Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 12:41 PM, David Gerard wrote: > On 15 July 2011 20:07, Nathan wrote: > >> Anyway, I think debating the name is a bit cart before horse - >> the idea is that these organizations seem to share common ideals, and >> could cooperative in mutually beneficial ways with some sort of formal >> vehicle. > > > I don't entirely agree. A good name for a movement is one that > describes while it labels, e.g. "Creative Commons". I'd like a better > name than "the free culture" when referring to the broader sense of > "us". If we can come up with one, then win. Great observation and great reply. It _is_ putting the cart before the horse to pick a name before you start picking members. Logically you first assemble a group of "Movement Sites", then invite their representatives to a discussion, and then collectively decide on a name. But, right now, we have the strategic advantage that since we're the ones organizing, we can pick the tentative name now and we can pick the sites invited in the first wave of invitations. That have been LOTS of "free info sharing" movements. What would make this one special? Basically, that it is intrinsically and clearly tied to the "Global Wikimedia Commmunities" and is an extension OF the Wikimedia values ON other sites. If we pick a name as generic as "Open Knowledge", or if we invite potential members before we get a tentative name, then how will we communicate the idea of that the movement is centered around Wikimedia, its values, and its success? How will we ensure that the "Wikimedia beyond WMF servers" movement can be promoted and supported by the existing Wikimedia movement and its foundation. If we just start "a new" movement with no clear tie to the existing Wikimedia groups, think of a name is simple, but the resulting movement will be neither special nor new. We want other projects to, be able to have the exact same kind of relationship with our foundation that our existing projects enjoy, if all parties agree. That will still have to be decided on a case-by-case basis, but that's the goal of forming a new movement-- to help the WMF identify, ally with, and cooperate with those projects that are part of its movement without being part of its serverfarm. Our foundation is something very one-of-a-kind. Nonprofit foundations are a dime a dozen, but OUR foundation is a group of non-profit professionals who have "adapted themselves" to interface with a large, diverse, global community-- and vice versa. A foundation "run by" an activist wiki community with the help of high-quality professionals-- I know of no other organization that has ever developed in quite this way, and it seems to be doing things that nobody else ever succeeded in doing. Free information movements aren't new-- what is new is Wikimedia. It's managed to keep a large, coherent community for a decade, it's managed to stabilizing and multiply our funding source, it provides high grade strategic support and leadership-- that's the "special element". If an Unnamed Movement doesn't start off clearly tied to Wikimedia, the job isn't going to get any easier once we invite people who aren't currently even part of Wikimedia. If it's hard for us to decide what our name and our values are, it's only going to get more difficult after we invite people who are currently more tied to Mediawiki than Wikimedia. After all, we only want people who are basically okay with "Wikimedia Values". Clarifying that vision BEFORE assembling the candidate members is important. A brand name isn't the ONLY way to communicate a clear, strong tie to WMF/Wikimedia, but it is a very very powerful way. And remember, we -basically- want the foundation to have a sort of veto power over formal membership in the Unnamed Movement. I can't swear how a future group of people will actually behave, but the hope is that the the 'core' of this Larger Unnamed Movement should so closely tied to WMF that we forget they're not part of it. For the "most core" projects, ties to the foundation will happen anyway on a case by case-- but the IDEA is that there could be a movement set up to include projects too new or too small to merit ANY such evaluation by the foundation. But the foundation should always feel comfortable supporting and promoting this larger unnamed movement. They should also feel comfortable disavowing isolated bad-faith actors who 'claim' a kinship to the movement. If I just invite the projects that, in my mind, share our values, how do we know we won't wind up a with a group that the foundation and our projects AREN'T comfortable supporting? If the new movement is "just another" free information movement-- one with no clear ties to WMF or the existing Wikimedia Movement, then the people who join it won't have any clear ties to WMF either. And WMF, therefore, will, in turn, not feel as connected to the larger movement and not feel as comfortable supporting it. A movement can't have a g
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
- Original Message > From: Nathan > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > Sent: Fri, July 15, 2011 2:07:33 PM > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for >self-identified affiliation > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Birgitte SB wrote: > > > > > > > > > > - Original Message > >> From: James Heilman > >> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> Sent: Fri, July 15, 2011 10:39:14 AM > >> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for > >>self-identified affiliation > >> > >> I agree something like "Open Knowledge Project" would be a more suitable > >> term. Do they have any decals like those of Health on the Net that people > >> could add to their websites? Should there be different degree of > >> inclusiveness depending on non commercial or commercial reuse? I see this > as > >> the first step towards a greater sharing of content between sites. > >> > > > > "Open Knowledge Project" only works for content creators or relatively new > > projects that can still restrict their intake of content like Commons has. > We > > don't want dilute "Open Knowledge" and the issue is existing GLAM >organizations > > that want to affiliate with the movement. Some is needed more along the >lines > > of "Dedicated to Emancipating Culture - we are committed the licensing all > > internally owned copyrights under [favorite free license] and to >forthrightly > > advertising the most accurate copyright information we can on all the >content we > > curate." > > > > Birgitte SB > > > > Not sure I follow - GLAM institutions are still about disseminating > knowledge at low or no cost, so it seems like the name would still > apply. Anyway, I think debating the name is a bit cart before horse - > the idea is that these organizations seem to share common ideals, and > could cooperative in mutually beneficial ways with some sort of formal > vehicle. A GLAM institute doesn't necessarily own the copyrights to all the content they have. A project that contains copyrighted material would not be able to use an "Open Content" badge. "Open Content" has to be restricted to places where it is allowable to make derivatives works for commercial purposes from the content. Yet it would be nice to have a way to notice a hypothetical GLAM that doesn't attempt to claim copyright on PD works they have merely digitized, freely licenses the derivative materials produced by employees, and makes detailed copyright info on their content accessible. There is a significant difference between an organization who might make such an effort and one that tends to stamp "All material Copyright of [GLAM]" everywhere (whether that claim could possibly be true or not). It would be nice to notice those organizations which are doing what they can with the rights they do control rather than saying "It's shame you accepted those donations of materials 50 years back without securing full copyright control, but with that content you can't join our club." Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
On 15 July 2011 20:07, Nathan wrote: > Anyway, I think debating the name is a bit cart before horse - > the idea is that these organizations seem to share common ideals, and > could cooperative in mutually beneficial ways with some sort of formal > vehicle. I don't entirely agree. A good name for a movement is one that describes while it labels, e.g. "Creative Commons". I'd like a better name than "the free culture" when referring to the broader sense of "us". If we can come up with one, then win. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Birgitte SB wrote: > > > > > - Original Message >> From: James Heilman >> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Sent: Fri, July 15, 2011 10:39:14 AM >> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for >>self-identified affiliation >> >> I agree something like "Open Knowledge Project" would be a more suitable >> term. Do they have any decals like those of Health on the Net that people >> could add to their websites? Should there be different degree of >> inclusiveness depending on non commercial or commercial reuse? I see this as >> the first step towards a greater sharing of content between sites. >> > > "Open Knowledge Project" only works for content creators or relatively new > projects that can still restrict their intake of content like Commons has. We > don't want dilute "Open Knowledge" and the issue is existing GLAM > organizations > that want to affiliate with the movement. Some is needed more along the lines > of "Dedicated to Emancipating Culture - we are committed the licensing all > internally owned copyrights under [favorite free license] and to forthrightly > advertising the most accurate copyright information we can on all the content > we > curate." > > Birgitte SB > Not sure I follow - GLAM institutions are still about disseminating knowledge at low or no cost, so it seems like the name would still apply. Anyway, I think debating the name is a bit cart before horse - the idea is that these organizations seem to share common ideals, and could cooperative in mutually beneficial ways with some sort of formal vehicle. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
- Original Message > From: James Heilman > To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Sent: Fri, July 15, 2011 10:39:14 AM > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for >self-identified affiliation > > I agree something like "Open Knowledge Project" would be a more suitable > term. Do they have any decals like those of Health on the Net that people > could add to their websites? Should there be different degree of > inclusiveness depending on non commercial or commercial reuse? I see this as > the first step towards a greater sharing of content between sites. > "Open Knowledge Project" only works for content creators or relatively new projects that can still restrict their intake of content like Commons has. We don't want dilute "Open Knowledge" and the issue is existing GLAM organizations that want to affiliate with the movement. Some is needed more along the lines of "Dedicated to Emancipating Culture - we are committed the licensing all internally owned copyrights under [favorite free license] and to forthrightly advertising the most accurate copyright information we can on all the content we curate." Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
I agree something like "Open Knowledge Project" would be a more suitable term. Do they have any decals like those of Health on the Net that people could add to their websites? Should there be different degree of inclusiveness depending on non commercial or commercial reuse? I see this as the first step towards a greater sharing of content between sites. -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
> I think this is a good idea (and better than trying to get all Free > Content/Open Knowledge/etc. people to badge themselves as somehow part > of our Wikimedia Movement, which though (hopefully!) welcoming and > inclusive is not as wide as the whole topic. > > I'd note that there is of course the excellent Open Knowledge > Definition[0], penned in part by our very own Erik Möller, which gave > rise to the Open Knowledge Foundation[1]. Perhaps working with them on > this might be a good move? > > [0] - opendefinition.org > [1] - okfn.org > > J. > -- > James D. Forrester > jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com > [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] > I knew there had to be something like that already. It seems like it would be difficult to adapt an existing organization to the role of a coalition, although if they were willing I think there is certainly room for it and abundant opportunity. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Black market science
Phoebe created https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries , I suggest everyone interested in OA just join us there. I know is yet-another-list, but it will allow librarians from the outside to step in and join the conversation. There are few threads in which we are basically discussing the same things, it should be good to merge them in the same place. (so I'll stop here and wait few days to post a reply in the new list :-) Aubrey 2011/7/12 Thomas Morton > > > > On the other hand, PLoS (plos.org - the public library of science) is > > a great journal publisher that reviews and publishes scientific work > > under a free license. [They impose even fewer restrictions on reuse > > than Wikimedia, using CC-BY, which is a more appropriate license in my > > opinion for novel and scientific work.] > > > > > At the very least we should evangalise publishers such as this as a great > place to look for specialist sources (for Wikipedia etc.); often I find > myself limited to using paid-access sources and I always feel frustrated by > this. > > Free and open journals are awesome, and any opportunity to make use of them > should be encouraged. > > Tom > ___ > 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] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
On 14 July 2011 23:33, Nathan wrote: > I can envision something like an Open Knowledge Project or some other > umbrella initiative, aimed at forging links between like-minded > organizations who wish to associate without losing independence or > explicitly taking responsibility for the work of others. It could be > set up pretty simply: > > * Establish the fundamentals of a broader identity with a statement of > shared values and a general intent to cooperate in the world > * Host a portal to communicate broadly common goals and and provide > information to both prospective colleagues and the general public > * Arrange formal and informal opportunities to create collaborative > ties between people and organizations and to develop a sense of shared > purpose > > If you could get to that point growth would be pretty organic; > participants would suggest mutually agreeable and beneficial goals and > initiatives to be undertaken as a group, such undertakings would drive > closer cooperation and legitimate the concept of a free content / open > knowledge movement, and so on. > > Organizations like PLoS, FSF, Creative Commons, the EFF, Wikimedia and > others have naturally overlapping interests and philosophies. It would > only make sense for those organizations, and the many smaller ones who > share their broad values, to cooperate as a group in a more formal way > than I believe they do currently. I think this is a good idea (and better than trying to get all Free Content/Open Knowledge/etc. people to badge themselves as somehow part of our Wikimedia Movement, which though (hopefully!) welcoming and inclusive is not as wide as the whole topic. I'd note that there is of course the excellent Open Knowledge Definition[0], penned in part by our very own Erik Möller, which gave rise to the Open Knowledge Foundation[1]. Perhaps working with them on this might be a good move? [0] - opendefinition.org [1] - okfn.org J. -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia as seen through 1964 acoustic, 300 baud modem
On 15 July 2011 08:31, WereSpielChequers wrote: > Congratulations Liam, you've just made the case for micro stubs. http://twitter.com/#!/qikipedia - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
On 15 July 2011 01:03, Alec Conroy wrote: > Agreed. They're a very very special tool, but software not a > reasonable definition for a movement. The Unnamed Movement should be > software-neutral, if not in name then CERTAINLY in practice. It's a thing and it exists and it's a concept that needs a name. I tend to call it "the free culture" in my head (which has the annoyance that "free" is ambiguous in English). e.g. discussing how particular people think, "X is a free culture native. Y isn't, but is slowly getting the idea." (The only reason this needs a separate name is Creative Commons pushing and continuing to push -NC and -ND. I and we continue to love CC, but what they do is *not quite* what we do.) - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Wikipedia as seen through 1964 acoustic, 300 baud modem
Congratulations Liam, you've just made the case for micro stubs. WSC > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 01:11:35 + > From: Liam Wyatt > Subject: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia as seen through 1964 acoustic, 300 > baud modem > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Saw this today: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9dpXHnJXaE > It's a video of a guy demonstrating his 1964 Livermore Data Systems "Model > A" Acoustic Coupler Modem that still works > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_coupler > and in order to demonstrate it still works he requests the mainpage of en.wp > :-) The page starts loading at 6:40 of the video. > > Three cheers for open standards and and backwards compatibility! > I would like to know if it is technically possible to edit a WP article > through that system. > > -Liam > > wittylama.com/blog > Peace, love & metadata > > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia as seen through 1964 acoustic, 300 baud modem
On 07/15/2011 03:11 AM, Liam Wyatt wrote: > Saw this today: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9dpXHnJXaE > It's a video of a guy demonstrating his 1964 Livermore Data Systems "Model > A" Acoustic Coupler Modem that still works > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_coupler > and in order to demonstrate it still works he requests the mainpage of en.wp > :-) The page starts loading at 6:40 of the video. > > Three cheers for open standards and and backwards compatibility! > I would like to know if it is technically possible to edit a WP article > through that system. Yes, it would be possible. Note however that the system does not access the Internet directly, but only has terminal access to another system that is on the Internet. The coupler is too slow to actually be on the Internet. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia as seen through 1964 acoustic, 300 baud modem
On 15 July 2011 02:11, Liam Wyatt wrote: > Three cheers for open standards and and backwards compatibility! > I would like to know if it is technically possible to edit a WP article > through that system. I found it almost unusable on a 56k modem. So have fun! - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
