[Foundation-l] Genisis of WMF Identification policy?
I was looking for something unrelated in the archives and came across an email [1] that I believe people might find informative wrt to the Identification Policy which I believe has had discussion tabled for the moment. It seems to be the original suggestion that WMF needs some sort of identification policy by then volunteer/board-member Erik. He was *not* a staff member at the time of this message, just to be clear, since people seem to be fond of re-framing debate along such lines lately. Summary of the context follows (Not perfectly accurate chronologically speaking): A female leader in the zh.WP community was harassed/threatened by the creation of an account User:Rape[HerRealName]. Advice was sought in handling the situation. There was talk about going to the authorities. There was talk about which information about the account creator could be given to the authorities under what circumstances. The existing privacy policy was quoted as "6 Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public." . There was talk about it essentially being a matter of mature judgment to differentiate between derogatory comments, which however reprehensible, do not merit violating a user's privacy and threats of violence which would compel the violation of privacy in order to attempt to prevent such threats from being carried out. The idea was suggested that perhaps those with the technical ability to access private information need to be identified to WMF so that WMF will know who deal with in case of abuse. It seemed to me that many people were quite surprised that the WMF was planning on recording the identifications of those with access to private information, instead on the non-recording of this correspondense which I believe has been the previous practice. It even seemed to me as though some were shocked at the implication that WMF may perhaps be looking for legal accountability for the judgments made by those with this access. So I found it very interesting when I stumbled across evidence of public discussion of the need to record the identities of trusted users in order to be able to deal with any abuse of private information by one of the Community-seat Board Members before the adoption of the resolution that has become controversial so recently. I don't mean to suggest that the surprise and shock were insincere, just that they seem to be rather uninformed as to the genesis of the resolution. It seems to me that those things were in fact the original intentions behind the resolution and the staff does have an obligation, however unpopular this obligation may have become during the time period it has been left unfulfilled, to see to recording such identities. Granted there are good reasons the obligation was left unfulfilled before, namely the lack of confidence in the WMF Office's technical and organizational ability to keep these records secure. But once the WMF Office reaches a level of reliability in organizational and technical competence where that objection is mitigated, they then must address their obligation to keep identification records. Also there are valid concerns over the ambiguity over whether the access to which particular tools should qualify people as subject to the Identification Resolution. What, however, in hindsight do not appear to be valid concerns to me are why the WMF "wants" to "change" things, or that the decision to keep such records was not in given a proper public place for discussion. I can imagine that the staff (who are much in contact with Erik who we must grant understood the intentions of a resolution he himself suggested the seed of in 2006) to some degree assumed that the trusted volunteers understood that the Identification Resolution's ultimate goal was the production of records and that practice of destroying correspondence was done out of responsibility for the fact that staff did not feel confident in their current ability to keep such records. I can also imagine the trusted volunteers who were upset by the idea of such records being kept to some degree assumed because there has sometimes been a practice of destroying identification correspondence that this practice was in fact the agreed upon policy of the Identification Resolution and also because they could not recall otherwise trusted volunteers to some degree assumed the potential policy of actually keeping identification records and why such records may be needed had never been brought up for public discussion until after it had been adopted. Certainly the exact thoughts and communications during this recent misunderstanding were rather more varied, less articulated, and altogether a shade more grey than my speculation. But I am confident that my speculations are not entirely inaccurate and that they are completely in good faith. There has recently been a
Re: [Foundation-l] Friendliness (was: Missing Wikipedians: An Essay)
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Renata St wrote:
>
> Then one day I stumbled upon Distributed Proofreaders (
> http://www.pgdp.net/c/) and proofread a few pages. I couple days later I
> received *three* *personalized* welcoming messages & evaluations "this is
> what you got right, this is what you should improve". I was shocked. These
> people are overworked, they have huge backlogs, they are stricter about
> quality than the pickiest FAC reviewer, yet three of them found time,
> energy, and good will to write lengthy personalized messages for a newbie
> who reviewed 30 book pages... If it was Wikipedia and I was a newbie with 30
> edits, best case scenario I would have been slapped with {{welcome}} and my
> articles with endless variations of {{cleanup}}. This opened my eyes that
> there *is* an alternative -- an unthinkable idea for someone born and raised
> up in the Wikipedia battlefield zone.
>
> The core of Wikipedia culture is battleground: fight vandals, nuke their
> articles, whack them and quick! Yes, it is important for the integrity of
> the encyclopedia. Yes, spam was prophesied to be the end of Wikipedia. But
> what will surely kill it is lack of participation. And we are killing the
> participation by whacking it with deletions, clean ups, bans, etc.
I heartily agree, with one minor difference of opinion about the
underlying cause.
In my opinion, the 'English Wikipedia' response mechanisms are not
driven by the size of the backlogs, but by the perceptions regarding
the 'need' for new contributors.
English Wikipedia is now sufficiently well known and culturally
important, that 'we' no longer need to care about new contributors.
Even if only 1% of new contributors work their way past the rejections
and through our maze of rules, we will still have significant growth.
Many new contributors on English Wikipedia are seen by peers and
treated with respect, like in the old days, however many more are not
found by people who care, and end up driven through the gates of our
systems of escalating warnings and the like.
'we' allow our systems to become automated and depersonalised, and any
newbies lost as a result are collateral damage:
"They were never suitable anyway."
The systems are designed so that the cliche '15 year old
admin-want-a-be' is expected to handled any newbie/new page, and they
do.
Wikimedia Commons is going the same way.
Smaller projects are far more welcoming and friendly to newbies, as
the project participants know the value of every new person.
Also each person participating in a smaller project has a sense of
achievement in 'the project'.
On smaller projects it is also possible for *one* person to watch
RecentChanges and see *everything*, and when more than one person does
that, the project has peer review of the newbie welcoming processes.
On many of the Wikisource projects, we have *edit* patrolling; if a
newbie makes five edits, up to five different people will be brought
into contact with the newbie.
Contrast this with English Wikipedia, which has *new page* patrolling.
Once the page has been 'actioned' by one person, nobody else in the
community will see the newbie while they work on that new page.
We need systems which ensure that, on large projects, each newbie end
up in contact with more than one established users who *care* about
the specific topical area that the newbie is interested in.
And they need to be reliable enough that we don't end up with 50%+ of
newbies being left to be managed by the admin-want-a-bes who have more
interest in pressing buttons than they do in the topic that interests
the newbie they are 'processing'.
--
John Vandenberg
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Friendliness (was: Missing Wikipedians: An Essay)
Samuel Klein wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 2:33 AM, MZMcBride wrote: >> Samuel Klein wrote: >>> tl;dr: we can attract thousands of new contributors with almost any >>> combination of skills and availability, if we ask nicely. >> >> Hmm, prove it. :-) You talk a good game and I'm not sure you're wrong, but >> I haven't seen much to suggest that you're right. > > The design of an effective request / campaign for a certain type of > contribution likely takes a significant amount of time and tweaking, > and a body of people available to respond to the initial interest > generated. Forgive me, but I'm still a bit lost here. Are you saying you can or can't crowdsource your crowdsourcing? The initial comments were about red herrings and the illusion of finite resources. Now you're pointing at resource limitations that exist before we can even get more resources? Is that about right? (Yes, it's still turtles all the way down.) MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reminder: IRC office hours with Sue Gardner today
30 minute notice. :) pb Steven Walling wrote: > Hi all, > > Sorry for the late reminder, but just wanted to let everyone know that the > IRC office hours with Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Sue Gardner > will be happening as planned at 00:00 UTC on the 25th (or the > afternoon/evening of the 24th, if you're in our end of the world.) > > The agenda is open, and as usual times and conversion links can be found on > Meta at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours > > Thanks! > -- Philippe Beaudette Head of Reader Relations Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. phili...@wikimedia.org 415 839 6885 x6643 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] lost in moderation
On 24 February 2011 12:15, Pedro Sanchez wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > I just promised her to post here as she's puzzled that was rejected by > moderation (unfairly if you ask her). > > I try to explain that sue's blog it's a personal blog and therefore > she can't expect the same level of tolerance and opennes as the places > (blogs, lists, etc) that are officially wikimedia something I rejected her post because I thought it was a bit rude, actually. There were a number of false and bad-faith assumptions in it, and the overall tone was snarky. I could've posted and rebutted, or posted and waited for other people to rebut, but I decided not to bother. Thanks, Sue ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] lost in moderation
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > You make some good points, but err in several respect: We don't, and > can't limit hiring to seasoned Wikipedians, and there are quite a few > seasoned Wikipedians who are behind Sue with respect to this issue. As to > the 9 reasons, they express peoples' feelings about editing; they are not > close examinations of editing history. The feelings are real too, even if > close examination of a specific controversy may show only a failure to > impose one's will and being upset about it. > > Fred > > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > I know, those aren't my reasonings, they're hers. I just promised her to post here as she's puzzled that was rejected by moderation (unfairly if you ask her). I try to explain that sue's blog it's a personal blog and therefore she can't expect the same level of tolerance and opennes as the places (blogs, lists, etc) that are officially wikimedia something ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Friendliness: a radical proposal
Only people who are fluent in Spanish have a prayer of solving problems on the Spanish Wikipedia. Somebody's got to grasp the nettle, maybe not you, but somebody, actually a determined group of somebodies. Faith... Fred > Greetings all. I have been monitoring exchanges regularly, but never felt > the urge to respond to any topic, here is my first. > > As a beginner, I found Wikipedia, in addition to unfriendly, very > abstract > and complex. > > Wikipedia Spanish has a problem with editors, and I can see in the text > below some of the things I have experienced, where is why: > > I am a big archaeology fan and decided to undertake a personal project, > enhancing the quality of archaeology articles, mainly because I noticed > that > many articles did not exist in Spanish or in English. > > What was worst was that many articles exist in English and not in > Spanish, > naively I set out to fix some of it, by investigating, researching and > adding bilingual articles, in some cases simply translating from English > and > a few from German, Italian, etc. So I guess I found the reason why there > are > far too few Spanish articles. > > At a point in time, I encountered empowered and authoritarian Spanish > text > editors that vandalized my contributions, deleted articles, made > Wikipedia > rules on the go, etc., and offered no explanations. The last resort > measure > I had was to stop creating Spanish articles. In English, however it has > been > a pleasure, I have found people very proactive, friendly, helpful, etc. > For > details about my contributions and comments, see my user page, under > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gumr51. I have a lot of time to > research > on my personal project, however very little time or interest in arguing > or > engaging in sterile debates with Text Editors, that I have no clue who > they > are, what is their knowledge, or actual interest are, since the > environment > is very impersonal, few even provide their real name. > > Since this is voluntary work, I would have liked or expected for the text > editors to advise or comment on problems they encountered, I spent a few > weeks last year asking for help and advice, I did get support in English, > but not in Spanish. > > I believe that in addition to "quality" text editors and their "power > levels", somebody may require to qualify the editors expertise in the > content of articles, beyond the Wikipedia rules. > > I will continue adding English archaeological articles. > > Regards from a frustrated Mexican bilingual "Wikipedian", > > Raul Gutierrez > > > -Original Message- > From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org > [mailto:foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Neil > Harris > Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 12:13 PM > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > Subject: [Foundation-l] Friendliness: a radical proposal > > Thesis: > > The main reason why Wikipedia seems unfriendly to beginners is the > reduction > in the assumption of good faith. A lot of this could be resolved simply > by > creating large numbers of new admins. This should be done automatically. > So > why not just do it? > > Argument and proposal: > > Many admins and edit patrollers find themselves forced into an aggressive > stance in order to keep up with the firehose of issues that need to be > dealt > with, a surprising amount of which is fueled by deliberate malice and > stupidity and actually does require an aggressive and proactive response. > > This is not the admins' fault. The major reason for this is the broken > RfA > process, which has slowed the creation of new admins to a trickle, and > has > led to an admin shortage, which in turn has led to the current > whack-a-mole > attitude to new editors, and a reduction in the ability to assume good > faith. > > I'd like to move back to an older era, where adminship was "no big deal", > and was allocated to any reasonably polite and competent editor, instead > of > requiring them to in effect run for political office. > > If, say, over the next three years, we could double the number of admins, > we > could halve the individual admin's workload, and give them more a lot > more > time for assuming good faith. And, with the lesser workload and more good > faith, there will be a lot less aggression required, and that will > trickle > outwards throughout the entire community. > > I can't see any reason why this shouldn't be done by an semi-automated > process, completely removing the existing broken RfA process. > > Now it might be argued that this is a bad idea, because adminship confers > too much power in one go. If so, the admin bit could be broken out into > a > base "new admin" role, and a set of specific extra "old admin" powers > which > can be granted automatically to all admins in good standing, after a > period > of perhaps a year. For an example of the kind of power restrictions I > have > in mind, perhaps base new admins might be able to deliver blocks of u
Re: [Foundation-l] lost in moderation
> Recently a friend of mine submitted a comment on the blogpost about "9 > reasons women don't edit.." > While I understand it's Sue's personal blog and therefore the > expectations of transparency and openness are not the same as with a true > Wikimedia blog, but her post was rejected by moderation. > I acknowledge she raised several controversial points, and possibly > mistaken. however she's quite direct and frank at expressing her ideas, > which may cause them to come across as non politically correct.. > She has this feeling that her comment was rejected not due to form but > due to substance, that the statements made Sue uncomfortable and tried to > hid it. I try to assure her that's not the case, that it was a sort of > misunderstanding. > In any case, I promised her to repost the comment here (in case comment > got moderated by a third person and Sue never got the chance to see it or > reply). > > - Begin post Sue, can you please explain how the Foundation will > change the wikipedia culture without any involvement of the communities > in this change? > Sorry to point at the emperor's new clothes but, AFAIK this initiative is > not a grassroots initiative coming from the communities, but something > coming from the outside and driven by (sorry to sound unrespectful) paid > staff, and very well paid (it reminds me a lot to the last member of the > wikipedia paid staff, Larry Sanger, trying to tell communities how they > should behave...), and not by leader wikipedians (sorry Sue, but you're a > mediocre wikipedian, with less than two hundred editions). > The problem you point out is real. The alleged reasons behind that > problem are a clear sample of amateurism. Coming here, cherry picking > among the mails you've received and trying to come out with a conclusion > is low-quality original research. I understand that the WMF has to > justify somehow why most of the money donated to wikipedia goes actually > to pay salaries of people that is unable to do anything for the > communities and not to the maintenance of the project. And last but not > least, try to say English Wikipedia whenever you now say Wikipedia. The > Wikipedia projects are far more than the English Wikipedia. Best regards > --- end post --- You make some good points, but err in several respect: We don't, and can't limit hiring to seasoned Wikipedians, and there are quite a few seasoned Wikipedians who are behind Sue with respect to this issue. As to the 9 reasons, they express peoples' feelings about editing; they are not close examinations of editing history. The feelings are real too, even if close examination of a specific controversy may show only a failure to impose one's will and being upset about it. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Friendliness: a radical proposal
Greetings all. I have been monitoring exchanges regularly, but never felt the urge to respond to any topic, here is my first. As a beginner, I found Wikipedia, in addition to unfriendly, very abstract and complex. Wikipedia Spanish has a problem with editors, and I can see in the text below some of the things I have experienced, where is why: I am a big archaeology fan and decided to undertake a personal project, enhancing the quality of archaeology articles, mainly because I noticed that many articles did not exist in Spanish or in English. What was worst was that many articles exist in English and not in Spanish, naively I set out to fix some of it, by investigating, researching and adding bilingual articles, in some cases simply translating from English and a few from German, Italian, etc. So I guess I found the reason why there are far too few Spanish articles. At a point in time, I encountered empowered and authoritarian Spanish text editors that vandalized my contributions, deleted articles, made Wikipedia rules on the go, etc., and offered no explanations. The last resort measure I had was to stop creating Spanish articles. In English, however it has been a pleasure, I have found people very proactive, friendly, helpful, etc. For details about my contributions and comments, see my user page, under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gumr51. I have a lot of time to research on my personal project, however very little time or interest in arguing or engaging in sterile debates with Text Editors, that I have no clue who they are, what is their knowledge, or actual interest are, since the environment is very impersonal, few even provide their real name. Since this is voluntary work, I would have liked or expected for the text editors to advise or comment on problems they encountered, I spent a few weeks last year asking for help and advice, I did get support in English, but not in Spanish. I believe that in addition to "quality" text editors and their "power levels", somebody may require to qualify the editors expertise in the content of articles, beyond the Wikipedia rules. I will continue adding English archaeological articles. Regards from a frustrated Mexican bilingual "Wikipedian", Raul Gutierrez -Original Message- From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Neil Harris Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 12:13 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: [Foundation-l] Friendliness: a radical proposal Thesis: The main reason why Wikipedia seems unfriendly to beginners is the reduction in the assumption of good faith. A lot of this could be resolved simply by creating large numbers of new admins. This should be done automatically. So why not just do it? Argument and proposal: Many admins and edit patrollers find themselves forced into an aggressive stance in order to keep up with the firehose of issues that need to be dealt with, a surprising amount of which is fueled by deliberate malice and stupidity and actually does require an aggressive and proactive response. This is not the admins' fault. The major reason for this is the broken RfA process, which has slowed the creation of new admins to a trickle, and has led to an admin shortage, which in turn has led to the current whack-a-mole attitude to new editors, and a reduction in the ability to assume good faith. I'd like to move back to an older era, where adminship was "no big deal", and was allocated to any reasonably polite and competent editor, instead of requiring them to in effect run for political office. If, say, over the next three years, we could double the number of admins, we could halve the individual admin's workload, and give them more a lot more time for assuming good faith. And, with the lesser workload and more good faith, there will be a lot less aggression required, and that will trickle outwards throughout the entire community. I can't see any reason why this shouldn't be done by an semi-automated process, completely removing the existing broken RfA process. Now it might be argued that this is a bad idea, because adminship confers too much power in one go. If so, the admin bit could be broken out into a base "new admin" role, and a set of specific extra "old admin" powers which can be granted automatically to all admins in good standing, after a period of perhaps a year. For an example of the kind of power restrictions I have in mind, perhaps base new admins might be able to deliver blocks of up to a month only, with the capability of longer blocks arriving when they have had the admin bit for long enough. All existing admins would be grandfathered in as "old admins" in this scheme, with no change in their powers. Every new admin should be granted the full "old admin" powers automatically after one year, unless they've done something so bad as to be worthy of stripping their admin bit completely. None of this should be presen
[Foundation-l] lost in moderation
Recently a friend of mine submitted a comment on the blogpost about "9 reasons women don't edit.." While I understand it's Sue's personal blog and therefore the expectations of transparency and openness are not the same as with a true Wikimedia blog, but her post was rejected by moderation. I acknowledge she raised several controversial points, and possibly mistaken. however she's quite direct and frank at expressing her ideas, which may cause them to come across as non politically correct.. She has this feeling that her comment was rejected not due to form but due to substance, that the statements made Sue uncomfortable and tried to hid it. I try to assure her that's not the case, that it was a sort of misunderstanding. In any case, I promised her to repost the comment here (in case comment got moderated by a third person and Sue never got the chance to see it or reply). - Begin post Sue, can you please explain how the Foundation will change the wikipedia culture without any involvement of the communities in this change? Sorry to point at the emperor's new clothes but, AFAIK this initiative is not a grassroots initiative coming from the communities, but something coming from the outside and driven by (sorry to sound unrespectful) paid staff, and very well paid (it reminds me a lot to the last member of the wikipedia paid staff, Larry Sanger, trying to tell communities how they should behave...), and not by leader wikipedians (sorry Sue, but you're a mediocre wikipedian, with less than two hundred editions). The problem you point out is real. The alleged reasons behind that problem are a clear sample of amateurism. Coming here, cherry picking among the mails you've received and trying to come out with a conclusion is low-quality original research. I understand that the WMF has to justify somehow why most of the money donated to wikipedia goes actually to pay salaries of people that is unable to do anything for the communities and not to the maintenance of the project. And last but not least, try to say English Wikipedia whenever you now say Wikipedia. The Wikipedia projects are far more than the English Wikipedia. Best regards --- end post --- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Friendliness: a radical proposal -- some proposed details and a diagram
Here are some more details to flesh out my proposal for new admin creation. Proposed rate of automatic new admin creation: 5% a month, until back to early-Wikipedia proportions of admin number relative to edit rate. Although this sounds a lot, it's only about 3 new admins a day. - State transitions: IP user | | Creates an account, passes captcha test V User | | Time passes V Autoconfirmed user | | Time passes. User gets chosen at random from pool of all editors, followed by machine checking for good participation. The daily rate of random selection is tuned to generate the correct rate of new admins over the long term. V Proposed new admin | | Gets message. Sends a request message to a list. Any "old admin" checks for human-like edits, then performs one-click action to issue admin bit. If they don't respond within (say) two weeks, the invitation is withdrawn, and they have to wait to be be drawn again at random. V New admin, with limited powers | | One year passes without being de-adminned V Old admin, with full powers -- Some possible machine-detectable criteria for "good participation", based on edits: * Account age: Has been a Wikipedia contributor for at least two years. * Recent activity: Has made at least one edit in at least X days in the last three months. * Recent blocks: has not been blocked at all in the last year * Responsiveness: Has edited a user page of an editor who has edited their user page, at least Y times in the last three months. * Edit comments: Has added a non-trivial edit comment to at least Z% of their edits * Namespaces: Has edited some balanced mix of articles, talk pages, user talk pages, and project talk pages, within the last three months Note that this is a satisficing activity -- the aim is not to find the best editors, or to be fair, but just to select active Wikipedia participants who know their way around, and are not misbehaving, and then select some of them by lot. The final test, for humanness, necessarily needs to be performed by a human being, to avoid the threat of bots gaming the system, but, if as suggested above, there are only about three or four candidates proposed each day. Note also that almost this process can be implemented in a bot, independently of the actual wikipedia software itself. -- Neil ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Friendliness: a radical proposal
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Neil Harris wrote: > Thesis: > > The main reason why Wikipedia seems unfriendly to beginners is the > reduction in the assumption of good faith. A lot of this could be > resolved simply by creating large numbers of new admins. This should be > done automatically. So why not just do it? > > Argument and proposal: > > Many admins and edit patrollers find themselves forced into an > aggressive stance in order to keep up with the firehose of issues that > need to be dealt with, a surprising amount of which is fueled by > deliberate malice and stupidity and actually does require an aggressive > and proactive response. > > This is not the admins' fault. The major reason for this is the broken > RfA process, which has slowed the creation of new admins to a trickle, > and has led to an admin shortage, which in turn has led to the current > whack-a-mole attitude to new editors, and a reduction in the ability to > assume good faith. > > I'd like to move back to an older era, where adminship was "no big > deal", and was allocated to any reasonably polite and competent editor, > instead of requiring them to in effect run for political office. > > If, say, over the next three years, we could double the number of > admins, we could halve the individual admin's workload, and give them > more a lot more time for assuming good faith. And, with the lesser > workload and more good faith, there will be a lot less aggression > required, and that will trickle outwards throughout the entire community. > > I can't see any reason why this shouldn't be done by an semi-automated > process, completely removing the existing broken RfA process. > > Now it might be argued that this is a bad idea, because adminship > confers too much power in one go. If so, the admin bit could be broken > out into a base "new admin" role, and a set of specific extra "old > admin" powers which can be granted automatically to all admins in good > standing, after a period of perhaps a year. For an example of the kind > of power restrictions I have in mind, perhaps base new admins might be > able to deliver blocks of up to a month only, with the capability of > longer blocks arriving when they have had the admin bit for long enough. > > All existing admins would be grandfathered in as "old admins" in this > scheme, with no change in their powers. Every new admin should be > granted the full "old admin" powers automatically after one year, unless > they've done something so bad as to be worthy of stripping their admin > bit completely. > > None of this should be presented as a rank or status system -- there > should only be "new admins", and "old admins" with the only distinction > being the length they have been wielding their powers -- admin "ageism" > should be a specifically taboo activity. > > Now, we could quite easily use a computer program to make a > pre-qualified list of editors who have edited a wide variety of pages, > interacted with other users, avoided recent blocks, etc. etc., and then > from time to time send a randomly chosen subset of them a message that > they can now ask any "old admin" to turn on their admin bit, with this > request expected not to be unreasonably withheld, provided their edits > are recognizably human in nature. (The reason why "new admins" should > not be able to create other admins is to prevent the creation of armies > of sockpuppet sleeper admin accounts riding on top of this process -- a > year of competent adminning should suffice as a Turing test.) > > So: unless there is a good reason not to, why not do this? > > -- Neil > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l I think those are two separate issues. I don't think having a large number of admins would have an effect on apparent friendliness to beginners, if I had to guess I would say having more admins would probably increase the degree of alienation. Admins do a lot of janitorial tasks, having more would prob. increase the administrative activity. This is in addition to having new admins who wouldn't have been properly vetted by the community, which would bring in new and unknown admins into the equation. There is an another school of thought, who believe that some admins might be the problem. Beginners might not be able to separate or understand that an admins actions is isolated and doesn't represent the larger community, they're probably unaware of possible recourse available to them after an administrative action. The second problem is the current RfA process, which I agree has been getting really restrictive for genuine candidates. I saw people oppose deserving candidates for the most trivial of reasons, from a single userbox to not being descriptive enough in edit summaries. I agree that we need to reconsider the current RfA process, the number of new admins has been fal
[Foundation-l] Friendliness: a radical proposal
Thesis: The main reason why Wikipedia seems unfriendly to beginners is the reduction in the assumption of good faith. A lot of this could be resolved simply by creating large numbers of new admins. This should be done automatically. So why not just do it? Argument and proposal: Many admins and edit patrollers find themselves forced into an aggressive stance in order to keep up with the firehose of issues that need to be dealt with, a surprising amount of which is fueled by deliberate malice and stupidity and actually does require an aggressive and proactive response. This is not the admins' fault. The major reason for this is the broken RfA process, which has slowed the creation of new admins to a trickle, and has led to an admin shortage, which in turn has led to the current whack-a-mole attitude to new editors, and a reduction in the ability to assume good faith. I'd like to move back to an older era, where adminship was "no big deal", and was allocated to any reasonably polite and competent editor, instead of requiring them to in effect run for political office. If, say, over the next three years, we could double the number of admins, we could halve the individual admin's workload, and give them more a lot more time for assuming good faith. And, with the lesser workload and more good faith, there will be a lot less aggression required, and that will trickle outwards throughout the entire community. I can't see any reason why this shouldn't be done by an semi-automated process, completely removing the existing broken RfA process. Now it might be argued that this is a bad idea, because adminship confers too much power in one go. If so, the admin bit could be broken out into a base "new admin" role, and a set of specific extra "old admin" powers which can be granted automatically to all admins in good standing, after a period of perhaps a year. For an example of the kind of power restrictions I have in mind, perhaps base new admins might be able to deliver blocks of up to a month only, with the capability of longer blocks arriving when they have had the admin bit for long enough. All existing admins would be grandfathered in as "old admins" in this scheme, with no change in their powers. Every new admin should be granted the full "old admin" powers automatically after one year, unless they've done something so bad as to be worthy of stripping their admin bit completely. None of this should be presented as a rank or status system -- there should only be "new admins", and "old admins" with the only distinction being the length they have been wielding their powers -- admin "ageism" should be a specifically taboo activity. Now, we could quite easily use a computer program to make a pre-qualified list of editors who have edited a wide variety of pages, interacted with other users, avoided recent blocks, etc. etc., and then from time to time send a randomly chosen subset of them a message that they can now ask any "old admin" to turn on their admin bit, with this request expected not to be unreasonably withheld, provided their edits are recognizably human in nature. (The reason why "new admins" should not be able to create other admins is to prevent the creation of armies of sockpuppet sleeper admin accounts riding on top of this process -- a year of competent adminning should suffice as a Turing test.) So: unless there is a good reason not to, why not do this? -- Neil ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Reminder: IRC office hours with Sue Gardner today
Hi all, Sorry for the late reminder, but just wanted to let everyone know that the IRC office hours with Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Sue Gardner will be happening as planned at 00:00 UTC on the 25th (or the afternoon/evening of the 24th, if you're in our end of the world.) The agenda is open, and as usual times and conversion links can be found on Meta at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours Thanks! -- Steven Walling Fellow at Wikimedia Foundation wikimediafoundation.org ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] The Narayam extension
Hoi, I am really happy to announce that the Narayam extension is installed and running at translatewiki.net. Currently it provides input methods for the Malayalam and Bangla languages. It has been enabled so that Narayam can be tested both for its functionality and for these input methods. We expect that many more languages need support for the input methods for their language. As Narayam is intended as a framework solution, it will allow for a solution that can easily extended. The status of the software is "functional" but it needs more tender loving care from Junaid PV and other developers to before it is ready for the Wikimedia Foundation. When you want support for an input method for your language, please contact Shiju Alex who manages this project. As always, we welcome it when you localise this and other software at translatewiki.net.. :) Thanks, GerardM http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2011/02/narayam-is-running-on-translatewikinet.html ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] innovation campaigns
Hoi, Innovation happens often under the radar screen. At translatewiki.net we frequently have people request features that are necessary to properly express the user interface in their language. This steady trickle make MediaWiki one of the best applications when it comes to Internationalisation, the number of language it gets localised in bring it to a level that is unsurpassed. With the Narayaram extension being developed by Junaid PV we have the potential for another technical improvement that will likely raise the game for many of our non latin script languages in the same way LocalisationUpdate gave localisers the satisfaction that their work was welcome and used. The Russian incubator project is probably the best practice to protect newbies from our friendly admins playing overlord. This is something that can be replicated in other projects, its page can be translated in Meta even without the possible technical support that is available.. Innovation exist everywhere in our world because if there is one thing we have, it is bright people who seek answers to the problems they experience. The trick is to give them room and learn their lessons. Thanks, GerardM On 24 February 2011 08:34, Mingli Yuan wrote: > Hi, folks, > > As I see from the page: > > http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Plan/Movement_Priorities#Encourage_Innovation > > Innovation is a key factor of Wikimedia movement. But do we have > any innovation campaigns > to encourage small innovative projects around the world? If we have, sorry > for my spam. > > I have a small project to promote Chinese Wikipedia ( http://wikiedge.org), > and I need fundings. > > Just a suggestion, and thanks. > > Regards, > Mingli > ___ > 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] An agenda for the meeting of the language committee
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:45, M. Williamson wrote: > There are currently 13 members of the committee, all of them live in > Europe, the US or Canada with the sole exception of Amir Aharoni, who > currently lives in Jerusalem but lived in Russia until 1991 and whose > native language is Russian. I find it hard to believe that the > language committee has been actively recruiting Wikimedians or others > in Asia, Latin America or Africa but faced constant rejection and lack > of interest from all people in those places, which is the impression I > got from what you said. I think the appropriate reaction to such a > strong imbalance (and it is a very strong one) is not to say "Well, we > will be happy to have them if they ever want to join" but to say "We > recognize that this is an issue and we will actively recruit people to > try to rectify it." There is a lot of mystification around LangCom. Most importantly, it is not a secretive active group with The Plan. It is a passive decision-making body which implements Language proposal policy [1]. Basically, any proposal for a project in a natural living language will pass if: (1) it has ISO 639-3 code, (2) it has a writing system and (3) contributors have shown sustainable activity. All three requirements are clearly measurable. And, as I said before, our job is mostly boring. If implemented strictly, a computer could make decisions. I need a couple of hours to make fully functional program. Reasons why humans are better include just a couple of reasons: * To be able to say to them: If you don't have an ISO 639-3 code, try to get it and inform us after that. * To realize that some requests are not so well worded or categorized and to help to requesters to articulate it better. * To realize if the request is trolling. With one hour of training, I am sure that any Wikimedian would be able to make valid decisions. I can do that job alone, as well as any member of LangCom can do it alone. The job is very comparable with front-officer's job: take application, see if it is valid, categorize it, send it to the next instance (in our case Bugzilla). In such circumstances, having culturally diverse committee is colorful and nice, but far from any priority. So, yes, according to the present situation, something like "Well, we will be happy to have them if they ever want to join" (actually, "We will be happy to have *relevant* persons from those areas to join us.") is fully legitimate position. But, my idea was never that LangCom should stay there. Yes, I want to see LangCom as an active working body. And I am, actually, actively searching for new members. I found Michael, Antony and Amir. But, it is not an easy task. You have to know a couple of things about candidate is (1) reasonable and (2) competent person who is (3) introduced in Wikimedia and (4) willing to participate. About (3) and (4): we've got 5 (five) applications for a couple of months (not sure, maybe almost half of year passed). And (1) and (2) need to be checked somehow. It could be checked by Wikipedia contributions, lists posts and personally (in real life or via net). And there are a lot of similar descriptions of the situation which I could give. Everything is on the line: if we are talking about the present situation, then ; if we are talking about the ideas for the future, then . It is obviously that we'll need to discuss about active recruitment in May, if we move toward more activity. In other words: complain noted. So, you can go further with other suggestions :) [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_proposal_policy ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] An agenda for the meeting of the language committee
Hello, 2011/2/24 M. Williamson : > There are currently 13 members of the committee, all of them live in > Europe, the US or Canada with the sole exception of Amir Aharoni, who > currently lives in Jerusalem but lived in Russia until 1991 and whose > native language is Russian. I find it hard to believe that the > language committee has been actively recruiting Wikimedians or others > in Asia, Latin America or Africa but faced constant rejection and lack > of interest from all people in those places, which is the impression I > got from what you said. I think the appropriate reaction to such a > strong imbalance (and it is a very strong one) is not to say "Well, we > will be happy to have them if they ever want to join" but to say "We > recognize that this is an issue and we will actively recruit people to > try to rectify it." I agree with Mark here. This is also a common issue in many international organisations, and we need to take active steps to correct it for Wikimedia. Best regards, Yann > 2011/2/24, Lodewijk : >> As far as I am aware, but please correct me if I'm wrong, the language >> committee has always tried to gather a large diversity from all over the >> world. However, it seems hard to find people from underrepresented regions >> to bother themselves with this boring matter (no offense). So if you know a >> good candidate from a region you feel is underrepresented, just put them in >> touch with Gerard and I'm confident they will be able to at least >> incorporate the knowledge. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Lodewijk ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] An agenda for the meeting of the language committee
{{sofixit}} :)
2011/2/24 M. Williamson
> There are currently 13 members of the committee, all of them live in
> Europe, the US or Canada with the sole exception of Amir Aharoni, who
> currently lives in Jerusalem but lived in Russia until 1991 and whose
> native language is Russian. I find it hard to believe that the
> language committee has been actively recruiting Wikimedians or others
> in Asia, Latin America or Africa but faced constant rejection and lack
> of interest from all people in those places, which is the impression I
> got from what you said. I think the appropriate reaction to such a
> strong imbalance (and it is a very strong one) is not to say "Well, we
> will be happy to have them if they ever want to join" but to say "We
> recognize that this is an issue and we will actively recruit people to
> try to rectify it."
>
> 2011/2/24, Lodewijk :
> > As far as I am aware, but please correct me if I'm wrong, the language
> > committee has always tried to gather a large diversity from all over the
> > world. However, it seems hard to find people from underrepresented
> regions
> > to bother themselves with this boring matter (no offense). So if you know
> a
> > good candidate from a region you feel is underrepresented, just put them
> in
> > touch with Gerard and I'm confident they will be able to at least
> > incorporate the knowledge.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > 2011/2/24 M. Williamson
> >
> >> To me, this is still a problem. If the committee never made any
> >> decisions and instead relied 100% on the opinions of others, then
> >> perhaps the composition wouldn't matter. However, think about this: if
> >> you gather a committee to make decisions about agriculture and recruit
> >> only from European countries, you will find a very different group of
> >> opinions than if you recruit from Africa or India. The same is
> >> certainly the case here. The way people think about languages and
> >> linguistic diversity differs around the world, and it is not to our
> >> benefit to have a committee composed of mostly people from one part of
> >> the world, especially considering that over 60% of Earth's population
> >> lives in Asia. What I am not suggesting is that we should invite the
> >> world's foremost expert on Hindi or Sino-Tibetan languages to be a
> >> member of the committee; what I am suggesting is that we should invite
> >> people similar to existing members, except that they happen to be from
> >> Asia, Africa, Latin America, etc. So people with a deep interest in
> >> many languages, who can bring us different perspectives.
> >>
> >> 2011/2/23, Casey Brown :
> >> > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Milos Rancic
> wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 06:55, Bishakha Datta <
> bishakhada...@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>> One thought occurred to me: there is no representation of Asian
> >> languages
> >> >>> in
> >> >>> the committee (and I don't mean only Indian languages). Would the
> >> >>> committee
> >> >>> want to consider an expansion in membership to include someone who
> is
> >> >>> fluent
> >> >>> in one or more Asian languages?
> >> >>
> >> >> In principle yes, but... [1]
> >> >>
> >> >> Linguistic qualifications for becoming a LangCom member are not so
> >> >> simple. After a couple of years in LangCom, I may say that many
> >> >> professors of linguistics don't fit. And the main reason is not their
> >> >> knowledge, but attitude toward languages. Or, to be more precise,
> >> >> their boldness. For example, LangCom tasks require from one
> >> >> Indo-Europeanist to give expertize on any Indo-European language, but
> >> >> many of them would say that the classification of, let's say, Kurdish
> >> >> languages is not the part of their job, but the part of the job of an
> >> >> expert in Iranian languages. Such expert in LangCom is basically
> >> >> useless.
> >> >
> >> > Doesn't the language committee also actively seek out experts in
> >> > different languages when they need to? I seem to recall you guys
> >> > having all test wikis checked by a linguist/expert who speaks the
> >> > language before they are created.
> >> >
> >> > So it's not like people who speak Asian (or other similar) languages
> >> > aren't being actively involved, it's just that none of them are in the
> >> > "administrative committee" at this time. At least that's how I
> >> > remember it being explained many threads ago. :-)
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Casey Brown
> >> > Cbrown1023
> >> >
> >> > ___
> >> > foundation-l mailing list
> >> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> skype: node.ue
> >>
> >> ___
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> > ___
Re: [Foundation-l] An agenda for the meeting of the language committee
There are currently 13 members of the committee, all of them live in Europe, the US or Canada with the sole exception of Amir Aharoni, who currently lives in Jerusalem but lived in Russia until 1991 and whose native language is Russian. I find it hard to believe that the language committee has been actively recruiting Wikimedians or others in Asia, Latin America or Africa but faced constant rejection and lack of interest from all people in those places, which is the impression I got from what you said. I think the appropriate reaction to such a strong imbalance (and it is a very strong one) is not to say "Well, we will be happy to have them if they ever want to join" but to say "We recognize that this is an issue and we will actively recruit people to try to rectify it." 2011/2/24, Lodewijk : > As far as I am aware, but please correct me if I'm wrong, the language > committee has always tried to gather a large diversity from all over the > world. However, it seems hard to find people from underrepresented regions > to bother themselves with this boring matter (no offense). So if you know a > good candidate from a region you feel is underrepresented, just put them in > touch with Gerard and I'm confident they will be able to at least > incorporate the knowledge. > > Best regards, > > Lodewijk > > 2011/2/24 M. Williamson > >> To me, this is still a problem. If the committee never made any >> decisions and instead relied 100% on the opinions of others, then >> perhaps the composition wouldn't matter. However, think about this: if >> you gather a committee to make decisions about agriculture and recruit >> only from European countries, you will find a very different group of >> opinions than if you recruit from Africa or India. The same is >> certainly the case here. The way people think about languages and >> linguistic diversity differs around the world, and it is not to our >> benefit to have a committee composed of mostly people from one part of >> the world, especially considering that over 60% of Earth's population >> lives in Asia. What I am not suggesting is that we should invite the >> world's foremost expert on Hindi or Sino-Tibetan languages to be a >> member of the committee; what I am suggesting is that we should invite >> people similar to existing members, except that they happen to be from >> Asia, Africa, Latin America, etc. So people with a deep interest in >> many languages, who can bring us different perspectives. >> >> 2011/2/23, Casey Brown : >> > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 06:55, Bishakha Datta >> >> wrote: >> >>> One thought occurred to me: there is no representation of Asian >> languages >> >>> in >> >>> the committee (and I don't mean only Indian languages). Would the >> >>> committee >> >>> want to consider an expansion in membership to include someone who is >> >>> fluent >> >>> in one or more Asian languages? >> >> >> >> In principle yes, but... [1] >> >> >> >> Linguistic qualifications for becoming a LangCom member are not so >> >> simple. After a couple of years in LangCom, I may say that many >> >> professors of linguistics don't fit. And the main reason is not their >> >> knowledge, but attitude toward languages. Or, to be more precise, >> >> their boldness. For example, LangCom tasks require from one >> >> Indo-Europeanist to give expertize on any Indo-European language, but >> >> many of them would say that the classification of, let's say, Kurdish >> >> languages is not the part of their job, but the part of the job of an >> >> expert in Iranian languages. Such expert in LangCom is basically >> >> useless. >> > >> > Doesn't the language committee also actively seek out experts in >> > different languages when they need to? I seem to recall you guys >> > having all test wikis checked by a linguist/expert who speaks the >> > language before they are created. >> > >> > So it's not like people who speak Asian (or other similar) languages >> > aren't being actively involved, it's just that none of them are in the >> > "administrative committee" at this time. At least that's how I >> > remember it being explained many threads ago. :-) >> > >> > -- >> > Casey Brown >> > Cbrown1023 >> > >> > ___ >> > foundation-l mailing list >> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > >> >> >> -- >> skype: node.ue >> >> ___ >> 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 > -- skype: node.ue ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Uns
Re: [Foundation-l] An agenda for the meeting of the language committee
As far as I am aware, but please correct me if I'm wrong, the language committee has always tried to gather a large diversity from all over the world. However, it seems hard to find people from underrepresented regions to bother themselves with this boring matter (no offense). So if you know a good candidate from a region you feel is underrepresented, just put them in touch with Gerard and I'm confident they will be able to at least incorporate the knowledge. Best regards, Lodewijk 2011/2/24 M. Williamson > To me, this is still a problem. If the committee never made any > decisions and instead relied 100% on the opinions of others, then > perhaps the composition wouldn't matter. However, think about this: if > you gather a committee to make decisions about agriculture and recruit > only from European countries, you will find a very different group of > opinions than if you recruit from Africa or India. The same is > certainly the case here. The way people think about languages and > linguistic diversity differs around the world, and it is not to our > benefit to have a committee composed of mostly people from one part of > the world, especially considering that over 60% of Earth's population > lives in Asia. What I am not suggesting is that we should invite the > world's foremost expert on Hindi or Sino-Tibetan languages to be a > member of the committee; what I am suggesting is that we should invite > people similar to existing members, except that they happen to be from > Asia, Africa, Latin America, etc. So people with a deep interest in > many languages, who can bring us different perspectives. > > 2011/2/23, Casey Brown : > > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 06:55, Bishakha Datta > >> wrote: > >>> One thought occurred to me: there is no representation of Asian > languages > >>> in > >>> the committee (and I don't mean only Indian languages). Would the > >>> committee > >>> want to consider an expansion in membership to include someone who is > >>> fluent > >>> in one or more Asian languages? > >> > >> In principle yes, but... [1] > >> > >> Linguistic qualifications for becoming a LangCom member are not so > >> simple. After a couple of years in LangCom, I may say that many > >> professors of linguistics don't fit. And the main reason is not their > >> knowledge, but attitude toward languages. Or, to be more precise, > >> their boldness. For example, LangCom tasks require from one > >> Indo-Europeanist to give expertize on any Indo-European language, but > >> many of them would say that the classification of, let's say, Kurdish > >> languages is not the part of their job, but the part of the job of an > >> expert in Iranian languages. Such expert in LangCom is basically > >> useless. > > > > Doesn't the language committee also actively seek out experts in > > different languages when they need to? I seem to recall you guys > > having all test wikis checked by a linguist/expert who speaks the > > language before they are created. > > > > So it's not like people who speak Asian (or other similar) languages > > aren't being actively involved, it's just that none of them are in the > > "administrative committee" at this time. At least that's how I > > remember it being explained many threads ago. :-) > > > > -- > > Casey Brown > > Cbrown1023 > > > > ___ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > -- > skype: node.ue > > ___ > 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] for those of you who don't follow the PHD comics
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1422 -- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.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] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications
The license can only call upon the law. Any attempts to plaster over the underlying deficits in the law are just that:plaster. We often seem to pretend the licenses are all smooth and perfect, but just because they can't be substantially smoothed and perfected any further doesn't mean that people who can feel slight cracks in them are hallucinating. Perfectly rational licensing which works universally well is not an really option. There just isn't a rational schema of copyright law for such a license to call upon. But I think the CC licenses work well enough; as well as we can realistically hope for. Birgitte SB - Original Message > From: Lodewijk > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > Sent: Wed, February 23, 2011 7:10:44 AM > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with >the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications > > If that is the case (As I understood this has never yet been tested in > court, but I would appreciate any links to any jurisprudence, although we > probably should start a new thread) then the point I tried to make still > stands: a license should work in every medium. Whether the uploader makes > restrictions to the applicability of the license does not matter, we should > just avoid that merely because of the license the work cannot be used in a > certain medium. I hoped to direct the discussion a bit into a helpful > direction, but I guess my email is only leading to different side tracks. > > Best regards, > > Lodewijk > > 2011/2/23 Gerard Meijssen > > > Hoi, > > If a copyright holder makes something available under a particular license, > > it is made available in a particular way. Yes you can for instance print or > > do whatever with what is provided, but you cannot claim the same right on > > the same object in a higher resolution. > > > > A license is given for what is provided in the way it is provided. What you > > can or cannot do with is depends on the license. > > Thanks, > > GerardM > > > > On 23 February 2011 11:08, Lodewijk wrote: > > > > > Just to make a clarification: > > > > > > If you have copyright on a "thing" (with the lack of a better word) in > > one > > > medium, you also have it in another. If a text or image is copyrighted in > > > print, it is copyrighted online. That is what I meant with universal in > > > this > > > context, sorry if I was confusing. > > > > > > Therefore, a license should apply to all mediums to make the content > > truly > > > re-usable. It should not matter what you do with the content to "publish" > > > it > > > - print it, shout it on the street or for all I care you take an airplane > > > and draw it in the air: the same free license should apply. > > > > > > Of course I am aware of all kinds of problems in copyright legislation > > and > > > how it sucks, I know that countries have different laws, one worse than > > the > > > other. But solving that would probably be slightly over > > > stretching ourselves. > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Lodewijk > > > > > > 2011/2/23 Birgitte SB > > > > > > > I don't want get into the splitting hairs on licenses that is the rest > > of > > > > this > > > > thread. > > > > > > > > > > > > However you basic assumption is wrong. Copyright is not universal. > > > > Copyright > > > > is a kludge. A very ugly kludge. It works because in the normal > > > work-a-day > > > > copyright world people just take for granted that it would all make > > sense > > > > if > > > > they put it under a microscope. And in the controversial copyright > > world > > > > people > > > > pay larges sums of money (i.e. out of court settlements) to avoid > > having > > > to > > > > face > > > > how ugly it is under the microscope. > > > > > > > > > > > > Copyright is a set widely applicable laws sometimes written by people > > > with > > > > narrow interests and sometimes based on ancient traditions that > > translate > > > > poorly > > > > into our modern world. It is not in any way universal. Not > > > internationally > > > > speaking. Not over time. Not across mediums. > > > > > > > > Birgitte SB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Original Message > > > > > From: Lodewijk > > > > > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List < > > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > > > > > Sent: Tue, February 22, 2011 5:02:05 AM > > > > > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big > > > disagreement > > > > with > > > > >the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications > > > > > > > > > > I don't get it. > > > > > > > > > > Copyright is universal, so should copyright licenses be. There are > > > > numerous > > > > > exceptions to come up with, and we can discuss on this list into > > > > eternity > > > > > about those where Geni can come up with wonderful examples and > > Teofilo > > > > will > > > > > come up with reasons why they fall outside his
