US law only and not try and
 cater to the laws of every country in the world - that includes
 Germany
>>>
>>> {{citation needed}}
>>
>> What do want a citation for, the WMF statement or the fact that
>> Germany is part of the world?
>
> I'm asking for citation that the foundation always said it intends to
> follow US law only.
>
> Sebastian
>
> ___
> 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] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation

[David Gerard]

2009/4/24 Michael Snow :
> David Gerard wrote:
>> 2009/4/23 Michael Snow :

>>> It's basically proven by the notable lack of other art appearing on
>>> their site in the meantime. I was mildly amused that one of the
>>> "sources" on their wiki page drew a comparison between the project and
>>> Andrew Keen, which I suppose fits in with the performance art concept
>>> pretty well.

>> Where "performance art" is "trolling for money"?

> Hey, artists need to make a living, too.


I'm increasingly a proponent of day jobs for them ...


- d.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation

[Michael Snow]

David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/4/23 Michael Snow :
>   
>> It's basically proven by the notable lack of other art appearing on
>> their site in the meantime. I was mildly amused that one of the
>> "sources" on their wiki page drew a comparison between the project and
>> Andrew Keen, which I suppose fits in with the performance art concept
>> pretty well.
>> 
> Where "performance art" is "trolling for money"?
>   
Hey, artists need to make a living, too.

--Michael Snow

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

Re: [Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation

[David Gerard]

2009/4/23 Michael Snow :

> It's basically proven by the notable lack of other art appearing on
> their site in the meantime. I was mildly amused that one of the
> "sources" on their wiki page drew a comparison between the project and
> Andrew Keen, which I suppose fits in with the performance art concept
> pretty well.


Where "performance art" is "trolling for money"?


- d.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation

[Michael Snow]

Mike Godwin wrote:
> David Gerard writes:
>   
>> They're performance artists. This is more performance. They fooled the EFF 
>> into playing along.
>> 
> This is precisely my own take on the situation.
>   
It's basically proven by the notable lack of other art appearing on 
their site in the meantime. I was mildly amused that one of the 
"sources" on their wiki page drew a comparison between the project and 
Andrew Keen, which I suppose fits in with the performance art concept 
pretty well.

--Michael Snow

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

Re: [Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation

[Mike Godwin]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:


> I don't disagree. I think we've unnecessarily given them more material
> to work with, though, which is unfortunate.
>

There's always a risk associated with engaging with any kind of performance
artist.  These guys aren't quite at the Borat level, though.

I'm not terribly troubled with the outcome in this instance -- we
anticipated this as a possibility at the outset, did what we could to
minimize the risk.  I'm untroubled by the publication of our initial letter
to Wikipedia Art -- we went over it quite a bit before sending it to them,
on the assumption that at some point it would be made public.


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Principle and pragmatism with nudity and sexual content

[Samuel Klein]

Last post on this thread.

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 5:38 PM, private musings  wrote:

> There are many shots clearly 'posed' - which I personally feel means that
> permission is clearly granted by the subject - however there are also many
> which don't indicate that the subject has any idea the image is being
> captured.

Where on Commons is the best place to discuss this?  I haven't seen
anything that looks like a very good processlist for checking that an
image has a model release... though I reckon there's a template for
suggesting one does not.

> The addition of this material to commons, and to multiple user
> galleries (and user pages) - often with captions / titles like 'hot' or
> 'sexy' I feel is at best crass, and at worst an embarrassment to the

I don't see anything wrong with calling encyclopedic or otherwise
useful, release images, hot or sexy, or with making galleries out of
them.  you can leave out this tangent.


> I believe it's desirable to respect the subjects of photography featuring
> nudity to the degree that no matter what the copyright status of the image,
> permission of the subject is in some way assessed, and if found wanting -
> the media should be deleted.

I don't think copyright has anything to do with this; again you can
leave out that comment entirely.  Permission of subject should be
assessed, period.  If you assess it by saying 'it is from a library
archive and is 80 yrs old', that works as a first pass.

SJ


An aside on work-safety:

Earlier, John wrote:
> While creating software would be needed for a good solution, I think
> we can create a simple solution by renaming all images with nudity so
> that they begin with NSFW (not safe for work), as I mentioned here:

I don't think this is a good idea in the slightest.
I know I mentioned NSFW before, and I meant it in a totally different
context.  What I was suggesting is:
 - pages which might be unexpectedly come across (name and context
don't give away media content) and are considered NSFW by a reasonable
minority of people should have some indication on the page [not on the
images].

It's not meaningful to look for consensus on what is SFW or NSFW, and
media cannot be SFW or NSFW without context.  [for any given image or
block of text, there is some workplace where it is appropriate if not
commonplace]

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

Re: [Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/4/23 Mike Godwin :
> David Gerard writes:
>
> They're performance artists. This is more performance. They fooled the
>> EFF into playing along.
>
>
> This is precisely my own take on the situation.

I don't disagree. I think we've unnecessarily given them more material
to work with, though, which is unfortunate.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation

[Mike Godwin]

David Gerard writes:

They're performance artists. This is more performance. They fooled the
> EFF into playing along.


This is precisely my own take on the situation.


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Principle and pragmatism with nudity and sexual content

[Samuel Klein]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter  wrote:

> This is under understanding the whole issue is not covered by BLP policy
> (I assume if a vagina is shown but the face is not this is not a BLP
> issue).

I would feel better if we got model rights whenever using someone's
body to illustrate an article.  If my hand is the primary
illustration, it's not at all respectful to keep that up if I ask you
not do so.  I don't much care what the law says here -- unless it's
verifiably hard to replace a model-approved image with an unapproved
one, we just shouldn't do it.

(and if you were to take photos of the hands of a professional hand
model, and not pay them for it, they would certainly sue you.  whether
they would win may vary by jurisdiction, but it is disrespectful.  and
respect is the important part of this discussion.)

John says:
> No one has proposed removing or hiding images
> depicting medical conditions. If you want to argue against something that no
> one is arguing for, you should start a new thread.

+1.   Thanks, John!

SJ

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Principle and pragmatism with nudity and sexual content

[private musings]

ok - well to try and take sj's sage advice, and move this conversation
forward, I'll focus on one smaller aspect of the bigger issue.

Commons currently has quite a few photographs of people in various states of
undress on beaches. The permission of the subject's for this material, for
example, an image of a young woman topless bathing, is not currently
discussed or taken into consideration.

There are many shots clearly 'posed' - which I personally feel means that
permission is clearly granted by the subject - however there are also many
which don't indicate that the subject has any idea the image is being
captured. The addition of this material to commons, and to multiple user
galleries (and user pages) - often with captions / titles like 'hot' or
'sexy' I feel is at best crass, and at worst an embarrassment to the
project. It's just plain wrong, really.

I believe it's desirable to respect the subjects of photography featuring
nudity to the degree that no matter what the copyright status of the image,
permission of the subject is in some way assessed, and if found wanting -
the media should be deleted.

Does anyone disagree?


best,

Peter,
PM

ps - happy to talk about things like genital warts, and very specific
imagery too, but focus is awfully hard to maintain here :-)
pps - I really like John's idea, and will mention more on that anon (or
probably on wiki)


It's my belief that commons

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:

> > 2009/4/21 Yaroslav M. Blanter :
> >
> >> I can not agree with this. Many templates are hidden because they are
> >> too
> >> bulky to be shown in the body of the atricle, so what? Everyone who
> >> wants
> >> to get to the template can click on "show" link. Same with the pictures:
> >> as one solution, one hides the picture writing "This image depicts a
> >> vagina". Whoever wants to see the image, clicks on "show".
> >
> >
> > Pretty much your proposal has been shot down repeatedly on en:wp.
> >
> > Which other wiki communities are actually pushing for this? Any of them?
> >
> > BLP, model release etc. issues are quite separate from this. You're
> > talking about the body part itself.
> >
> >
>
> I am not the one who raised the issue and I am personally fine with any
> images. I just want to state that this is a community issue, not a global
> issue.
>
> Btw yesterday an apparent troll started a topic on ru.wp claiming that
> nude images represent "pornography" which is illegal according to Russian
> laws.
> The topic has been speedily closed.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
>
> ___
> 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] ID requirements proposed for Germans using video sites

[Sebastian Moleski]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Thomas Dalton  wrote:
>>> ...The WMF has
>>> always said that it intends to follow US law only and not try and
>>> cater to the laws of every country in the world - that includes
>>> Germany
>>
>> {{citation needed}}
>
> What do want a citation for, the WMF statement or the fact that
> Germany is part of the world?

I'm asking for citation that the foundation always said it intends to
follow US law only.

Sebastian

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

Re: [Foundation-l] ID requirements proposed for Germans using video sites

[Ian A. Holton]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:51 AM,  wrote:

>
> > On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 07:51:27 GMT, David Gerard wrote:
> >
> http://newteevee.com/2009/04/20/achtung-youtube-germany-proposes-federal-id-checks-for-online-video-sites/
> >
> > German readers - how much of a danger is this? Is Commons enough of a
> "video site"?
> >
> > - d.
>
> Not much. It is just a campaign of the Junge Union NRW to get in the media.
> Like every German political youth organisation, they have to make wired
> statements, to get any media coverage.
>
> syrcro
>
>
Just to clarify: There is no proposition from any party in any parliament in
Germany for this. It was a press release by the youth organization of the
CDU in North Rhine - Westphalia (the Junge Union NRW, as mentioned by
syncro). Some news sources seem to have picked up that Merkel thought of the
idea to be good - I can't find any direct quote or citation for this.

They are however going to propose this at a state level party congress in
early May, let's see how the CDU members in general react.

The leader (Sven Volmering) of this subgroup has also called ego-shooters,
popularly called "Killergames" (Killerspiele) in the German media and
politicians as of recently, a "perverted freetime activity".

And by the way: Another thing to remember is that it's election year here in
Germany, so you can expect to see a lot more weird press releases being
blown up into major stories - especially ones from youth organisations.

Ian
[[User:Poeloq]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] A small update from the LiCom

[Amir Elisha Aharoni]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 23:31, Huib Laurens  wrote:
> Discussion and questions can be expressed on Meta[4]. So far, 39
> people have asked questions there, with most of them being answered
> within 24 hours.

Thanks for the interesting statistics.

May i also add

* http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers

I and quite a lot of other people asked three questions there. Mine
were answered very quickly.

-- 
Amir E. Aharoni

heb: http://haharoni.wordpress.com | eng: http://aharoni.wordpress.com
cat: http://aprenent.wordpress.com | rus: http://amire80.livejournal.com

"We're living in pieces,
 I want to live in peace." - T. Moore

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

Re: [Foundation-l] ID requirements proposed for Germans using video sites

[David Gerard]

2009/4/23 Sebastian Moleski :
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Thomas Dalton  
> wrote:

>> ... The WMF has
>> always said that it intends to follow US law only and not try and
>> cater to the laws of every country in the world - that includes
>> Germany

> {{citation needed}}


The same reason we told the National Portrait Gallery in the UK "sue
and be damned" and haven't heard a peep from them since ;-)

(Not that being hardarsed is a good way to make friends. The Victoria
and Albert openly encouraging photographers for Wikipedia Loves Art is
more the sort of example we'd like to encourage - help their
educational mission and encourage people to go along, look at their
stuff, chuck a few quid in the donation box, etc.)


- d.

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

[Foundation-l] A small update from the LiCom

[Huib Laurens]

Hello colleagues,

At this time I am going to provide you with a small update from 
Licensing update committee[1].

On 12 April 2009, a vote concerning the license change[2] was opened and
announced via CentralNotice[3]. Between 12 and 19 April, 10.800 votes where
cast (including those later stricken). On 14 April, approximately 4.000
votes were recorded in 24 hours.

Discussion and questions can be expressed on Meta[4]. So far, 39
people have asked questions there, with most of them being answered 
within 24 hours.

The wiki voting system is up and running but like every system flaws and
bugs do exist[5]. Since voting started 10 bugs where reported of which 5
have been fixed. Most of the flaws were related to CentralNotice or 
localisation of the vote pages.

Voting ends at 3 May 2009, so we have a little bit more then a week to
go. If you haven’t voted yet, please do so!

Best regards,

Huib Laurens


[1]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LiCom
[2]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LU
[3]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LU/CN
[4]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Licensing_update
[5]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Bugs



___
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

[Michael Snow]

Robert Rohde wrote:
> Does the Board get involved in deciding whether to pursue new business
> oppurtunities like this, or is that something that is solely handled
> by the Foundation Staff?
>
> This question isn't intended as a criticism in any way, I'm just
> curious what the relationship is like surrounding big new projects
> like this.
>   
The answer may depend on what stage of the process you mean. In the 
sense of deciding whether to pursue opportunities, as Kul regularly 
points out we get all kinds of inquiries and business proposals, most of 
which make no sense for us and are politely turned down. It's 
necessarily up to the staff to decide what to explore further, negotiate 
over issues, and work toward a deal if appropriate. The board is not 
really involved.

However, before finalizing an agreement of this scope, the staff do 
inform the board, and board members have asked questions and requested 
information in the course of evaluating the proposal.  At this point 
there's something more immediate and concrete for us to consider. 
There's no requirement that the board formally sign off on a deal, but 
if we thought there were serious problems with it, there is ample 
opportunity to make that clear before it is completed.

--Michael Snow

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

Re: [Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation

[David Gerard]

2009/4/23 Thomas Dalton :

> Very true. You have to balance starting high enough that you have room
> to come down with not appearing unreasonable. It's a difficult
> balancing act, and I'm not sure you got it quite right this time.
> Perhaps you could have requested they make wikipediaart.org into a
> portal page, linking to their site and to Wikipedia, but keep it under
> their control - basically a really big disclaimer. Then you could have
> settled for a nice small disclaimer like the one they've gone with.


They're performance artists. This is more performance. They fooled the
EFF into playing along.


- d.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/4/23 Mike Godwin :
> If they had transferred the domain name over to us, we'd have paid all their
> expenses and forwarded requests for some period of time to any new domain
> name they chose to register. There are other alternatives we might have
> considered as well. But, take my word for it, we had no interest at all in
> shutting down their site (which, so far as I can tell, is a very low-traffic
> site in any case).

I don't doubt that you weren't trying to shut them down, but it was
highly predictable that people would come to that conclusion.

> At any rate, disagreements resolved through negotiations typically lead to
> compromises, and so it makes sense sometimes to make your strongest
> arguments first, so that you can fall back into a reasonable compromise.

Very true. You have to balance starting high enough that you have room
to come down with not appearing unreasonable. It's a difficult
balancing act, and I'm not sure you got it quite right this time.
Perhaps you could have requested they make wikipediaart.org into a
portal page, linking to their site and to Wikipedia, but keep it under
their control - basically a really big disclaimer. Then you could have
settled for a nice small disclaimer like the one they've gone with.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation

[Mike Godwin]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

>
> The initial letter from Isenberg (isn't that where Saruman lived?) is
> almost entirely about trademarks, so you can understand why people
> would think that was your concern.


Sure, that makes sense. But the Board's resolution had to do with
implementing a trademark policy balancing the requirements of trademark law
with the needs of the community and the chapters. So in that respect, at
least, the Board's resolution did not touch on any matters of the sort that
arose out of our interactions with Wikipedia Art.

That is where my response would have differed from yours. I would have
> started by asking for a disclaimer, rather than asking them to hand
> over the domain. The disclaimer is a good solution, you seem to agree
> with that, and requesting the domain name comes across (however
> carefully you word your request) as an attempt to shut them down so it
> would have been good to completely avoid that potential for
> misinterpretation.


If they had transferred the domain name over to us, we'd have paid all their
expenses and forwarded requests for some period of time to any new domain
name they chose to register. There are other alternatives we might have
considered as well. But, take my word for it, we had no interest at all in
shutting down their site (which, so far as I can tell, is a very low-traffic
site in any case).

At any rate, disagreements resolved through negotiations typically lead to
compromises, and so it makes sense sometimes to make your strongest
arguments first, so that you can fall back into a reasonable compromise.

Personally, I find WR even more frustrating that foundation-l, so I
> avoid it, but I fully agree with everyone that it is legally and
> morally acceptable to use the Wikipedia trademark in such a way.
>

I'm a bit perverse, but I enjoy the performance art of WR rather more than
that of Wikipedia Art.


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

Re: [Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/4/23 Mike Godwin :
> Nathan writes:
>
> Interesting - I wonder if this is in any way related to the decisions
>> underlying the recent board statement on trademarks? Has the Foundation
>> pursued Wikipedia Review in the same manner?
>
>
> I can answer that question -- it's wholly unrelated to the recent Board
> statement on trademarks. Our concern was not primarily about trademarks.

The initial letter from Isenberg (isn't that where Saruman lived?) is
almost entirely about trademarks, so you can understand why people
would think that was your concern.

>ideally by switching the domain name over to us, but
> not by requiring any content changes on their site at all.
[snip]
> We are pleased that the project, after we contacted
> them about this matter, has chosen to publish a disclaimer disassociating
> itself more clear from our projects, and that they have ceased in their
> attempts to use Wikipedia as a staging ground for their performance art
> projects.

That is where my response would have differed from yours. I would have
started by asking for a disclaimer, rather than asking them to hand
over the domain. The disclaimer is a good solution, you seem to agree
with that, and requesting the domain name comes across (however
carefully you word your request) as an attempt to shut them down so it
would have been good to completely avoid that potential for
misinterpretation.

> With regard to Wikipedia Review: when I spoke with my friends at EFF about
> this matter some weeks ago, they asked the same question.  I pointed out
> that we at Wikimedia Foundation actually rather love Wikipedia Review -- I
> for one read it for its entertainment value -- and that in any case no one
> reading Wikipedia Review would ever be under the impression that they're
> affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation.

Personally, I find WR even more frustrating that foundation-l, so I
avoid it, but I fully agree with everyone that it is legally and
morally acceptable to use the Wikipedia trademark in such a way.

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

[Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation

[Mike Godwin]

Nathan writes:

Interesting - I wonder if this is in any way related to the decisions
> underlying the recent board statement on trademarks? Has the Foundation
> pursued Wikipedia Review in the same manner?


I can answer that question -- it's wholly unrelated to the recent Board
statement on trademarks. Our concern was not primarily about trademarks.

Some background:  The Wikipedia Art site, which was registered last year,
was operated by performance artists who (apparently) hoped to use Wikipedia
as a staging ground for a performance art project that involved creating
articles on Wikipedia and creating links, both internal and external, that
"proved" or "verified" the notability of the Wikipedia Art project. (This is
documented on their website.)

When the would-be artists attempted to use Wikipedia in this fashion, our
community of editors shut them down very quickly.  At the same time,
however, some editors also expressed concern that the
wikipediaart.orgdomain name would be seen as somehow affiliated with
our projects,
especially since the artists were trying to edit content directly on
Wikipedia. So, after listening to our editors' feedback, we sent a letter to
Wikipedia Art that was aimed, not to threaten legal action, but to outline
what our legal concerns were, and to try to begin a negotiation to resolve
the matter amicably -- ideally by switching the domain name over to us, but
not by requiring any content changes on their site at all.

We of course entirely support the site owners' prerogative to comment on and
criticize Wikipedia.  Our concern was that the Wikipedia Art project
presented itself as a way for individuals to contribute to Wikipedia
directly -- possibly by providing inaccurate reference information -- and,
in doing so, might seem to express an affiliation with us.  We note also
that Wikipedia itself is hosts quite a bit of art, and reference materials
about art, and there was some concern about how this would play out in
search-engine results. We are pleased that the project, after we contacted
them about this matter, has chosen to publish a disclaimer disassociating
itself more clear from our projects, and that they have ceased in their
attempts to use Wikipedia as a staging ground for their performance art
projects.

Unsurprisingly, the artists, who enjoyed making a fuss with their initial
perfomance-art project, are hoping to make a fuss about our having contacted
them at all.  We anticipated precisely this reaction, of course, which is
why our initial letter to Wikipedia Art, now posted on their website, talks
about resolving the matter amicably and asks the artists to respect and
understand our concerns.  In other words, it's about the gentlest "demand
letter" one can possibly write. We're pleased it led to positive results
(the disclaimer).  We always figured they might post our communications with
them.

With regard to Wikipedia Review: when I spoke with my friends at EFF about
this matter some weeks ago, they asked the same question.  I pointed out
that we at Wikimedia Foundation actually rather love Wikipedia Review -- I
for one read it for its entertainment value -- and that in any case no one
reading Wikipedia Review would ever be under the impression that they're
affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation.

In a nutshell:  Wikipedia editors brought the issue of the domain name to
our attention, we corresponded with the Wikipedia Arts folks, raising domain
name and trademark issues, and the result was a prominent disclaimer.  No
litigation was threatened or commenced.

Last time I spoke with my EFF counterparts about this, the conversation was
entirely friendly and collegial. We disagreed on some matters, but I pointed
out that if someone decided to use the EFF website as a staging ground for a
performance art piece, I'd entirely support their efforts to prevent
anyone's confusing the artists' work with their own.

Please feel free to ask me any further questions about this.


--Mike Godwin
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/4/23 geni :
> "Can a noncommercial critical website use the trademark of the entity
> it critiques in its domain name? Surprisingly, it appears that the
> usually open-minded folks at Wikipedia think not."
>
> http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/wikipedia-threatens-
>
> While I would regard the title of the article as misleading this is
> going to be something of a PR problem.
>
> Legally I've not looked at it closely and trademark isn't my thing
> although there may be potential to annoy everyone by arguing that the
> well documented existence of the "wikipedia loves art" err brand means
> there are potential passing off issues.

This is a very interesting case. My layman's view is that their
lawyers make some excellent points. Obviously, I haven't seen Mike
Godwin's comments on the subject (Wikipedia Art hasn't published them
due to not having his permission) and I can't really judge the
arguments having only seen one side, but at first glance it seems to
be legitimate fair use (or whatever the legal term is).

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

Re: [Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation

[Oldak Quill]

2009/4/23 geni :
> "Can a noncommercial critical website use the trademark of the entity
> it critiques in its domain name? Surprisingly, it appears that the
> usually open-minded folks at Wikipedia think not."
>
> http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/wikipedia-threatens-
>
> While I would regard the title of the article as misleading this is
> going to be something of a PR problem.
>
> Legally I've not looked at it closely and trademark isn't my thing
> although there may be potential to annoy everyone by arguing that the
> well documented existence of the "wikipedia loves art" err brand means
> there are potential passing off issues.

This is odd. If they it makes clear that wikipediaart.org has nothing
to do with Wikipedia or Wikimedia Foundation, which it does do, it
should be left alone - why not? The project is a non-commercial,
collaborative project which is supposed to comment on Wikipedia.
Certainly, it has no place in article space, and it is odd to think
that, because we are an open, collaborative project, that "anything
goes". But, why are we pursuing them now? As the above poster says, we
have never done anything about Wikipedia Review (to my knowledge) -
which is the right approach. This is especially odd since Wikimedia
Foundation has just announced it is selling branding to Orange. Why
can't a non-commerical, unaffiliated website use the name "Wikipedia"
in commenting about Wikipedia? Is this related to WF's monetisation of
Wikipedia's branding?

-- 
Oldak Quill (oldakqu...@gmail.com)

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

Re: [Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation

[Nathan]

Interesting - I wonder if this is in any way related to the decisions
underlying the recent board statement on trademarks? Has the Foundation
pursued Wikipedia Review in the same manner?

Nathan

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:51 PM, geni  wrote:

> "Can a noncommercial critical website use the trademark of the entity
> it critiques in its domain name? Surprisingly, it appears that the
> usually open-minded folks at Wikipedia think not."
>
> http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/wikipedia-threatens-
>
> While I would regard the title of the article as misleading this is
> going to be something of a PR problem.
>
> Legally I've not looked at it closely and trademark isn't my thing
> although there may be potential to annoy everyone by arguing that the
> well documented existence of the "wikipedia loves art" err brand means
> there are potential passing off issues.
>
> --
> geni
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation
today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation

[geni]

"Can a noncommercial critical website use the trademark of the entity
it critiques in its domain name? Surprisingly, it appears that the
usually open-minded folks at Wikipedia think not."

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/wikipedia-threatens-

While I would regard the title of the article as misleading this is
going to be something of a PR problem.

Legally I've not looked at it closely and trademark isn't my thing
although there may be potential to annoy everyone by arguing that the
well documented existence of the "wikipedia loves art" err brand means
there are potential passing off issues.

-- 
geni

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

Re: [Foundation-l] ID requirements proposed for Germans using video sites

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/4/23 David Gerard :
> 2009/4/23 Thomas Dalton :
>
>> Commons isn't a German site, so I don't see a problem. The WMF has
>> always said that it intends to follow US law only and not try and
>> cater to the laws of every country in the world - that includes
>> Germany. The article mentions a plan to force German ISPs to block
>> illegal sites, but that seems to be just to do with child pornography,
>> similar to the IWF blacklist in the UK (but done officially, so it
>> might actually be accountable). It seems unlikely to me that Germany
>> would block access to non-child porn foreign sites until this law,
>> people would immeadiately start comparing it to China and I doubt they
>> want that.
>
>
> Heh. You do realise a lot of the Commons copyright rules started as
> the intersection of US and German law? That's why there's quite a lot
> of Commons admins from de:wp.

No, I didn't realise that, I don't have much to do with commons, or
images in general. I don't see how that is relevant, though.

> In any case, us saying (in diplomatic wording) "don't be silly" would
> probably carry a lot of weight.

Indeed.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] ID requirements proposed for Germans using video sites

[David Gerard]

2009/4/23 Thomas Dalton :

> Commons isn't a German site, so I don't see a problem. The WMF has
> always said that it intends to follow US law only and not try and
> cater to the laws of every country in the world - that includes
> Germany. The article mentions a plan to force German ISPs to block
> illegal sites, but that seems to be just to do with child pornography,
> similar to the IWF blacklist in the UK (but done officially, so it
> might actually be accountable). It seems unlikely to me that Germany
> would block access to non-child porn foreign sites until this law,
> people would immeadiately start comparing it to China and I doubt they
> want that.


Heh. You do realise a lot of the Commons copyright rules started as
the intersection of US and German law? That's why there's quite a lot
of Commons admins from de:wp.

In any case, us saying (in diplomatic wording) "don't be silly" would
probably carry a lot of weight.


- d.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] ID requirements proposed for Germans using video sites

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/4/23 Sebastian Moleski :
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Thomas Dalton  
> wrote:
>> ... The WMF has
>> always said that it intends to follow US law only and not try and
>> cater to the laws of every country in the world - that includes
>> Germany
>
> {{citation needed}}

What do want a citation for, the WMF statement or the fact that
Germany is part of the world?

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Board statement on Wikimedia trademarks

[Florence Devouard]

Michael Snow wrote:
> This is the statement on trademarks mentioned earlier. It both states 
> the approach we want the Wikimedia Foundation to take and directs the 
> staff to carry it out. It basically sums up what our understanding has 
> been for a long time, but hadn't really been formally stated anywhere. 
> The board also voted unanimously to approve this. The statement follows:
> 
> The Wikimedia Foundation is committed to enabling our mission through a 
> wide network of chapters, community members, and organizational partners 
> who are all able to better achieve their goals by identifying themselves 
> with the Wikimedia community. Because of these efforts, there is a large 
> amount of value and goodwill associated with the name and marks. 
> Trademark law in the United States and internationally requires that the 
> holder of a mark take affirmative steps to protect the integrity of the 
> mark. However, because of our commitment to openness and community 
> empowerment, we wish to do this in a way that allows chapters and 
> community members to be able to continue to identify themselves with 
> Wikimedia marks without being unnecessarily restrictive.
> 
> Because of this, we ask the Wikimedia staff to take appropriate steps to 
> register and protect the Wikimedia marks, develop a set of policies and 
> practices, and develop a strategy to allow uses by the chapters and 
> community for activities in line with the Wikimedia mission.
> 
> --Michael Snow



Thank you Board.

Ant


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

Re: [Foundation-l] ID requirements proposed for Germans using video sites

[Sebastian Moleski]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Thomas Dalton  wrote:
> ... The WMF has
> always said that it intends to follow US law only and not try and
> cater to the laws of every country in the world - that includes
> Germany

{{citation needed}}

Sebastian

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

Re: [Foundation-l] ID requirements proposed for Germans using video sites

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/4/23 David Gerard :
> http://newteevee.com/2009/04/20/achtung-youtube-germany-proposes-federal-id-checks-for-online-video-sites/
>
> German readers - how much of a danger is this? Is Commons enough of a
> "video site"?

Commons isn't a German site, so I don't see a problem. The WMF has
always said that it intends to follow US law only and not try and
cater to the laws of every country in the world - that includes
Germany. The article mentions a plan to force German ISPs to block
illegal sites, but that seems to be just to do with child pornography,
similar to the IWF blacklist in the UK (but done officially, so it
might actually be accountable). It seems unlikely to me that Germany
would block access to non-child porn foreign sites until this law,
people would immeadiately start comparing it to China and I doubt they
want that.

___
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)

[Ray Saintonge]

David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/4/22 Milos Rancic
>> 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?
>
>   
Even if Marx's results are highly debatable, there can be little doubt 
that all his long hours in the British Museum library were spent in good 
faith trying to give economics a scientific point of view.  Forced 
neutrality is rarely neutral, and the "scientific production" of some of 
these East European writers has more to do with sycophancy than 
science.  That kind of writing is not unique to a Marxist context.

Ec

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

Re: [Foundation-l] ID requirements proposed for Germans using video sites

[Geoffrey Plourde]

I would guess probably not. Then again I am not German and have no legal 
training in the Basic Code. 





From: David Gerard 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 12:51:27 AM
Subject: [Foundation-l] ID requirements proposed for Germans using video sites

http://newteevee.com/2009/04/20/achtung-youtube-germany-proposes-federal-id-checks-for-online-video-sites/

German readers - how much of a danger is this? Is Commons enough of a
"video site"?


- 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

[Foundation-l] Newsletter in German language: Infobrief Wiki-Welt

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,

Just a few minutes ago I have sent the second edition of my "Infobrief
Wiki-Welt". It is meant for people who are interested in Wikipedia and
related subjects, but are no Wikipedians, for example journalists,
teachers, other professionals, or just Wikipedia fans. We often talk
to those people in seminars, courses, on Wikipedia Academies, but
mostly there is no follow-up, the contacts get lost. This newsletter
exists to tell them every one or two weeks about Wikipedia and
Wikimedia, to keep them in touch.

If you know such people who understand German, please inform them
about the "Infobrief Wiki-Welt". It is arranged at Google Groups, but
you can also mail me and I add addresses manually.

Kind regards
Ziko van Dijk

http://groups.google.de/group/infobrief-wiki-welt/about

-- 
Dr. Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde

___
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

[David Gerard]

2009/4/23 Paul Williams :
> On 4/22/09, David Gerard  wrote:

>> Gmail will *not* show you a copy of
>> messages you sent to a list. This is, apparently, for your comfort and
>> convenience.

> I have never noticed this one before... my messages always appear!


Yeah, they're showing you the copy you sent - not the copy as received
back from the server. There's a FAQ about this.


- 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

[Ziko van Dijk]

Dear Kul,

Congratulations for this arrangement; Orange is a really big player on
the market in some European and non European countries, that makes it
so impressive. (People in other countries may not realise that.)
What I still don't understand - forgive me, I am not very familiar
with mobile phones and techno stuff - what exactly is the deal between
Orange and the Foundation. Why is it so important to Orange that they
have the right to use our logos? What technical benefit comes from the
deal? Maybe you can describe it from the view of the end consumer? And
is it possible to reveal something about the amount that the
Foundation gets, at least roughly? :-)

Kind regards
Ziko


2009/4/23 Marcin Cieslak :
>> 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.
>
> I have two questions coming from Poland. Poland is a very important
> market for the FT Group, due to the majority stake that FT owns in
> the Polish incumbent telecom operator, Telekomunikacja Polska.
>
> 1) Does the deal include only Orange mobile platform or will it
> include also the new Orange Internet brand to be launched soon (at
> least in Poland)?  The difference is huge: while the Orange currently
> is just one of the four mobile operators competing in the market,
> the DSL market is based on the incumbent position in the landline
> connectivity and accounts for 80% of the broadband access in the
> country.
>
> 2) Does the deal potentialy include some arrangements regarding
> abuse handling with the Orange users? Since most broadband users
> in .pl come from the FT subsidiary network and are hidden behind
> the dynamic IP addresses. This leads to numerous issues, like
> blocking of the whole DSL range in region of Łódź in 2007
> (ca.  1 million inhabitants):
>
> http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blokada_Neostrady_w_%C5%81odzi
> (Polish-only)
>
> The telecom responded only after this issue has been prominent in
> the media, there is a big potential for improvement, for example:
>
> - better cooperation with the abuse team, possibly including
> - assignement of static, public IP addresses to the troublesome
> customers so that they can be filtered out.
>
> --
>              << Marcin Cieslak // sa...@system.pl >>
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde

___
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

[Paul Williams]

On 4/22/09, David Gerard  wrote:
>
> Gmail will *not* show you a copy of
> messages you sent to a list. This is, apparently, for your comfort and
> convenience.


I have never noticed this one before... my messages always appear!

Regards,

Paul Williams
___
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

[Marcin Cieslak]

> 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.

I have two questions coming from Poland. Poland is a very important
market for the FT Group, due to the majority stake that FT owns in
the Polish incumbent telecom operator, Telekomunikacja Polska.

1) Does the deal include only Orange mobile platform or will it
include also the new Orange Internet brand to be launched soon (at
least in Poland)?  The difference is huge: while the Orange currently
is just one of the four mobile operators competing in the market,
the DSL market is based on the incumbent position in the landline
connectivity and accounts for 80% of the broadband access in the
country.

2) Does the deal potentialy include some arrangements regarding
abuse handling with the Orange users? Since most broadband users
in .pl come from the FT subsidiary network and are hidden behind
the dynamic IP addresses. This leads to numerous issues, like
blocking of the whole DSL range in region of Łódź in 2007 
(ca.  1 million inhabitants):

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blokada_Neostrady_w_%C5%81odzi
(Polish-only)

The telecom responded only after this issue has been prominent in
the media, there is a big potential for improvement, for example:

- better cooperation with the abuse team, possibly including
- assignement of static, public IP addresses to the troublesome
customers so that they can be filtered out.

--
  << Marcin Cieslak // sa...@system.pl >>


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

Re: [Foundation-l] ID requirements proposed for Germans using video sites

[syrcro]

> On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 07:51:27 GMT, David Gerard wrote:
> http://newteevee.com/2009/04/20/achtung-youtube-germany-proposes-federal-id-checks-for-online-video-sites/
>
> German readers - how much of a danger is this? Is Commons enough of a
"video site"?
>
> - d.

Not much. It is just a campaign of the Junge Union NRW to get in the media. 
Like every German political youth organisation, they have to make wired 
statements, to get any media coverage. 

syrcro
-- 
Neu: GMX FreeDSL Komplettanschluss mit DSL 6.000 Flatrate + Telefonanschluss 
für nur 17,95 Euro/mtl.!* 
http://dslspecial.gmx.de/freedsl-surfflat/?ac=OM.AD.PD003K11308T4569a

___
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

[Robert Rohde]

Does the Board get involved in deciding whether to pursue new business
oppurtunities like this, or is that something that is solely handled
by the Foundation Staff?

This question isn't intended as a criticism in any way, I'm just
curious what the relationship is like surrounding big new projects
like this.

-Robert Rohde


On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 4:32 PM, 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.
>
> 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
>

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

[Foundation-l] ID requirements proposed for Germans using video sites

[David Gerard]

http://newteevee.com/2009/04/20/achtung-youtube-germany-proposes-federal-id-checks-for-online-video-sites/

German readers - how much of a danger is this? Is Commons enough of a
"video site"?


- 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

[Kul Takanao Wadhwa]

> 
> Will there be at least a rough guide to where this deal will result in
> the logo turning up legitimately?

Yes. We have a list of portals/sites where they plan to profile the 
content and the logo. We went through the list but we will review the 
use every quarter and reassess as needed.
> 
> Will any of the orange products support wikipedia's video format and
> by what mechanism?
> 

We're not sure yet since we are just at the first stage of this but we 
will give them as much advice as we possible can. We want to influence 
them to move in the "right" direction but our tech team will actually 
have some input (although not the final word) on their decisions b/c in 
the end, it is their sites. But in this position we can have more 
influence on the corporate world then we otherwise would have if we 
weren't directly involved with them in regards to our video format, Ogg, 
etc.

___
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

[David Gerard]

2009/4/23 geni :

> Will any of the orange products support wikipedia's video format and
> by what mechanism?


(hypothesising here) I expect that would require a converter from Ogg
Theora to 3GP and Ogg Vorbis to MP3 in the first instance.

Gently pressuring phone manufacturers to support Ogg formats may be
quite feasible, however.


- d.

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