Re: [Foundation-l] Facebook Group re pornography on Wikipedia
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:57 PM, M. Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: So yes, lots of people think what we're doing is wrong, but so what? You can never please anybody. That is why you need to choose a set of principles and stick with them. At least that way, when people don't like what you're doing, you can point to your principles and say Hey, we've always been this way and you get credibility from having had the same policy or position all along. Only if you state what your policy or position actually is. What is the principle? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Politico: Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Gregory Varnum gregory.var...@gmail.com wrote: Basically a charity in the USA can spend up to 20% of its expenses on direct lobbying of related issues. 20% of the first $500,000, 15% of the next $500,000, 10% of the next $500,000, and 5% of the rest, with a cap of $1 million. The limit for grassroots lobbying, such as the blackout, is 25% of that. And this is all only if they make an election under 501(h). Basically that means they can say this is good and that's good - but they can't actually endorse a party or individual. This is grassroots lobbying, not direct lobbying. Pursuant to requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of avoiding penalties imposed under the United States Internal Revenue Code or promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax related matter. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Politico: Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: Well, that was my point, according to recent rulings, money is speech and corporations are people Really? That's weird. What recent ruling said that? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Politico: Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: Well, that was my point, according to recent rulings, money is speech and corporations are people Really? That's weird. What recent ruling said that? Citizens United Vs. Federal Election Commission It said that money is speech and corporations are people? Weird. Where does it say that? My search seems to be broken, cause I can't find it. I was referring to David Kairys quote here. AFAICT, Kairys' quote was that money *isn't* speech, and corporations *aren't* people. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Politico: Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: If you read I said according to recent rulings And as far as I can tell, what you claim those recent rulings said, is not what the recent rulings said. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Public domain Mickey Mouse. At last.
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Robin McCain ro...@slmr.com wrote: On 10/25/2011 2:57 PM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: You've made quite a few incorrect assumptions there. Of course Commons editors should be deciding which images are PD. But when there is a dispute, it makes no sense for people who don't even know what a derivative work and an underlying work are, to be discussing the applicable law. Anyway, the deletion process obviously doesn't work. File:Appreciate America. Come On Gang. All Out for Uncle Sam (Mickey Mouse) - NARA - 513869.tif is clearly not public domain. And File:Appreciate America. Come On Gang. All Out for Uncle Sam (Mickey Mouse) - NARA - 513869 - cropped and tidied.png is probably a copyvio. Yet both remain, despite deletion discussions, marked as public domain. (The deletion discussion over the latter is especially humorous.) It is fair use - here's my 2 cents worth on why. AFAIK fair use isn't allowed on Commons. And the latter image may not be fair use in the first place, as it is being used primarily to distort the integrity of the original image in a way which claims to be neutral and encyclopedic. The purpose of this image was the sale of war bonds - not the display of a character whose image is owned by the Walt Disney Company. As a piece of history it is NOT a derivative use of Mickey Mouse. If someone were to remove the mouse image from context and try to pawn it off as being ok to use in unrelated creations, they would probably be sued - because that might be a derivative use. Removing the mouse image, distorting it (by removing the flag and text, turning patriotic Mickey into hitchhiker Mickey), and using it in an article which has nothing to do with the sale of war bonds, is exactly what David Gerard did. NARA has many images of war bonds collateral and all were commissioned by or for the U.S. government - which means they are public domain unless otherwise specified. Walt Disney gave up control of this image in this context for the public good, as did everyone in the entertainment industry. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_home_front_during_World_War_II#Propaganda_and_culture You don't seem to have read the deletion discussions. No one is claiming that this image is public domain because it was commissioned by or for the US government. The claim is that the copyright was not renewed. And apparently that's fine, if you are making a faithful reproduction of the image in its original context. But tagging an image PD does not imply you may only make faithful reproductions of this image in their original context. And David Gerard's distortion of the image does not qualify as a faithful reproduction (and shouldn't be presented as a Disney-created image in any case, because it has been distorted). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Public domain Mickey Mouse. At last.
...a deletion discussion among non-professionals is not the proper way to determine the law. Neither is the opinion of a legal expert: That's the job of the courts. Courts are the proper way to determine the law after the fact. But this is a question of determining the law before the fact. Except in very limited situations, courts don't do that. Commons editors are only trying to weed out copyright infringements without falling for copyfraud. That is absolutely not true. The deletion policy is much more nuanced than only trying to weed out copyright infringements. If non-professional Commons editors shouldn't be deciding which images are PD, then they shouldn't be deciding which images are copyrighted either, and not one image should be deleted whatever evidence of its copyrighted status comes up. I don't think that's acceptable to anyone here. You've made quite a few incorrect assumptions there. Of course Commons editors should be deciding which images are PD. But when there is a dispute, it makes no sense for people who don't even know what a derivative work and an underlying work are, to be discussing the applicable law. Anyway, the deletion process obviously doesn't work. File:Appreciate America. Come On Gang. All Out for Uncle Sam (Mickey Mouse) - NARA - 513869.tif is clearly not public domain. And File:Appreciate America. Come On Gang. All Out for Uncle Sam (Mickey Mouse) - NARA - 513869 - cropped and tidied.png is probably a copyvio. Yet both remain, despite deletion discussions, marked as public domain. (The deletion discussion over the latter is especially humorous.) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Public domain Mickey Mouse. At last.
Reopened (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:%22Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._All_Out_for_Uncle_Sam%22_(Mickey_Mouse)%22_-_NARA_-_513869.tif#File:.22Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._All_Out_for_Uncle_Sam.22_.28Mickey_Mouse.29.22_-_NARA_-_513869.tif) Though I agree with you that a deletion discussion among non-professionals is not the proper way to determine the law. On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: I agree. There is no way a derivative work being PD invalidates the underlying copyright. That would be ridiculous. It would undermine the whole concept of derivative works. The deletion discussion on commons seems to have been closed prematurely. There was hardly any discussion at all. I'm not sure a consenus of wikimedians is the best way to make legal decisions anyway, shouldn't we consult an expert? On Oct 23, 2011 2:01 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:29 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 October 2011 01:21, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On what grounds is it out of copyright? Doesn't a derivative work carry (at least) two copyrights, the one on the original work, and the one on the derivative (which extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work)? Read the deletion discussion. I read the deletion discussion before I posted that. It does not address the copyright on the original work (Steamboat Willie), only the copyright on the derivative work. Just found a cite. Nope, the underlying work is still copyright, and a copy of the poster infringes on the underlying work. See Filmvideo Releasing Corp. vs David R. Hastings II: The principal question on this appeal is whether a licensed, derivative, copyrighted work and the underlying copyrighted matter which it incorporates both fall into the public domain where the underlying copyright has been renewed but the derivative copyright has not. We agree with the Ninth Circuit, Russell v. Price, 612 F.2d 1123, 1126-29 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 952 , 100 S.Ct. 2919, 64 L.Ed.2d 809 (1980), that the answer is No. ___ 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 mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Public domain Mickey Mouse. At last.
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:13 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 October 2011 00:19, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: I am *amazed* that it took a whole month for someone to mention it on [[:en:Talk:Mickey Mouse]], and another half an hour before someone (me) replaced the image in the article itself ... And I've just done a version without the text or flag: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%22Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._All_Out_for_Uncle_Sam%22_%28Mickey_Mouse%29%22_-_NARA_-_513869_-_cropped_and_tidied.png Is this the very first ever derivative image of Mickey Mouse not in any manner approved of by the Walt Disney company but that is, nevertheless, 100% absolutely legal? BTW - the Commons deletion discussion that included a renewal search: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:%22Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._All_Out_for_Uncle_Sam%22_%28Mickey_Mouse%29%22_-_NARA_-_513869.tif On what grounds is it out of copyright? Doesn't a derivative work carry (at least) two copyrights, the one on the original work, and the one on the derivative (which extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work)? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Public domain Mickey Mouse. At last.
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:29 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 October 2011 01:21, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On what grounds is it out of copyright? Doesn't a derivative work carry (at least) two copyrights, the one on the original work, and the one on the derivative (which extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work)? Read the deletion discussion. I read the deletion discussion before I posted that. It does not address the copyright on the original work (Steamboat Willie), only the copyright on the derivative work. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Public domain Mickey Mouse. At last.
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:29 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 October 2011 01:21, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On what grounds is it out of copyright? Doesn't a derivative work carry (at least) two copyrights, the one on the original work, and the one on the derivative (which extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work)? Read the deletion discussion. I read the deletion discussion before I posted that. It does not address the copyright on the original work (Steamboat Willie), only the copyright on the derivative work. Just found a cite. Nope, the underlying work is still copyright, and a copy of the poster infringes on the underlying work. See Filmvideo Releasing Corp. vs David R. Hastings II: The principal question on this appeal is whether a licensed, derivative, copyrighted work and the underlying copyrighted matter which it incorporates both fall into the public domain where the underlying copyright has been renewed but the derivative copyright has not. We agree with the Ninth Circuit, Russell v. Price, 612 F.2d 1123, 1126-29 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 952 , 100 S.Ct. 2919, 64 L.Ed.2d 809 (1980), that the answer is No. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: On 10/3/11 4:36 PM, John Vandenberg wrote: On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Ryan Kaldarirkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: I think we are fairly safe hosting the images of the original fragments, even by Israeli law. Israel does not recognize sweat of the brow and requires a minimal degree of originality to claim copyright.[1][2] Does it recognise date of first publication? I don't know, but it seems like it would be difficult to argue that the Dead Sea Scrolls were unpublished until recently. The photos of them were, though. None of the discussions of the Qimron case seem to mention the issue of date of publication. The argument seems to have hinged almost entirely on the issue of originality. The Qimron case is completely irrelevant with regard to the copyright of the images. It is a case about the *text*. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: None of the discussions of the Qimron case seem to mention the issue of date of publication. The argument seems to have hinged almost entirely on the issue of originality. The Qimron case is completely irrelevant with regard to the copyright of the images. It is a case about the *text*. If WMF wants to copy *the text* of the scrolls, I don't think anyone is going to have a problem with that. The copyright notice claims copyright in the digital images of the manuscripts, not in the text. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: On 10/4/11 8:16 AM, Anthony wrote: If WMF wants to copy *the text* of the scrolls, I don't think anyone is going to have a problem with that. The copyright notice claims copyright in the digital images of the manuscripts, not in the text. Well, there doesn't appear to be any basis for a copyright claim on the images of the scrolls themselves, as neither Israeli law nor American law recognizes sweat of the brow. Anyone have any info on the applicability of Alfred Bell Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc? It may not be sweat of the brow, but it sets the originality threshold awfully low: A copyist's bad eyesight or defective musculature, or a shock caused by a clap of thunder, may yield sufficiently distinguishable variations. n24 Having hit upon such a variation unintentionally, the 'author' may adopt it as his and copyright it. http://www.coolcopyright.com/cases/fulltext/bellcataldatext.htm http://www.coolcopyright.com/cases/chp2/bellcatalda.htm The only valid claim would be on reconstructions of the text. Is this your professional legal opinion, then? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: On 10/01/11 5:36 AM, Anthony wrote: On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva tolkiend...@gmail.com wrote: In practical terms, what they can do? Wikipedia is hosted in US. Therefore, for a successful takedown, the museum must sue in US. Well, for one thing, they could sue reusers. WMF using the work is one thing. WMF telling the rest of the world that the work is public domain and anyone can use it for any purpose without permission, is another. The people who really feel offended by the Israel Museum's claim would do best to accept responsibility for their claims. Given the nature of the work there is perhaps a little more skill to these scans than was the case for NPG portraits. I don't know how a court decision would turn out. I am certainly not confident enough to pursue this myself, nor would I want to do it for material I don't understand. Anyone who simply feels that these scans should be freely available can simply put them up on his own site in whatever country he wants, and wait for the lawsuit to happen or not happen. There are some areas where I feel that Wikimedia policies about copyright are wrong, and even paranoid, but I would be wrong to insist that any WMF project host them unless I am ready to defend a legal action against a site that I fully own and control. That's what being responsible is about. I don't see a problem with hosting them on projects which allow non-free material, with a tag at the least saying that The Israel Museum claims copyright. The museum doesn't seem to mind copying/distribution for research or private study. But the list of projects which allow non-free material doesn't include the most relevant project - wikisource. The free content only rule is meant to protect third parties, not WMF. But note here that I'm only talking about the images, not the text. The photographs do not, and are not meant to, depict the image which was created on the scrolls hundreds of years ago. They are meant to, and do, depict the scrolls as they existed at the time the photos were taken. This, I believe, is a major distinction between the NPG portraits and this one. The scrolls themselves were created to depict text, not an image, and there is there seems to be absolutely no dispute at all that the *text* of the scrolls (to the extent it can be determined) is public domain. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva tolkiend...@gmail.com wrote: In practical terms, what they can do? Wikipedia is hosted in US. Therefore, for a successful takedown, the museum must sue in US. Well, for one thing, they could sue reusers. WMF using the work is one thing. WMF telling the rest of the world that the work is public domain and anyone can use it for any purpose without permission, is another. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote: On 29/09/11 04:12, Anthony wrote: Why not? What constitutes an original photograph, as opposed to whatever this photograph is? An original photograph is a photograph that fixes an original image. You're just restating the question. What constitutes an original image, as opposed to whatever this photograph depicts? Where is the original image? When was it created? Who created it? However, I am contending that creativity most likely *did* go into creating the image. So then why are you mentioning F-stop, shutter speed and lighting, neither of which add any creativity to these images? They are examples of the creative input which likely went into making this image. I would assume that in this case the goal of the conversion was to preserve the most data That's one place you are wrong, then. The goal is to preserve the most important data, not the most data. And choosing the most important data is an act of creativity. Selection is, in fact, one of the most important skills involved in photography. (*) I thought you said these weren't original photographs. Now you're just trolling. The original physical photographs, as opposed to unoriginal images displayed on the photographs. It's not trolling just because I pointed out that you're contradicting yourself. I said the photograph *is* original. Now you are conceding exactly this point. So I have two copiers in my company, and since I selected one of them the photocopies I made are *original* and copyrighted by me? They are not. And I didn't say they were. Yes you did. Please quote where I said this. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote: On 29/09/11 04:12, Anthony wrote: You need to reread what I said. I was not making a pro-copyright argument. You need to rewrite what you wrote so that it reflects what you meant. You were making a pro-copyright argument. Let me be clear, then. I have no position on the copyrightability of this image, neither in the US nor elsewhere, neither on whether or not this image is copyrighted, nor on whether or not it should be copyrightable. I also don't see why copyrightability matters. Surely even if the images are copyrighted they can be used by WMF under the doctrine of fair use. And even if they are not copyrighted, it's not clear to me how the underlying images can even be obtained without committing a felony of exceeding authorized access to a computer. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote: The photograph does not constitute an origin or beginning. Sure it does. Is there any such thing as an original photograph? The photograph is secondary, derivative and imitative. Yes. The photograph is not the first instance. The original photograph is the first instance of the photograph. This definition doesn't mean the first instance of anything. If that were true then *nothing* would be original. I'd say by this definition in particular it is quite clear that there was an original photograph. A photo of an object is the first instance of a new thing, it is not a copy of the object itself. The photograph is not independent or creative. Someone most likely selected the F-stop, the shutter speed, and the lighting. I doubt they just pointed the camera on auto and used the built in flash. Someone most likely selected how to convert the raw image into a jpeg or png or whatever they're using. They may have even done some significant post-processing. Someone definitely selected which camera to use, how many separate photographs to tile together, etc. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote: On 28/09/11 13:44, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Nikola Smolenskismole...@eunet.rs wrote: The photograph does not constitute an origin or beginning. Sure it does. Is there any such thing as an original photograph? Yes there is, and this isn't it. Why not? What constitutes an original photograph, as opposed to whatever this photograph is? The photograph is not the first instance. The original photograph is the first instance of the photograph. This Copyright does not protect physical objects. The image that is fixed on the first instance of the physical photograph is not the first instance of the image. Sure it is. I'm not sure where you're getting that from. And if it isn't (which, you'll have to explain), can that be said about *any* photograph? The photograph is not independent or creative. Someone most likely selected the F-stop, the shutter speed, and the lighting. I doubt they just pointed the camera on auto and used the The fact that you can devise a creative method to create an image does not mean that the image itself is creative. No, it doesn't. However, I am contending that creativity most likely *did* go into creating the image. As an extreme example, I can devise an extremely creative false backstory for me in order to gain access to a document, then photocopy it. The fact that I was creative while devising my story does not give me copyright to a photocopy. True. built in flash. Someone most likely selected how to convert the raw image into a jpeg or png or whatever they're using. They may have How the hell is that creative? Have you ever converted a raw image into a jpeg? If you have, then I would think you'd know how the hell it is creative. For one thing, you're converting 12 or 14 bits of color data per pixel into 8. So you have to select what information to lose, and what information to keep. even done some significant post-processing. Someone definitely Post-processing could be creative, but the original photographs still are not. The original photographs (*) are not what are displayed on the website. (*) I thought you said these weren't original photographs. selected which camera to use, how many separate photographs to tile This must be the worst pro-copyright argument of all times. You need to reread what I said. I was not making a pro-copyright argument. So I have two copiers in my company, and since I selected one of them the photocopies I made are *original* and copyrighted by me? They are not. And I didn't say they were. together, etc. This choice is limited by technical possibilities of the devices and not by someone's creative decision. Our choices are always limited by the technical possibilities of the devices we are using. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: By the common meaning of the word original, I'd say the photograph *is* original. OTOH, under US precedent it *probably* isn't within the US legal meaning of the term. I should add that, in my US analysis, I was making the assumption that there was no creative post-processing of the photograph, which on second thought is not a safe assumption. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: As far as law outside the U.S. is concerned, the Feist decision has had more of an impact than Bridgeman (probably because it was a Supreme Court decision). Since Feist (1991), many common lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law countries have moved towards applying the threshold of originality standard and away from the sweat of the brow standard.[1] Canada, for example, now largely follows Feist. Even UK jurisprudence is gradually transitioning (and is currently inconsistent). UK requires originality. But it's not at all clear that a photograph of something out of copyright is unoriginal (even if that something is two dimensional). By the common meaning of the word original, I'd say the photograph *is* original. OTOH, under US precedent it *probably* isn't within the US legal meaning of the term. In any case, any copyright on the photograph of course does not extend to the text. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: On 09/26/11 12:27 PM, emijrp wrote: If originals don't have copyright, how can The Israel Museum claim any copyright for scans which lack originality?[1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp. The cited case is a US case, and not necessarily binding in other countries. It's not even binding on other districts within the US. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 6:57 PM, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote: OMG ISRAEL IS OUT OF USA? REALLY? Come on. The point here is that originality is a common requirement for claiming copyright. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] On Wikinews
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.com wrote: I think Wikinews could work well on some topics, news that don't last a single day, but instead needs a history and a timetable. On those topics, Wikinews could fill an informative gap, because even newspapers archives are just aggregating different articles on the same subjects, but none of them write a (neutral) narrative integrating all of them. This could be an interesting direction. A wiki for news that doesn't last a single day, but instead needs a history and a timetable is already done. It's called Wikipedia. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: Re: Do WMF want enwp.org?]
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Brian J Mingus brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: It seems that giving w.net/com/org to the WMF would be in line with his vision of no corporation controlling a letter. Last I checked, WMF was a corporation. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation vs. charity
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Foundation is not a legal term Private foundation is one, though, and it is one that is contrasted with public charity. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_0509000-.html http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=137894,00.html ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Fwd: Foundation vs. charity
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Foundation is not a legal term Private foundation is one, though, and it is one that is contrasted with public charity. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_0509000-.html http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=137894,00.html Yeh, I think we'd have to look up more than that to actually clarify all this. I'm not sure there's anything to clarify. The author of that article was obviously referencing the IRS distinction of private foundation vs. public charity, in which the WMF clearly fits under public charity (at least, according to their tax filings and determination letter they do, see for instance http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-April/016265.html). If you asked anyone who is familiar with US tax law for tax-exempt organizations what the difference is between a foundation and a charity, that's what they're going to think of. However, I think it's nearly equally clear that the definitions of these terms in the US Code do not coincide exactly (or even very much at all) with common usage. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, public charity is a term invented by (or at least popularized by) the IRS, which doesn't appear in the actual tax code. It could just as well be private foundation vs. public foundation, and in fact the term public foundation does have quite a fair bit of use. Anyway, my purpose in pointing out that section of IRS code was to explain what the author was talking about. I don't think it shows that the author was right. In fact, I think the author was putting far too much emphasis on some relatively obscure portions of the Internal Revenue Code, instead of plain language meanings, on which the status of the WMF is much more ambiguous. To the extent the phrases foundation and charity have gone astray, they have gone astray due to the non-plain-language definitions given by the Internal Revenue Code and the Internal Revenue Service. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Future donation drive suggestion
Has it occurred to the people running Wikipedia that some people might think Wikipedia is affiliated with Wikileaks? It would be an easy mistake to make, and even I balked because I am totally anti-Wikileaks. The bigger question is whether or not it has occurred to Julian Assange. Since people keep confusing the two, and some want to donate to one and not the other, maybe in his next fundraiser Assange can refer to himself as the Wikipedia Executive Director. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wiki[p/m]edia
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Philippe Beaudette pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote: When we get letters saying things like I'd donate, but only to Wikipedia, not to Wikimedia, it spells out for us that it's possible we could attract more people with the institution of Wikipedia than the institution of Wikimedia. Are the donations which were made to Wikipedia, and not Wikimedia, going to be restricted for use only by Wikipedia, or was this a bait and switch. Maybe the people who say they'd donate, but only to Wikipedia, not to Wikimedia really do want to donate, but only to Wikipedia, not to Wikimedia. Suggesting that it was criminal is... well, regrettable. I didn't consider that possibility until you explained that the intention was to trick people into contributing to Wikimedia when they really wanted to contribute to Wikipedia. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:34 AM, Russell Nelson russnel...@gmail.com wrote: Huh?? Editors are donors as well, as are people who contribute to mailing lists, as are you. So clearly everyone contributing to this discussion has also contributed to the foundation! In any case, both you and Dumas quoted me out of context. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:21 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: This list has mailing list moderators, but they don't seem to do any actual moderating (in the social or technical sense). That seems to be a large part of the problem with nearly every thread like this. Is there some sort of unspoken rule that all foundation-l moderators must be absentee landlords? Isn't that the wiki way? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 4:41 AM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 6:26 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I know quite a lot about operational requirements, and I know that policies should state clearly what IS being done, not what may be done. It's quite practical to be more explicit. For example, the policy could state clearly what exactly is being done. That would be more explicit. Yes, that would be more explicit. It would also mean that every minute change of procedure would entail a policy change. Policies are not meant to be descriptions of what we do and how we do it, they are meant to be the rules that we put on ourselves about what we do and what we do not do. There are things that we promise to do and there are things that we promise not to do. But there are also things that we want to keep a leeway of doing, not doing or doing in a different way without needing a formal board resolution each time something changes. Surely there are ways to publish policies which don't require a formal board resolution every time something changes. Also, any emergency exceptions could always be documented later, after the emergency has been resolved. But I'm not sure how practical it would be. Maybe there are times when you want to be able to analyze people's page views without tipping them off to the fact that you're doing so. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: Surely there are ways to publish policies which don't require a formal board resolution every time something changes. Also, any emergency exceptions could always be documented later, after the emergency has been resolved. The policy shouldn't change based on minute implementation details. Of course not. Basic principles, on the other hand, like who determines when to keep logs, how long they are allowed to keep them, for what reasons they are allowed to keep them, who can make an exception for emergency reasons, how they are to document those exceptions. These absolutely should be in a written policy. What's the alternative? Those with the passwords do whatever they feel like and are accountable to no one? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 1:16 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 November 2010 19:30, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: Geni mentioned offering a level of support equivalent to our smaller projects, which is most definitely *not* just providing ISP services. err beyond ISP services what do you think the WMF provided say the Galician language wikipedia with this year? Really if you're asking that question I think we have completely different ideas as to what the term ISP services means. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 2:56 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: Should we offer to host citizendium? Nah, let them go to Wikia. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote: If Wikimedians want to rescue them: donate money to them. DN-PHP-6004: This organization's DonateNow service has been temporarily disabled. Please contact this organization for other donation options. (https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?aid=15045) If Wikimedians want to rescue them: teach them how to make a full history dump. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Anirudh Bhati anirudh...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 November 2010 17:34, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: Oh, well what's the point of that? Might as well just give them money, as the WMF would just be purchasing those ISP services from someone else anyway. Geni mentioned offering a level of support equivalent to our smaller projects, which is most definitely *not* just providing ISP services. Yep, better offer them a short-term grant to cover hosting costs than deal with ethical and legal issues. Anirudh Bhati Yeah. Problem with that is that they don't yet exist. Apparently donations through paypal are going to the personal paypal account of Milton Beychok, because in the 4 years since Citizendium was founded they never even bothered to incorporate (or even set up an unincorporated association). They've been using the tax ID of the Tides Center, and the Tides Center has cut them off, for reasons which have still not come to light. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:29 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: So we giving another $1300 to Milton Beychok quickly, wrapped in sufficient legalese that we know it goes towards the hosting. Then he and others can sleep easy, and focus on more important things. I'd say for the WMF to do so, without even knowing what happened to the other tens of thousands of dollars in donations, nor knowing what happened to the $1800 that they had days ago, nor knowing why the Tides Center dropped them, nor knowing why their hosting bill is so outrageous, would be grossly incompetent. We are talking about chump change here. Feel free to donate it yourself, then. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: An interesting idea would be a standalone static copy of wikipedia that really tried their utmost to make the product visually appealing, and used the generated money from the advertisements purely to fund ever more timely database dumps It would be interesting to see how frequent database dumping could be financed by advertisement on such a site; the synergy should be obvious -- the more money they generate from adverts, the more resources they can devote to making ever more frequent dumps, so the more timely is the content, which will again make therir product more attractive, and so on -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] Whether this is great idea or not I don't know, but this is the kind of out of the box thinking that is potentially productive. We could produce periodic polished editions. Not likely to work as long as the regular site is in the search engines, due to the duplicate content penalty. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 November 2010 00:34, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: I'm sure they'd be willing to work out a deal where people can opt-in to Wikipedia ads (which wouldn't be subject to the anti-porn rules). I doubt they'd allow non-opt-in ads on [[tit torture]], though. I'm not convinced opt-in ads would get any significant revenue. Very few people would opt-in and those that do would probably be people that are just doing it to get us money and aren't going to click on the ads, so we wouldn't actually get any money. Oh, sorry, I just realized how incredibly confusing I phrased that. What I meant by people can opt-in was that the advertisers could opt-in to allowing their ads to appear on Wikipedia, so that unsuspecting advertisers didn't wind up having their products displayed on an illustrated article about [[tit torture]]. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 November 2010 15:50, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: We use a tab at the top of the article to link to the ad page. No one has to click on it; but if you're looking for buying, or investigating products, you will. The click-through rate would be tiny and therefore so would the revenue. I would think the click-through rate would be above-average. People who want ads are more likely to click on those ads (also less likely to be using ad-blocking software). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 November 2010 16:05, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 November 2010 15:50, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: We use a tab at the top of the article to link to the ad page. No one has to click on it; but if you're looking for buying, or investigating products, you will. The click-through rate would be tiny and therefore so would the revenue. I would think the click-through rate would be above-average. People who want ads are more likely to click on those ads (also less likely to be using ad-blocking software). They won't be people that want ads, though. They'll be people that want ad revenue for us. If they click, they'll be clicking to get us revenue and not actually buying, which advertisers stopped falling for years ago. 1) Why the huge assumption of bad faith? I don't think you're correct that people would sign up for ads who don't want ads. As you correctly point out, there would actually be no long-term benefit to anyone for doing so. 2) If the payment isn't per click, why would people click through to get us revenue? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: They won't be people that want ads, though. They'll be people that want ad revenue for us. If they click, they'll be clicking to get us revenue and not actually buying, which advertisers stopped falling for years ago. 1) Why the huge assumption of bad faith? I don't think you're correct that people would sign up for ads who don't want ads. Let me amend that. I don't think that the percentage of people who want ads would be lower in an opt-in scenario. Obviously *some* people who don't want ads would sign up for ads. But presumably *most* people who do want ads would also sign up for ads. So the proportion of people who want ads would go up, in my estimation quite dramatically. Of course, this is somewhat dependent on how good the ads are, including both how relevant they are and how well the scammers are screened out. On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 November 2010 16:21, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: 1) Why the huge assumption of bad faith? I don't think you're correct that people would sign up for ads who don't want ads. As you correctly point out, there would actually be no long-term benefit to anyone for doing so. 2) If the payment isn't per click, why would people click through to get us revenue? This has nothing to do with good or bad faith. Claiming that people are going to scam the system by signing up for (and clicking on) ads for the sole purpose of transferring money from the advertisers to Wikipedia is a huge assumption of bad faith. If people are only opting in because they want ads, then there are going to be a very small number of people opting in. I don't know about that. It depends in large part on how good the ads are (see above). Why have ads on Wikipedia pages when you can just google for things you want to buy? It can save a step. Also, maybe Wikipedia's ads could be better screened than Google's ads. If payment *were* by click, then people would abuse it, which is why payment wouldn't be by click and we wouldn't get much money. That was the point I was trying to make. Right, but your we wouldn't get much money point was just speculation, and I was speculating differently. Can you give an example of a site with opt-in advertising that actually gets significant revenue from it (for the number of page views they get)? I can't think of any site that has opt-in advertising, so no. In any case, as I clarified a few emails above, I never meant to suggest that Wikipedia should have opt-in advertising (*). Clearly more money would be made if the advertising were not opt-in. And clearly any advertising would cause a huge rift in the community. (*) I was simply trying to say that I doubt Google would allow Google ads on unscreened Wikipedia articles unless the advertiser specifically asked for it ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 November 2010 16:40, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: It can save a step. Also, maybe Wikipedia's ads could be better screened than Google's ads. Going to Wikipedia seems to be adding a step, not removing one. In some cases. Not all though. Another huge advantage would be that the ads would sometimes be much better targeted, as there would be clarification and disambiguation which doesn't occur in a typical Google search. We can't do any significant screening of ads. We can remove obvious scams and really annoying ads, but anything more than that wouldn't be neutral. How is it neutral to remove obvious scams? I can't think of any site that has opt-in advertising, so no. And why do you think that is? I don't know. I guess mostly because opt-in advertising is pretty much guaranteed to make less money than non-opt-in advertising. Although, who knows, maybe it's just because no one major has ever tried it. Sure, I'm speculating, but the fact that neither of us knows of any site that is actually doing it suggests my speculation is accurate. No, sorry, it doesn't. What it suggests is that opt-in advertising is pretty much guaranteed to make less money than non-opt-in advertising. That wasn't the disagreement. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fa...
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 12:07 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I'm also skeptical that manually placed and manually monitored, internet advertising even pays for the wages of the worker. This is why Google uses automagic. And why everyone else does as well. Doesn't Google lets the advertiser pick which searches they want to appear on? Is that manual, or automagic? Would letting the advertiser pick which articles they want to appear on be manual, or automagic? On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: If automagic worked, I would see ads for stuff I might have at least a passing interest in; I seldom do. But if I'm looking at an article on a book or an author I might well take a look at an ad page linked from it. I buy lots of books. If nothing else it would save a step or two. With support for location targeting you could do even better. There are physicians who spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on location targeted Google adwords, and they do so because the revenue they're generating from it is more than the cost. I think this is all pretty much a nonstarter, though. Between the lack of support for ads in the community and the difficult hurdles that would need to be navigated to not get in trouble with the IRS, I don't see ads ever coming to Wikimedia Foundation websites. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fa...
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Between the lack of support for ads in the community and the difficult hurdles that would need to be navigated to not get in trouble with the IRS, I don't see ads ever coming to Wikimedia Foundation websites. Yes, revenue would have to be used for nonprofit purposes, either ours or others, or else. No. It would likely require much more than that. More like the hurdles that had to be jumped through by the Mozilla Foundation/Corporation, only more difficult because Wikipedia is already well-established. That or you could try to convince the IRS that the advertisements themselves are part and parcel of the mission to educate the public, which might actually be possible. Either way it would take quite a bit of effort on the part of the WMF, and that combined with the pushback from the community, I just don't think it'll ever happen. I am aware from experience here and elsewhere that even the most obvious initiatives can be futile. That is not a reason to not to advance them, repeatedly. I'd argue against you on that one, but it'd probably be futile. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fa...
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 6:44 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: If there were a system created, where all the *effort* were off loaded to the payer, not the pay...ed, then you'd gain that financial benefit. The creation of such a system however, involves the effort of a much higher level of paid employee :) So there you go. No free lunch. You should work for Britannica. :) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 November 2010 17:02, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: ... and compromise content, as TV Tropes found out: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/TheSituation?from=Main.TheGoogleIncident That's not a problem with adverts. It's merely an incompatibility between Google's policies and the site. If we fell victim to the same policies, we could just choose another advertiser to work with (although, in reality, Google would bend over backwards to get their adverts on our sites and would relax their policies). I'm sure they'd be willing to work out a deal where people can opt-in to Wikipedia ads (which wouldn't be subject to the anti-porn rules). I doubt they'd allow non-opt-in ads on [[tit torture]], though. Alternatively, Wikipedia could put ads only on stable revisions which contain SFG content. Which I suppose could be argued to put some pressure on Wikipedians to make articles SFG. But then, *any* manner of fundraising is going to be affected by these sorts of things. Surely there are people who wouldn't donate to Wikipedia if they knew about the [[tit torture]] article, but would (or do) donate if/because they don't. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.com wrote: Hello, Adverts do not make content wrong, but create mistrust. Have a look what Lawrence Lessig tells about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHma3ZQRVoA After the first few minutes it turns into a long drawn out infomercial supporting US campaign finance reform. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation switching to Google Apps?
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Lennart Guldbrandsson wikihanni...@gmail.com wrote: Some FLOSS solution simply take more time than proprietary ones, and I know for a fact that the tech team have s much things to do that we should a) give them a break if they investigate a matter properly (which they seem to have done here) and decide that a proprietary solution will have to do for now, and b) try to help them as much as we can, by solving problems they haven't time to solve themselves. Let's therefore close this thread and move on to more important things. Last I checked there was plenty of room to expand the tech team's budget. So I hope the decision wasn't simply a matter of not having enough time. A collaborative project making free educational content needs free tools. Google knows about the importance of collaborative tools. That's why they created Google Apps. Hopefully there's at least a plan in place for eventually migrating back off of Google. Now, agreed, let's close this thread and move on to more important things: expanding the tech budget. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation switching to Google Apps?
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 4:43 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Gmail is just ridiculously better than any other email client I've ever used ever, having previously progressed through Pine, elm, mutt and Thunderbird. Perhaps it's just me, but I'd guess otherwise from the number of Wikimedians with gmail,com addresses. Well, yeah, that's why I forward my email to gmail. But I can't imagine using them for my domain's MX record. I'd want more control and flexibility than that. As a related anecdote, the IRS recently banned gmail addresses when signing up for a preparer identification number, because Google was sending their registration password emails to the bit bucket (no, not to the spam folder, the emails were just disappearing, even if you explicitly added a filter not to send them to spam). See http://www.google.co.nz/support/forum/p/gmail/thread?tid=4e489afd6114c49ahl=en On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: We're reluctantly switching to GMail as the standard email solution, but we'd love to switch to an open solution in future. Is this going to affect the mailing lists? OTRS? Is the WMF paying for this? What are the service guarantees? I'd imagine no on the former. Being able to add the Wikimedia Foundation to the list of people who have gone Google will be a huge coup. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation switching to Google Apps?
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Jon Davis jda...@wikimedia.org wrote: When we wanted to pursue the Google Apps project further, we contacted a sales rep. In the end, we went through the process like any other group would, and we pay the standard price. Wow. The standard price? Is the person who negotiated that deal the same one that just recently got fired?/sarcasm ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation switching to Google Apps?
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Jon Davis jda...@wikimedia.org wrote: This migration will not effect anything but Staff email. OTRS, wiki's, mailing lists and anything else I've forgotten to mention will continue to work as they did previously. Are the MX records going to point to WMF, or to Google? For which domains? As for paying, Yes we are. As for the SLA, the standard [1] 43 minutes of downtime allowed every month... 7.2 hours of downtime gets you a 10% refund. If you're down for 1 1/2 days, you get 25% of your monthly fees back. Down more than that, and you get half your money back. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation switching to Google Apps?
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:22 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Hi. This morning the Wikimedia Foundation had a meeting about migrating to Google Apps. Using Google Apps for what? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote: Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance? Well you could put a banner above every article that read The information contained on the page could well be nonsense. A better start would be to stop calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote: Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance? Well you could put a banner above every article that read The information contained on the page could well be nonsense. A better start would be to stop calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia. Who on earth thinks an encyclopedia is an authoritative source? How is that relevant? On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote: Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance? Well you could put a banner above every article that read The information contained on the page could well be nonsense. A better start would be to stop calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia. We define what encyclopedia means at this point, and research has shown that more professional encyclopedias also contain errors, the difference is that you can't fix them easily. Two other differences are that biases in encyclopedias are generally easier to discover (in large part because they are usually consistent across an entire article), and that you can find out who to blame for them (either generally or specifically depending on the seriousness and willfulness of the error). That said, any suggestions which adequately represents the power and utility of our product, but avoids implication of inerrancy? I wouldn't want to waste much time on this as it has zero chance of being followed, but something like the free bulletin board would probably be more accurate. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote: Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance? Well you could put a banner above every article that read The information contained on the page could well be nonsense. A better start would be to stop calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia. Who on earth thinks an encyclopedia is an authoritative source? How is that relevant? You seemed to be saying that by calling it an encyclopedia, reliability is implied. A higher degree of reliability is implied than is provided. I wouldn't go so far as to say that encyclopedias are generally authoritative, though. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote: You're asserting, then, that Wikipedia is less reliable than other encyclopedias, which the research done on the subject contradicts. No, I'm asserting that Wikipedia is less reliable than other encyclopedias, which the research done on the subject supports. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 2:53 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: On 24/10/2010 19:33, Austin Hair wrote: You're asserting, then, that Wikipedia is less reliable than other encyclopedias, which the research done on the subject contradicts. He is probably thinking about this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/ Even if you ignore the flaws in the Nature study and equate errors-per-article with reliability, it still found that Wikipedia contained more errors-per-article than Britannica. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:10 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: Remember though Britannica is meant to be the best of the best in terms of encyclopedias . So unless you are going to define encyclopedia as Encyclopedia Britannica you have to accept that works with lower levels of reliability qualify as encyclopedias. None of which I'd expect to say that John Seigenthaler is a murderer. There are mistakes of facts, and then there's malicious lies. I'd definitely expect more of the latter in Wikipedia than in any of the traditional encyclopedias. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia is a great bit of rhetoric but it is not consistent with any rational definition of encyclopedia. No, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia is not consistent with any rational definitions of Wikipedia and encyclopedia. Wikipedia cannot be an encyclopedia, because it isn't a work. Put it in a fixed form, like on a CD, and then you can call it an encyclopedia. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: No, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia is not consistent with any rational definitions of Wikipedia and encyclopedia. Even Wikipedia's article on Wikipedia doesn't call Wikipedia an encyclopedia, it calls it a free, web-based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia project. A project, not an encyclopedia. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:43 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: None of which I'd expect to say that John Seigenthaler is a murderer. There are mistakes of facts, and then there's malicious lies. I'd definitely expect more of the latter in Wikipedia than in any of the traditional encyclopedias. So your position is that you have the authority to draw lines in the sand. No. It's more about accountability than about authority. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 4:04 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 October 2010 20:47, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:43 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: None of which I'd expect to say that John Seigenthaler is a murderer. There are mistakes of facts, and then there's malicious lies. I'd definitely expect more of the latter in Wikipedia than in any of the traditional encyclopedias. So your position is that you have the authority to draw lines in the sand. No. It's more about accountability than about authority. You are claiming you are accountable if wikipedia turns out to be an encyclopedia? No, that wasn't my claim. I am, however, accountable for what I say. And the idea that Wikipedia could turn out to be an encyclopedia is silly. It either is, or it isn't, and in this case, as I have explained, it isn't. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:31 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: Put it in a fixed form, like on a CD, and then you can call it an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, you're running behind the English language. I saw your name and was ready for the usual response to that argument: stop trolling, of course Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. http://twitter.com/#!/alisonclement/status/8421314259 Well, yeah, it's not something that's going to be easily fixed. Reminds me of the comment by Sanger at the end of Truth in Numbers?: A lot of kids are consulting wikipedia as the first and often the last source of information on anything that they're curious about. If it continues on in that capacity, we might have a generation of kids who have a fundamental confusion about basic principles of epistemology. It's not something that can be fixed with a few simple changes. But to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, someone's going to have to engage in the campaign of educating people on why not to rely on sources like Wikipedia. Wikimedians are probably not the best candidates for doing that, though. On this very list we have an argument that Wikipedia is not less reliable than traditional encyclopedias. On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 4:15 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 October 2010 21:07, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: No, that wasn't my claim. I am, however, accountable for what I say. And the idea that Wikipedia could turn out to be an encyclopedia is silly. It either is, or it isn't, and in this case, as I have explained, it isn't. No you have explained that you have decided to draw a line in the sand in terms of reliability to define what is and isn't an encyclopedia. No I haven't. I drew the line in the sand based on the fact that Wikipedia is not a fixed work. I also pointed out that even the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia doesn't say that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it says that it is an encyclopedia project. I then went on to compare the reliability of Wikipedia to that of encyclopedias. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Ban and moderate
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 3:54 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Seriously, this list is commonly referred to as troll-l and lots of chapter people refuse to even look at it. Pulling it out of the mire might make it even slightly useful again. Who want's a list that's slightly useful? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Ban and moderate
I would think the people who think this list is useless have already unsubscribed. Can't please everyone. On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, People who appreciate an upgrade from totally useless... obviously... Thanks, GerardM On 22 October 2010 14:27, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 3:54 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Seriously, this list is commonly referred to as troll-l and lots of chapter people refuse to even look at it. Pulling it out of the mire might make it even slightly useful again. Who want's a list that's slightly useful? ___ 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 mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Guillaume Paumier gpaum...@wikimedia.org wrote: No. The Board is ultimately answerable to the community. How so? The community's vote for the board is only advisory. In the long run, the board is answerable to the donors. But even then, there are millions stashed away which could keep the foundation running for a while even if no one donated a penny. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Muhammad Yahia shipmas...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: How so? The community's vote for the board is only advisory. Err, how come? it's pretty clear in the bylaws? Not really...there's subsection (A), which is pretty broad. And then, there's Section 8: Any Trustee may be removed by a majority vote of the full membership of the Board. And of course, These bylaws may be altered, amended or repealed and new Bylaws may be adopted by a majority of the entire Board of Trustees at any regular meeting or special meeting, provided that at least ten days written notice is given of intention to alter, amend or repeal or to adopt new Bylaws at such meeting. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: If I thought that the community members were only there in an advisory role, I would not have stood for election. Right, well, you should have paid more attention when the community was stripped of their membership in the WMF, then (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alex756). As to finances, stashed away suggests that you consider the financial reporting and the transparency not adequate. You misunderstood. The financial reports are where I found out that the money is being stashed away. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: This list is for people who support the project, not those who are actively opposing it or criticizing in public forums in exaggerated ways. Nothing constructive or helpful is likely to be added by thekohster Wow, I don't know. On the one hand, you're right, the list should be for people who support the project (*). On the other hand, this ban appears to possibly be in retaliation for Greg's whistleblowing with regard to the Q2 Consulting contract, and it seems to me that that action *was* constructive, in that it points out the lack of an important policy, even if it ultimately turns out that no actual wrongdoing took place. Maybe it was the right decision (**), but even so, the timing was horrible (***). (*) Including those who support the project but believe that major changes ought to be made. (**) I'm not sure if Greg falls into those who support the project but believe that major changes ought to be made or not. (***) See http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-director-admits-to-sweetheart-contracts , which was published after the ban was announced, but which describes an IRC conversation which took place before the ban was announced. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 6:31 AM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: Hi John, would it perhaps be more effective to send these questions to the audit committee, whose role it is (as far as I can tell) to control this kind of issues? They also have the authority to give relevant advices where necessary. If someone does, and gets any answers (ha), let us know. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 7:35 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: Happy to respond to questions raised in a constructive setting at a later time, e.g. IRC Office Hours. If someone does, and gets any answers (ha), let us know. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: I have a hard time believing that it should be impossible to find a source which states something that everyone knows. If it's assumed prior knowledge in journal articles, it should still be possible to find it in basic introductions to the field. Maybe, but so what? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 10:53 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In the project however, we judge you, not based upon your credential, but rather based upon your argument and presentation. If you don't want to give an argument, to support your view, then you eventually won't be judged well. Or at least that's the theory. If a student asks Why and you respond Because I said so, exactly what sort of Expert are you? Not a very good one is my response. Well, no, but that's why upper level classes tend to have prerequisites. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Peter Damian peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote: But in certain areas it has not succeeded at all - philosophy in particular, and to a certain extent the humanities. The question is why is that so. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. In philosophy, as well as in the humanities, there's a lot of information which is verifiable but not true (unless you're going to define a reliable source as a source which doesn't contain false information, anyway). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Peter Damian peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote: I gave a list of problematic articles. Here is one of them again. http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/08/argumentum-ad-baculum.html I really can't comment on that one without first learning more about argumentum ad baculum (I agree with you that the Wikipedia article is not a good one at presenting it - the examples of fallacies and the example of a non-fallacy are not even in the same form). The link you provided just says Wikipedia is wrong, but it doesn't really explain why. Yes, there is an implicit step missing from the argument that you should not do that which you do not want to do, but that's not the same as saying the argument is fallacious. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I can't continue this discussion within the bounds of the rules of this mailing list. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Agenda set by Sue? (was Re: Pending Changes development update: September 27)
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:35 AM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: On 9/29/2010 8:47 PM, Anthony wrote: On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 2:55 AM, Erik Moellere...@wikimedia.org wrote: the agenda for Board meetings is set by Sue together with the chair of the Board and other Board members. It is? Isn't that really really odd? [] Anyway, Erik did mention that he's not on the board nor involved in its meetings, and accurately directed people to the board (not Sue) as the proper channel for seeking the board's attention. Given his distance from the process (and how different the organization was when he previously served on the board), I'm not sure why you would expect him to provide authoritative pronouncements on such details. I wouldn't. That's why I questioned the comment (asking It is?). Thanks for the clarifications, Ting, Michael, and Erik. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Agenda set by Sue? (was Re: Pending Changes development update: September 27)
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 2:55 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: the agenda for Board meetings is set by Sue together with the chair of the Board and other Board members. It is? Isn't that really really odd? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Peter Damian peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote: I would appreciate it if people did not make reference to banned users Is that because you're a banned user? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: People who donate to Wikimedia do so for a number of reasons, chief among them (I suspect) is to support keeping the lights on. That is, the ongoing maintenance of the project in its current form. Most donors are probably aware that the content is generated by volunteers who will not receive donated funds. I'm not sure why you infer that donors are, or should be, expecting to see some content improvement as a result of their funding. Because hosting the current content without any improvement could be done for a tiny fraction of the WMF budget. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 2:34 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Andre Engels wrote: On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:17 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: A video of an amateur singer trying to sing a song is also a copyright violation - they are publishing the song, and do not own the copyright on either text or melody. It *is* a violation, and that is a part of the problem. The bloody awful YouTube singer does, however, receive performance copyrights for what he does. Copyright by default means that anything, however bad or trivial, has copyrights; this includes the weekly flyer from your local supermarket. For all of the faults of US copyright law there was much positive to be said about the former registration and renewal system. see this article on the work someone did to license some songs for a cover cd : http://www.cleverjoe.com/articles/music_copyright_law.html Mechanical licenses don't cover video sync. Maybe if the video is really just someone singing, no choreography or anything, you could argue that point - I don't know. For public performance of a song on youtube , it would fall under copyright: http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.html Does distribution via YouTube qualify as a public performance, or is it copying/distribution? I assume the copyright holder would argue the latter. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:57 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: David Gerard wrote: No, what ASCAP means by that is that they want to get a fee when people distribute CC-licensed music too. Do ASAC also expect to get a fee when music by people represented by BMI or SESAC gets distributed? I think not. So why would you assume that they expect a fee when any music is distributed by an artist that isn't signed up to them? If that artist is a bad amateur singer trying to sing some good song which is licensed by them, they're supposed to get a fee, aren't they? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.comwrote: Online distribution doesn't favor having a lot of middle men, certainly not a lot of _profitable_ middlemen... I've yet to see much evidence of that. Online distribution seems to love middle men as much as any other distribution, and obviously _profitable_ middlemen are the ones providing the greatest benefit. (According to Wikipedia, iTunes accounts for 70% of worldwide online digital music sales. That said, online distribution seems to love *different* middle men. That perhaps is more the problem ASCAP is having. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:57 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: David Gerard wrote: No, what ASCAP means by that is that they want to get a fee when people distribute CC-licensed music too. Do ASAC also expect to get a fee when music by people represented by BMI or SESAC gets distributed? I think not. So why would you assume that they expect a fee when any music is distributed by an artist that isn't signed up to them? If that artist is a bad amateur singer trying to sing some good song which is licensed by them, they're supposed to get a fee, aren't they? Hmm, looking around, it seems that would be someone else (most commonly Harry Fox Agency, http://www.harryfox.com/public/MechanicalLicenseslic.jsp). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] English language dominationism is striking again
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: When you think that Commons is bad in supporting other languages, try to find pictures of a horse on the internet in other languages like Estonian, Nepalese ... It is not the same at all as when you are looking for images in English. Don't most Internet users know enough English to be able to search for pictures of a horse in English? (According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Internet_usage), yes... Most Internet users speak the English language as a native or secondary language.) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] English language dominationism is striking again
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: Don't most Internet users know enough English to be able to search for pictures of a horse in English? (According to Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Internet_usage), yes... Most Internet users speak the English language as a native or secondary language.) If I read the data in the article correctly, most means 35%. Since most means more than 50%, I don't think you read it correctly. The 35% figure seems to be only native English speakers. If we consider that current English native speakers mostly already have internet and those without internet are likelier than not to be non-English speakers I would be careful to advocate the unilateral use of English. As would I, though I don't think you mean what you said. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Gmail - List messages flagged as spam
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: On 18 June 2010 22:16, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: This will NOT get things out of spam that are already in it, though. Search for in:spam to:lists.wikimedia.org to find them and Not Spam them manually. Gah! The search result for that gives me _thousands_ of messages. ... and it seems that you can only not-spam a page at a time, the not spam option goes away if you tell it to mark all of the messages in the search results Yes, I discovered the same thing. I don't understand why - it seems to be a bug. Fortunately, I only found hundreds, not thousands. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Google doesn't want you screwing up its spam filter by not-spamming messages which you haven't even read the title of. You can still click on move to inbox. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Gmail - List messages flagged as spam
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: 2) Type lists.wikimedia.org in the To: box If you use Has the words: [quote]listid:*.wikimedia.org[/quote] you'll be able to catch certain messages not caught by the To: filter. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: Someone uploading a nude picture of their ex-girlfriend can be far more injurious to the woman concerned than the same person uploading an image of her making tea. It can be. Then again, an image of her making tea might be far more injurious. Requiring an OTRS release from the model for any nude and sexually explicit content seems appropriate to me. I agree. But then, I can think of dozens of other situations which don't involve nudity or sexuality but which should follow the same procedures. Basically, if there's any reasonable chance the person would object to the image, and the identity of the person in the image is not in itself newsworthy/encyclopedic, we probably should require the person to give permission. I don't know what the law is in that situation (I thought film productions had to get some sort of permission for filming people, even in a public place), but it seems like the right thing to do. Especially given that Commons images are permitted (even encouraged) for use for commercial purposes. One necessary exception would be for situations in which the identity of the person is itself newsworthy/encyclopedic. If you snap a shot of a Mayor accepting a bribe, the Mayor's permission is not needed. Additionally, I suppose an exception could be made in cases where the image is so innocuous that no one is likely to object. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.orgwrote: On 11/05/10 23:06, Anthony wrote: I assume here you're talking about choosing what images to allow on the websites. I wouldn't call that making a decision on behalf of another, but I assume that's what you're referring to. If I'm wrong, please correct me. I'm including: Solution 1: Exercise editorial control to remove particularly offensive images from the site. Solution 2: Tag images with an audience-specific rating system, like movie classifications. Then enable client-side filtering. Solution 3: Tag images with objective descriptors, chosen to be useful for the purposes of determining offensive character by the reader. The reader may then choose a policy for what kinds of images they wish to filter. The fundamental principle of libertarianism is that the individual should have freedom of thought and action, and that it is wrong for some other party to infringe that freedom. Well, I fully agree with that fundamental principle, and yet I wouldn't categorize any of those solutions as violating that principle, nor would I characterize them as making decisions on behalf of another. And really, I don't see how you could possibly characterize these actions that way. You say Some people may wish to see that content, it would be wrong for us to stop them. I would think the libertarian response to that is that a desire to have something does not constitute a right to force others to provide it to you. Now, granted, I don't think the line should be drawn at particularly offensive images. I'd say the primary, if not sole criterion (besides the obvious legality and free license), would be the bona fide educational value of the image. I'd say the image of Saint Terese, while obviously highly offensive to some, would be acceptable if (and, in my opinion, only if) some text was included right on the image page which explained such things as who created it, what he was trying to say with it, what historical impact it had, etc. I think such a task, applied to any and all questionable images, would also be something that could be pointed to should the media come by and cry pornography. The explanation should be right there on the image page justifying the educational nature of the image. Yes, there will be some people who will remain opposed to such images regardless of the explanation, but at that point (and not before it) I think we can properly treat such people as obviously irrational. Of course, the explanations would need to be good ones. I can think of a lot of bad explanations that would likely be offered for the inclusion of certain images, and I don't at all trust the community to recognize them as such. I wouldn't call them moderates. They are most certainly not moral relativist, and they have no desire to find compromises between the other two/three terrible positions. Let's add a fourth faction, the educators. Suit yourself. But I think it's more worthwhile to classify the ideologues than it is to classify the pragmatists. I think you should consider that some of the educators aren't pragmatists at all. I look at your three categories, and I like some of each, and dislike some of each. I fully agree with the principle you ascribe to the libertarians that the individual should have freedom of thought and action, and that it is wrong for some other party to infringe that freedom. But a freedom is just that, a freedom, not an entitlement. People who want to view porn should (and do) have the freedom to view porn. But that doesn't mean the WMF has a duty to host it for them. The religious conservatives are probably right that seeing certain images, at least for people at a certain age, and especially without the proper context, is dangerous. I'm not quite sure what you mean by morally dangerous, but hard core pornography, especially certain forms of hard core pornography, is probably not very healthy. I certainly don't want my son or daughter viewing porn videos as he's learning about sex. Finally, there's what you call the moderates. Actually I don't see much value in that position at all, at least as you describe it. But to the extent the moderates advocate taking some ideas from both of the other two positions, I guess I can agree with that. As you describe them, the moderates are the pragmatists, and that's a big part of what they've gotten wrong. I would advocate that the WMF adopt a principled position with respect to pornography, and then let people decide whether or not they wish to use an encyclopedia built on those principles. On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com simetrical%2bwikil...@gmail.com wrote: [[Daniel Pearl]] does not contain an image of him being beheaded (although it's what he's famous for), and [[Goatse.cx]] does not contain an image of its subject matter. Why? Primarily because of copyright issues
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: I just had a thought -- what if it were possible for a user to categorically block views of any images that are not linked to in any project's article pages? Presumably, those Commons images that are found in articles are relevant and appropriately encyclopedic (speaking generally -- I also assume there are some exceptions). A good number of the deleted images were in use... so I don't quite know about that, but lets assume it to be true. What is the issue that you're trying to solve? I thought the issue was with images which aren't (or, at least, shouldn't be) used on any project. Yes, Jimbo confused the issue by deleting some images which were (and/or should be) used in Wikipedia, but I thought we were pretty much all in agreement that this was a mistake. Images that were just dumped to Commons without being associated with any particular article would still be available to those who were looking for them -- perhaps to complement a particular article that needs illustration -- but the umpteenth superfluous porn shot (or unconnected Muhammed image) would be invisible to those who chose this option. Obviously, this notion is too cute to actually be helpful, but I thought I'd share it. It has an enormously cute strawman answer: If you don't want to see images which aren't used inline in another wiki, don't look at commons at all! By definition any image in use in a Wikipedia is available outside of commons. :) Well, yeah, exactly. How the issue got moved from non-educational porn to educational yet offensive images, I really don't know. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 7:29 AM, Peter Coombe thewub.w...@googlemail.comwrote: On 9 May 2010 09:50, Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com wrote: On 5/8/10 5:38 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:24 AM, MZMcBridez...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Most of the egregiously bad deletions were quickly overturned, and Jimmy was the one re-deleting the images. Now that he has agreed to stop, most of the poor deletions have been re-reversed. I doubt Jimmy approves; there's absolutely nothing in his actions over the past few days to suggest that he does. I think you do Jimmy a disservice if you think he did not anticipate precisely this result. And I do approve. This is absurd. You wheel-warred to re-delete numerous images, and had threatened to desysop anyone restoring them. You even said they couldn't be discussed until June! And now you say you approve of the Commons community reversing your bad deletions. Sure, he tricked the press into thinking the images were permanently removed, then when the story blew over, you added them back. Everything went perfectly according to plan. Right Jimmy? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Removing questions about me and my role from this discussion
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com wrote: I've just now removed virtually all permissions to actually do things from the Founder flag. I even removed my ability to edit semi-protected pages! (I've kept permissions related to 'viewing' things.) The community recognizes that you have given up certain permissions under controversial circumstances and reminds you that you that those permissions may not be reinstated without a proper request for permissions on meta. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com wrote: We are engaged in a process that will lead to some much-needed changes at Commons, including the continued deletion of some of the things that we used to host. Where? Behind the scenes? On one of the internal mailing lists? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org wrote: This isn't an ideal situation. We should have a situation in which Jimmy's technical power derives from the authority of the board of trustees or from a community mandate, or we should have a situation in which Jimmy does not have unlimited technical power. I don't think this is a technical issue at all. Considering how flexible and reversible wiki-actions are, it seems eminently appropriate to me for the project founder to have 'unlimited technical power' on the projects -- just as you and all of our developers do, at a much higher level. For what purpose? The purpose for which the developers have this technical power is obvious - they can't possibly do their work without it. With Wales, it's a power with no explicit purpose other than anachronistic deference. English Wikipedia has addressed this fluidly over the years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Role_of_Jimmy_Wales So long as the power of the founder flag includes control over that very page, anything written on that page can't possibly be taken seriously. (BTW, shouldn't Larry Sanger have a founder flag too?) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo Wales acting outside his remit
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Note however, We were about to be smeared in all media as hosting hardcore pornography with zero educational value and doing nothing about it. Fred Bauder On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:39 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: And we are about to be presented in all responsible free culture media as having acted as if such false accusations were true. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG You mean they weren't true? Which part is false, that Commons hosted (and, still continues to host) hardcore pornography with zero educational value, or that you hadn't done anything about it? Much of the cleanup is done, although there was so much hardcore pornography on commons that there's still some left in nooks and crannies. Is that another one of those false accusations? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Statement on appropriate educational content
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Excirial wp.excir...@gmail.com wrote: Sexual and medical images might be entirely inappropriate for children, but they provide valuable information for other groups of people - for example, a gynecologist or a medical student might have a completely non sexual reason to look at certain content. Protecting one group might well mean that we deny valuable data to another. So which group is more important? Which is the better answer, to tell families to go elsewhere, or to tell the specialists to go elsewhere? I dunno, when framed that way it seems the answer is to be family-friendly, and to let the specialists get their information in specialist resources. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote: Well.. maybe... but bear in mind that it is really hard to discuss the pictures you can't see, and commons-delinker bot actions are really difficuilt to revert. So fix commons-delinker. Or shut it off altogether. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
