[Foundation-l] Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Stopping the presses:, , Britannica to stop printing books
This is an excellent idea - a kind of searchable sandbox where articles could eventually be promoted into the main site or simply used as in depth backing for a Wikipedia One article. It would need to have some high level sort mechanism to make it easier to access articles within a geopolitical area or niche focal point just to make it possible to disambiguate persons with the same name or the various flavors of engineering or architecture. Perhaps it could also serve as a beta test bed for Wikimedia software development. But what to call it? Wikipedia2 doesn't have much flavor. WikipediaLocalized? WikiDetails? WikipediaExpanded? WikipediaSuppliment? On 3/20/2012 5:24 PM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: From: David Goodmandgge...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc:r...@slmr.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Stopping the presses:, Britannica to stop printing books Message-ID: caniz0h18gyrky79jawzzskuaewd8rtwdc6mztun_y+66d7p...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 For English, and other languages also: What I suggest is a '''Wikipedia Two'' - an encyclopedia supplement where the standard of notability is much relaxed, but which will be different from Wikia by still requiring Verifiability and NPOV. It would include the lower levels of barely notable articles in Wikipedia, and a good deal of what we do not let in. It would for example include both high schools and elementary schools. It would include college athletes. It would include political candidates. It would include neighborhood businesses, and fire departments. It would include individual asteroids. It would include streets--and also villages. It would include ever ball game in a season. It would include anyone who had a credited role in a film, or any named character in one--both the ones we currently leave out, and the ones we put in. This should satisfy both the inclusionists and the deletionists. The deletionists would have this material out of Wikipedia, the inclusionists would have it not rejected. Newcomers would have an open and accepting place for a initial experience. But it would be interesting to see the results of a search option: Do you want to see everything (WP+WP2), or only the really notable (WP)? Anyone care to guess which people would choose? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Stopping the presses:, , Britannica to stop printing books
On 3/15/2012 3:10 AM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: Local events in western countries are pretty easy to cover within wikipedia's rules. A mix of local news and the local history mob usually sees that there are plenty of sources. On the other hand writing about Odek (Joseph Kony's home village) is pretty much impossible. In that specific case you'd need a team of archeologists and war crimes investigators to collect raw data and analyze it. How much of this general lack of published information is due to local government policies (past or present) or destruction of records and how much is related to a recent conversion from oral history to written documents? The willful suppression or destruction of historical records is one thing, lack of recordkeeping another. It is pretty obvious that recording of history must start somewhere. Even though that recording might not meet the WP standards for 2nd or 3rd layer analysis of 1st layer eyewitness accounts it still has value. Is there a WMF project to get this process of historical bootstrapping started in such locations? If not, perhaps we need to tie into another organization that is already working on this... ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Stopping the presses:, Britannica to stop printing books
Why did the articles in Brittania keep getting shorter? Because printing on paper costs money. Storage on the Internet is free by comparison. - So why do our editors insist on reducing what might be an interesting article down to something so brief it might as well be on paper in a book that will be recycled in a few years - or deleting content completely? This whole idea of editing for brevity and notability came from the TRADITIONAL encyclopedia business... Wikipedia was supposed to be the opposite - big enough to include anything of importance to people. It is socially and historically interesting to compare very old edition of Brittanica to a newer edition. For example: an entry on battleships would evolve from a discussion of wooden ships powered by sail that enforced seapower of an empire to sidewheelers, to iron ships fired by coal to the current thinking that battleships are too expensive. In an online encyclopedia it is possible to include all these articles side by side into a section on the evolution of battleships. I find it bizarre that inclusion of information of local importance is encouraged in the internationalized local language wikipediae but discouraged in the U.S. English wikipedia. So events of local interest in a town in Romania are desirable but the same cannot be said of a similar event in San Jose, California. On 3/14/2012 1:15 AM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: But I started getting frustrated with them when I was about 12 or 13, because the shorter articles rarely answered the questions I had, and I never happened t be looking up something with one of the longer articles... ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Stopping the presses:, Britannica to stop printing books
I don't think it is pity to reduce an 800 word article down to under 200 words. Instead of something readable you end up either with a Who's Who entry - filled with insider abbreviations and obscure wording that must be decoded or something so bland it has no value to anyone intrested enough to look it up. On 3/14/2012 4:41 PM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: Dear Robin, There are several reasons for making a text not too long. Pity with the reader is one of them. My point here is that even Brittanica is inherently very English centric. Why should an obscure ficticious 17th century event in the U.K. be of more value than an equally obscure event in Honduras (or wherever)? If I were living in Honduras, I'd be much more interested in MY local history - which is quite likely to be relevant to my situation instead of something in a country I'd never visited. Inverting the situation - If I visit the U.K. I want to be able to access information on the event in the U.K. but I don't care about Honduras. This is an ordinary person's perspective - not that of a scholar searching for obscure information wherever it may be. I personally try to be reluctant with generalizations about Wikipeda language versions. They usually are not true. It's often like the thing that the grass in the neighbour's yard is greener. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Subject: Re: The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia, (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions
I think you have inadvertently hit upon something essential. Content has some relative value. Someone has always had to put energy into creating content. More importantly for our current discussion, someone has always had to make a decision to invest in the REPRODUCTION of content. Printing (on paper) is historically an expensive process. Publishers could not afford to waste time, materials equipment on content of questionable value. So submitted content was always subjected to some sort of review process to weed out the trivial content. Someone made a value judgement. Historically that person(s) had a vested interest in the subject of that content. Whether peer reviewed or evaluated by a subject matter expert - printed matter has always had some sort of editorial process. That isn't to say we should necessarily trust the motives of that editorial process. Propaganda is by its very nature NOT objective. But there is a big difference between an article written for a local entertainment or business daily and an advertisement in that publication. For example: a theatrical publication pays for an advertisement (where they get to say what they will) - but a '''review''' by that same publication is the result of editorial control and is trusted as far more objective by the reader. Another example - the Reader's Digest - a publication trusted by millions, has now become the advertising platform of choice for the pharmaceutical industry. Every issue has multipage ads for expensive new drugs. The layouts of these ads make them LOOK authoritative - as though the staff of RD advocated their use. So the weight of RD remains about the same, though actual content of value is less, and the subscriber pays for the increased bulk mail costs. So - by a roundabout we come to the meat of the content issue. The reason we tend to trust printed material in general is because it is perceived to have been through some editorial value judgement. Most of the editing that is done in any publication process has noting to do with the value of the content - it is ERROR CORRECTION. Only a subject matter expert is qualified to do editing that is a VALUE JEDGEMENT. For Wikipedia to combine the two functions in an editor is not productive. We need a *two tiered* editorial process at work to become more efficient. If there are not enough subject matter experts - more need to be recruited. /Otherwise the trust level of the publication will suffer./ Presumably the various portals are organized enough that they can serve as a funnel for value judgements - but the general editorial volunteers have to learn to refer the value judgements to the specialists in these portals and confine themselves to error correction. This also means that we can then attract more subject matter specialists as they do not have to deal with the error correction task and their decisions will have more prestiege. (It should be a BIG plus for a professor to be able to say that (s)he has been a subject matter expert editor on the xxx portal of Wikipedia for yyy years on their CV) On 2/22/2012 5:08 AM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: Well actually, we use newspaper sources very frequently, as well as non-scholarly (and therefore non-peer-reviewed) books, so in fact, we rely on*printing* (or to put it more kindly, publishing) as a signal for peer-review, not peer-review itself. In my opinion, this is a poor signal. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Subject: Re: The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia, (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions
Well, I'm not an active academic, but I have been given to understand that the quality of the peer review process varies greatly. About 10 years back, I was briefly involved in an attempt to develop an online peer reviewed publications infrastructure. This was one of our concerns - is it better to have 10 second tier subject matter experts vote on whether or not to publish an article or rely solely on the opinion of one first tier expert (who might bitterly detest the author of the work under scrutiny for reasons not at all connected with the quality of the article). Perhaps a better choice for people with subject matter expertise would be graduate students who have no axe to grind as yet. It is the same old question of who will watch the watchers that has plagued every encyclopedic attempt in history. So I'd rather have a qualified subject matter *generalist* review for content than someone who is a /specialist/ with completely _unrelated_ credentials. The generalist probably knows enough about the field in question to be able to spot inappropriate content than someone who has an inflated ego but knows nothing of the subject. We strive for inclusiveness, but the Wikipedia US culture has become very exclusionary. Since this is a volunteer effort there is an attitude of take what you can get that leads to sloppy behaviors. It seems we need more effective and accessible training for everyone from readers to contributors and editors. There may be some such, but I haven't stumbled across it yet. Is there already a core of training material that could be converted into some kind of online interactive instructional tool? On 2/22/2012 6:04 PM, David Goodman wrote: I was one of the initial subject editors at Citizendium. One of its key problems was the poor choice of subject matter experts. The selection of which people to trust was ultimately in the hands of the founder, and he was unduly impressed by formal academic credentials without concerning himself about actual professional standing. But even had he a much closer understanding of the actual hierarchies in the academic world, the results would not have been much better, because there is nobody of sufficient knowledge and authority across the fields of all of human activity to select the true experts. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia
On 2/19/2012 8:19 AM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: Message: 4 Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:12:09 -0300 From: Sarahslimvir...@gmail.com To:mnemo...@gmail.com, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions Message-ID: CAM4=keljs_1-trdfruvxzza48djazb0wgmk+arcalf_odnx...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Mike Godwinmnemo...@gmail.com wrote: Jussi-ville writes: The policy, misused in the course of POV struggle, is a way of excluding information with interferes with presentation of a desired point of view. ... I think the article in The Chronicle of Higher Education is a must-read. Here you have a researcher who actually took pains to learn what the rules to editing Wikipedia are (including No Original Research), and who, instead of trying to end-run WP:NOR, waited years until the article was actually published before trying to modify the Haymarket article. To me, this is a particularly fascinating case because the author's article, unlike the great majority of sources for Wikipedia articles, was peer-reviewed -- this means it underwent academic scrutiny that the newspapers, magazines, and other popular sources we rely on never undergo. I think the problem really is grounded in the UNDUE WEIGHT policy itself, as written, and not in mere misuse of the policy. --Mike I agree. It's the way UNDUE is written that is problematic, and it has led, for years, to significant-minority viewpoints being excluded -- on the grounds that the views are not sufficiently well-represented by reliable sources; or that the reliable sources, even if peer-reviewed, belong to the wrong field. Sarah The origin of these policies in theoretical physics is mind boggling - how can you stretch something that applies to unproven theoretical entries to also apply to real world facts? To claim that a subject is inconsequential, advertising or not important as a basis for killing a new entry is a BIG reason why_new contributors are so discouraged_ that they go away rather than deal with the obstacles to making a new entry stay active and be available for others to add to in the future. The learning curve is steep enough without someone telling you your efforts aren't wanted. I've fought several of these battles with pig headed editors who claim that a new factual or biographical entry isn't important enough to be accepted. Sometimes it is easy to refute them, but they often ignore evidence based in brick mortar publications of a reputable nature. For example - lookup virtual valley on Wikipedia. The closest result currently up is Metro Silicon Valley, which is related. However the editor who killed the virtual valley entry did not bother to find this entry (and perhaps suggest they be merged). Instead that person claimed it was blatant advertising and could not be bothered to look at historical evidence online and elsewhere to the contrary. I lost that time - and it put such a bad tase in my mouth that I haven't troubled myself to spend any more time trying to publish anything on Wikipedia. Who won? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Vendetta?
Thank you all for your support. The editors involved stirred up the pot and learned something in the process. One of them had already been warned about deleting content just for the fun of it, so this was instructional for all. In looking through the threads, one of them found one of my efforts, didn't like it and decided to traverse all the content to which I had contributed (thus the appearance of a vendetta) This did bring up some very important issues that we all need to consider: 1. The recent past is also historically important. Events that occurred less than 20 years ago in real time are already as remote in Internet time as the times of the first Pharoahs of Egypt in real time. 2. We are already so used to online access to everything that the concept of actually going to a library and digging through old newspapers or memorabilia is alien to the young. 3. Efforts to preserve Silicon Valley's recent past by the Computer History Museum, the Intel Museum, the Tech Museum, the now defunct Ampex Museum, the Perham Collection at History San Jose (originally the Foothill College Electronics Museum) and others need the kind of online support that WP provides. WP contributors can help create a legacy for coming generations by citing these resources, performing research using their collections and writing commentary. 4. Many of us still have original documents from events in the recent past. How can these be preserved so future historians will have source material? 5. Many other locations in the world have had similar social changes - how about a WM project that seeks to capture the pase before it vanishes completely? 6. The captured past is already being lost by preservationists. I was involved in an episodic performance arts web site launched in 1995 that was included in the very first capture of the Internet by archives.org - That capture has already vanished! (later ones are still present). On 12/16/2011 3:34 PM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: Message: 4 Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:44:16 -0700 (MST) From: Fred Bauderfredb...@fairpoint.net Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Subject: Re: Vendetta? To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 42740.66.243.192.69.1323974656.squir...@webmail.fairpoint.net Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 It isn't so much about having my stuff edited as it is that there seems to be a mindset among en.wp editors that stuff needs to be deleted unless they personally think it is important. We have a virtually infinite space in which to write and add to the body of knowledge, so why act as though it needs to be made smaller by applying some arbitrary criterion? I do not have that much free time to be arguing over trivialities - I'm trying to record history as it has happened from my perspective. If you don't like my objectivity then go do your own research and do some editing - don't go for a 1984 style darconian rewrite/deletion. Right now I'm spending all my free time wrestling with the article on light bulb sockets, which I did not originate. It is difficult to talk about the sockets without bringing in all sorts of technical reasons why they are the way they are. I didn't throw out the originator's material - I've expanded it based on my experiences in the theatrical lighting industry. I'm sure someone will eventually want to edit the material and take the time to organize it a bit more. That is ok - it is what collaboration is all about. Our criteria are not arbitrary: notability is established by information published in generally reliable sources, see Wikipedia:Notability history as it has happened from my perspective sounds like original research. With respect to light bulb sockets one imagines there is a specialized literature, and many patents... Fred -- Message: 5 Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:04:48 -0500 From: The Cunctatorcuncta...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Subject: Re: Vendetta? To:fredb...@fairpoint.net,Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: CACOqVVv9k3ycrTkWeb76=y9oX1ZOk-+9dj=x0tj9uyakfeq...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 In other words, Wikipedia does not have space for what you find interesting. Sorry. On 12/15/11, Fred Bauderfredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: It isn't so much about having my stuff edited as it is that there seems to be a mindset among en.wp editors that stuff needs to be deleted unless they personally think it is important. We have a virtually infinite space in which to write and add to the body of knowledge, so why act as though it needs to be made smaller by applying some arbitrary criterion? I do not have that much free time to be arguing over trivialities - I'm trying to record history as it has happened from
[Foundation-l] Subject: Re: Vendetta?
It isn't so much about having my stuff edited as it is that there seems to be a mindset among en.wp editors that stuff needs to be deleted unless they personally think it is important. We have a virtually infinite space in which to write and add to the body of knowledge, so why act as though it needs to be made smaller by applying some arbitrary criterion? I do not have that much free time to be arguing over trivialities - I'm trying to record history as it has happened from my perspective. If you don't like my objectivity then go do your own research and do some editing - don't go for a 1984 style darconian rewrite/deletion. Right now I'm spending all my free time wrestling with the article on light bulb sockets, which I did not originate. It is difficult to talk about the sockets without bringing in all sorts of technical reasons why they are the way they are. I didn't throw out the originator's material - I've expanded it based on my experiences in the theatrical lighting industry. I'm sure someone will eventually want to edit the material and take the time to organize it a bit more. That is ok - it is what collaboration is all about. On 12/15/2011 8:46 AM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 06:37:58 -0700 (MST) From: Fred Bauderfredb...@fairpoint.net Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Vendetta? To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 46228.66.243.192.69.1323956278.squir...@webmail.fairpoint.net Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Hmmm... do some of the editors have such a problem with entries that are in progress that they decide to propose them for deletion rather than attempt to support the efforts of the original author by adding to the content or make any effort to improve the article rather than remove it? Isn't WP supposed to help people by expanding our knowledge and improving the transmission of information? I've just been subjected to a rather bizarre bunch of activity by Mythpage88, who seems anxious to delete everything I've written over the years in WP on the basis that it isn't notable. The work I've documented is a vital part of the arts history in the Silicon Valley during the 1990's - a time when the Internet was making a tremendous impact on original work in performing arts. For example: Virtual Valley might have been sponsored by Pacific Bell and San Jose Metro, but it was the very first time that non-profits had with the ability to use the Internet. Why shouldn't this be documented on WP? If you think something is an Ad then rewrite it - don't delete it just because you can! Can you point us to a dialogue you have had with Mythpage88? What's bugging him? Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Vendetta?
Hmmm... do some of the editors have such a problem with entries that are in progress that they decide to propose them for deletion rather than attempt to support the efforts of the original author by adding to the content or make any effort to improve the article rather than remove it? Isn't WP supposed to help people by expanding our knowledge and improving the transmission of information? I've just been subjected to a rather bizarre bunch of activity by Mythpage88, who seems anxious to delete everything I've written over the years in WP on the basis that it isn't notable. The work I've documented is a vital part of the arts history in the Silicon Valley during the 1990's - a time when the Internet was making a tremendous impact on original work in performing arts. For example: Virtual Valley might have been sponsored by Pacific Bell and San Jose Metro, but it was the very first time that non-profits had with the ability to use the Internet. Why shouldn't this be documented on WP? If you think something is an Ad then rewrite it - don't delete it just because you can! ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Ideas for newbie recruitment
On 10/31/2011 6:01 AM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: On 31 October 2011 12:30, Oliver Keyesscire.fac...@gmail.com wrote: Not sure about that specific change, but one illustration might be the Article Feedback Tool, which contains a you know you can edit, right? thing. Off the top of my head I think 17.4 percent of the 30-40,000 people who use it per day attempt to edit as a result of that inducement. Admittedly only 2 percent of them*succeed*, but it's not a lack of motivation, methinks. What's the definition of succeed there - they save an edit with a change? Is that 2% of the 17.4%, or 2% of those giving feedback? I wonder if there's a way to detect a failure to edit and ask what went wrong. In a text driven interface it is a little difficult to float an interactive window asking if a reader saw any errors and if they'd like to fix them - yet that's the level most readers are on. We must also remember that the wiki edit interface and markup can be a little intimidating to a newbie, so opening an edit window and making no changes may be more common than we think. Are there any stats on this? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 92, Issue 1
On 10/31/2011 7:18 PM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: On 10/31/2011 10:09 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: Robin McCain, 31/10/2011 17:20: We must also remember that the wiki edit interface and markup can be a little intimidating to a newbie, so opening an edit window and making no changes may be more common than we think. Are there any stats on this? Yes, it was something like 70 % of edit clicks are not followed by save. It's difficuilt to tell how many of those were people (or even stupid bots) looking for the source text. For me, the most common reason why an edit click is not followed by a save is because I end up not having the time to complete the work, or the edit I had in mind becomes more complicated than I thought (sometimes the latter partly explains the former). To put it idiomatically, it's a reaction to biting off more than I can chew. That may not be entirely typical, but in the sense of editing proved more difficult than anticipated it probably explains many abortive attempts at editing. I suppose it's been suggested before, but I think more fine-grained section editing capability, so you can simply highlight any portion of an article and open an edit window for just that portion, could be helpful. --Michael Snow Unless a page is extremely short, it is a good idea to throw in a few ===section=== headers here and there to make it easier to edit just one section. I would think that an editors time would be much better spent adding a few of these to a new entry rather than waste time telling someone their new topic isn't important enough to be included. As for the freeze you experience, we've all had such moments - especially when trying to apply for grants online - where every character counts and you only have one chance to make the maximum positive impact. I learned a long time ago to write my stuff in a text editor then cut paste into a html form for markup - avoids butterflies in the stomach. :-) ___ 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 10/27/2011 6:43 AM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: On 26 October 2011 14:15, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: 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. However in some cases that is what it can actually mean. Exactly so. Remember - much of what we now define as copyright in law is based on our morality and ability to make decisions for the good of all. Our intent is the basis of the doctrines of Fair Use. ___ 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 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. 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. 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 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 6 reasons we're in another book-burning, period in history
On 10/14/2011 9:17 PM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: However archiving is rather different from what we are dealing with which is more focused on books and other mass market material rather than say old planning application maps and minutes of the union of postal workers 1937. Exactly so. Old mass market material tends to be thrown out when it gets wet, dusty or is in the way, torn up to line drawers, and otherwise casually treated. It is just this sort of treatment that makes a very old mass market work valuable - as it may be the only surviving copy of a large production run. In my family they've tended to regard 100 year old school textbooks as having high value. But what of a 100 year old newspaper? Unless it was of direct concern it is long gone. Newspapers come and go. If that newspaper or the local library kept archival copies they will be on microfilm by now. You'd think that a newspaper morgue would still have original photographs or negatives of events less than 50 years old - but that is rarely the case. Unless something at the time of creation was flagged as having special value it might be thrown out within the year. So (for example) a photo of Sargent Schriver taken in 1954 when he was a member of the Chicago Board of Education might have been published in a local newspaper - but the original negative destroyed within a year or two. Therefore that newspaper could not republish that same photo several years later when he became the first director of the Peace Corps in 1961, much less in his obituary this year (unless they extracted it from the microfilm copy of the published paper). Going forward, this sort of information will potentially have a longer life as digital data storage contains more and more recent history, but the gatekeepers and preservationists will control access to much of that material. A website I helped create in 1995 was captured by the IA in 1996 (and many times since), but that first capture has already been destroyed due to a backup failure. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Subject: Re: Dead Sea Scrolls
On 10/4/2011 9:04 AM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: 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. Wait a minute! **the text** is exactly the area where a copyright might apply. Think about it: the images are written in ?Aramaic? with missing segments in unpredictable places. Are you planning on printing the original Aramaic as is (that would be a Unicode representation of Aramaic characters) or the text of a translation into another language by someone who is trying to fill in the holes as they translate? If the latter, then I'd guess that the copyright is valid in the sense of being a translation that required substantial intellectual effort and produced a unique result. As nearly as I recall (40 years after reading The Dead Sea Scrolls ) , there were a lot of unknowns as some fragments of scrolls were missing large areas. So the attempts to read them were to some extent based on modern copies of copies that may have differed considerably from the source material. At that time many of the scrolls were NOT opened, as the science of preservation had not yet advanced to the point where anyone felt comfortable doing so without seriously damaging them. (Presumably those shortcomings have since been addressed.) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Subject: Re: Dead Sea Scrolls
An entertaining discussion - let's see if I understand the essence of the thread... Facts: High resolution photos (of the Dead Sea Scrolls) were recently released under an Israeli copyright. (Obviously this does not constitute copyright of the scrolls themselves.) A great deal of technical and creative effort went into the preparation and conservation of the scrolls before photography began. Scholarship - the interpretation of the relationship of fragments to the entire document The photographers made many technical and creative decisions before obtaining the final images that were released. Differences of opinion: What exactly has been protected under copyright? Pro: the added value - preservation, conservation, scholarship, enhancement, etc. Con: nothing Unanswered questions: What rights restrictions were placed on the copyright? Was it all rights reserved, attribution only, etc? Why was the decision made to release the work under copyright rather than a Creative Commons license? Is this an adequate summation? On 9/29/2011 6:11 AM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: Message-ID: caprejlsd+uh4ovjh_smreyi7kpmavo4fra9qbyxjae6icwq...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Nikola Smolenskismole...@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] copyright issues
On 8/17/2011 7:02 AM, Wjhonson wrote: Litigation under the rules of plagiarism Can you cite that law for me? I'm not a lawyer, but I seem to recall that a Tort can be filed for just about anything that is perceived to cause injury. Note that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism mentions copyright infringement as a related issue to plagiarism... -Original Message- From: Robin McCain ro...@slmr.com To: foundation-l foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, Aug 16, 2011 7:43 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] copyright issues On 8/16/2011 2:50 PM, Wjhonson wrote: The year of publication applies to published material. The year you make it public, to the public, for public consumption. of course, that is the definition of publication But look athttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/303.html Unpublished works (in the United States at least) have copyright protection. If nothing else, the creator(s) has/have moral rights to the work. Usually they also have legal rights. (I'm no lawyer, but my entertainment attorney told me to assume everything has rights unless you find a specific exemption under the law) Unpublished material, if it enjoys copyright protection at all, would be based on the year of creation. That however might be a red herring if it, in fact, does not enjoy any copyright protection. Does copyright protect material not published? Yes it can. For example: Members of the Beatles recorded some material and did not publish it. According to the layers of copyright, the creator(s) owned it from the moment it was recorded, the recording studio and producers (if any) also had rights dated back to that time. Since it wasn't published there were no publishers rights. Whoever was given a copy of the recording also had the tangible right of ownership of a copy. Many years later it was published as part of Anthology 1. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles%27_recording_sessions for details. For the US, also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act Plagiarism and copyright are seperate issues and should not be conflated, as different approaches apply to each. True. In the case cited below, the Manuscript Story would have had copyright protection under current US law but had no such protection under the 1790 law. It wasn't until the 1976 law that protection was extended to unpublished works. As such, the only litigation possible at that time would have been under the rules of plagiarism and such litigation was considered. -Original Message- From: Robin McCainro...@slmr.com mailto:ro...@slmr.com To: foundation-lfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, Aug 16, 2011 2:36 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] copyright issues On 8/16/2011 12:51 PM,wjhon...@aol.com mailto:wjhon...@aol.com mailto:wjhon...@aol.com mailto:wjhon...@aol.com? wrote: I don't believe your claim that you can take something which is PD, make an exact image of it, slap it up in a new work of your own (enjoying copyright protection automatically) and then claim copyright over that PD image in your work. Copyright applies to the presentation of your work, showing creativity. An image that you reproduce faithfully shows no creativity and can enjoy no new copyright, no matter how hard you push your view. That's it. Period. So I can freely copy any PD image, from any source, and not need to worry about copyright violation. PD doesn't change simply because a PD item is republished. The presentation of the item is copyright, not the item itself. I personally agree with that. However, it often costs more to prove your right to use something in court than to knuckle under if an aggressive rights owner comes after you. This is especially true when you are planning to distribute your own work worldwide - just getting a letter from the publisher telling you that they either give you the right to use an image or have no rights over that image is necessary before your work will be accepted by a publisher or distributor. An additional minor quibble. At least in the US a person does*not* need to reapply for copyright each time they revise an item. Copyright is an automatic process, merely by the fact of presenting something in a fixed media. You*can* file a copyright. You do not*need* to file a copyright, in order to enjoy copyright protection under the law. I also agree with you - except that the registered version has an ironclad protection you can protect in court while revised versions afterwards may not be so easy to protect unless they are also registered. It becomes a kind of chain of custody issue. If I were to create something original and show it to no one
Re: [Foundation-l] copyright issues
On 8/17/2011 9:20 AM, Wjhonson wrote: For plagiarism to cause injury you have to specify the type of injury in your suit. And then the case is not about laws about plagiarism per se, of which there are none, but laws about the type of injury you are claiming. For example unfair trade as in I made all these designs and posted them to my website, company X stole my work by creating the actual products without the need to do any design work. That sort of thing. But that's not a law about plagiarism. Wow! you opened a can of worms... I'm sure at least one of my lawyer friends who specialize in intellectual property could respond in great detail about this. According to the Berne Convention authors have moral rights as well as legal rights. We aren't talking about student work here, but the real world where a lot of money at stake. It doesn't even matter if the issue is laughed out of court - you have still spent many thousands of dollars just getting to that day. (this is why companies often settle rather than go to court) I can assure you that no reputable publisher or distributor would knowingly accept work that has been extensively plagiarized on the basis that there is potential for a lawsuit of some sort unless they had deep pockets and were knowingly doing this as a marketing strategy. All I'm trying to say here is that plagiarism often accompanies copyright infringement, and that there can be a very fine line between the two. In real world terms - you don't want to go there. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] copyright issues
Technically you are correct. As I've stated, I'm not a lawyer. My original statement did not refer to any specific laws about plagiarism - rules are not necessarily laws and I'm sure that by 1831 many institutions of higher learning had some sort of statement like an honor code that included such a rule. (My college honor code only dates back to 1848 but I'm sure it wasn't the first) As for litigation - I don't think anyone was going to actually attempt to go into court on this matter. The Book of Mormon was extremely controversial and received a lot of adverse publicity - it is one thing to claim that you are going to file an action and quite another to do it. These people were simply trying to discredit Joseph Smith. But notice what I said about the fine line and how an aggressive opponent can use it to waste your time and money. That is why WikiMedia (and every other publisher) has to budget for a legal staff - to deflect this kind of junk and is a good reason for purchasing EO insurance. On 8/17/2011 9:55 AM, Wjhonson wrote: Robin there are no laws (in the US) about plagiarism, that's what I'm saying. None. Zero. They don't exist. Why? Because plagiarism does not de facto create any injury. Wikipedia and the foundation operate under U.S. law so that's what is germane to this list, not what some other country including other Berne signatories do or don't do. The U.S. does not recognize moral rights in the way that Germany or France do, but rather claims under this umbrella are tried under defamation or unfair competition laws. However some editors throw plagiarism around and shout illegal illegal, because they are trying to make some sheded point more concrete. It's not concrete in the U.S., you have to show what specific sort of actual injury occurred. -Original Message- From: Robin McCain ro...@slmr.com To: Wjhonson wjhon...@aol.com Cc: foundation-l foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Aug 17, 2011 9:44 am Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] copyright issues On 8/17/2011 9:20 AM, Wjhonson wrote: For plagiarism to cause injury you have to specify the type of injury in your suit. And then the case is not about laws about plagiarism per se, of which there are none, but laws about the type of injury you are claiming. For example unfair trade as in I made all these designs and posted them to my website, company X stole my work by creating the actual products without the need to do any design work. That sort of thing. But that's not a law about plagiarism. Wow! you opened a can of worms... I'm sure at least one of my lawyer friends who specialize in intellectual property could respond in great detail about this. According to the Berne Convention authors have moral rights as well as legal rights. We aren't talking about student work here, but the real world where a lot of money at stake. It doesn't even matter if the issue is laughed out of court - you have still spent many thousands of dollars just getting to that day. (this is why companies often settle rather than go to court) I can assure you that no reputable publisher or distributor would knowingly accept work that has been extensively plagiarized on the basis that there is potential for a lawsuit of some sort unless they had deep pockets and were knowingly doing this as a marketing strategy. All I'm trying to say here is that plagiarism often accompanies copyright infringement, and that there can be a very fine line between the two. In real world terms - you don't want to go there. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] copyright issues
Actually, this has all been fun, but we've managed to provoke others into telling us to take this elsewhere and we all got sidetracked. In the beginning of the thread I was simply commenting on the nit picking that can occur over the most trivial changes in copyritten material and how in the real world we have to do a CYA on things that are most like nonissues. The global nature of Internet has forever changed our lives. An excellent example of this: we found royalty free music clips of George Gershwyn on a European web site we've used in the past. Under the Berne Convention his work is now public domain. However this is not so in the United States as a result of the 1998 Copyright law. To actually use any Gershwyn music composed after 1922 in the U.S. we'd either have to pay for a synchronization license or wait until sometime after 2019 when the 95 years is up. This is why we do the best due diligence we can BEFORE we use material. Rights specialists are cheap compared to the chance of litigation with teeth, however small. On 8/17/2011 2:00 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote: On 08/17/11 10:33 AM, Robin McCain wrote: As for litigation - I don't think anyone was going to actually attempt to go into court on this matter. The Book of Mormon was extremely controversial and received a lot of adverse publicity - it is one thing to claim that you are going to file an action and quite another to do it. These people were simply trying to discredit Joseph Smith. AFAIK there was no litigation over Spalding and the Book of Mormon, so there is nothing there that could serve as a precedent. More recent editions have updated language and corrected spelling, but that in itself would not give enough originality for a new copyright. Indeed, a new revisionist Book of Mormon purporting to correct Joseph Smith's views with sufficient originality would no longer have a valid claim to be THE Book of Mormon. But notice what I said about the fine line and how an aggressive opponent can use it to waste your time and money. That is why WikiMedia (and every other publisher) has to budget for a legal staff - to deflect this kind of junk and is a good reason for purchasing EO insurance. Such an aggressive claimant can waste your time and money without any justification whatsoever. A large organization comes to expect frivolous legal action as a matter of course. E O insurance serves a different function. On 8/17/2011 9:55 AM, Wjhonson wrote: Robin there are no laws (in the US) about plagiarism, that's what I'm saying. None. Zero. They don't exist. Why? Because plagiarism does not de facto create any injury. Wikipedia and the foundation operate under U.S. law so that's what is germane to this list, not what some other country including other Berne signatories do or don't do. The U.S. does not recognize moral rights in the way that Germany or France do, but rather claims under this umbrella are tried under defamation or unfair competition laws. However some editors throw plagiarism around and shout illegal illegal, because they are trying to make some sheded point more concrete. It's not concrete in the U.S., you have to show what specific sort of actual injury occurred. The US had to include reference to moral rights as a part of coming into compliance with the Berne Convention, but it is a provision that is completely without teeth. Moral rights follow the tradition od civil law countries where copyright law is seen as part of human rights. In common law countries copyrights are primarily property rights, and the enthusiasm for moral rights has been at best lukewarm. Plagiarism relates to the moral right of attribution. All it takes to avoid such a claim is to give proper credit, even if your selection is otherwise a copyright infringement. On 8/17/2011 9:20 AM, Wjhonson wrote: For plagiarism to cause injury you have to specify the type of injury in your suit. And then the case is not about laws about plagiarism per se, of which there are none, but laws about the type of injury you are claiming. For example unfair trade as in I made all these designs and posted them to my website, company X stole my work by creating the actual products without the need to do any design work. That sort of thing. But that's not a law about plagiarism. Wow! you opened a can of worms... I'm sure at least one of my lawyer friends who specialize in intellectual property could respond in great detail about this. Why would anyone trying to protect a design ever post it to the internet in the first place? There is such a thing as design patents, but in the absence of a registered patent the designer should not seek compensation for his own stupidity. We aren't talking about student work here, but the real world where a lot of money at stake. It doesn't even matter if the issue is laughed out of court - you have still spent many thousands of dollars
Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 89, Issue 44
On 8/16/2011 2:13 AM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: One suggestion for archiving would be to have a complete set of projects filed with the copyright office and other key depositories quarterly. This could also address a potential long-term copyright problem. This has less to do with Wikipedia infringing on the copyrights of others than with the reverse. It already happens that others use Wikipedia material without credit in works on which they claim copyright. Re-use of that material on-wiki at a later date will inevitably result in a copyvio squabble, especially if the originally plundered version is no longer recognizable. This could be many years hence. What other means are available to protect the viral nature of freely licensed material? Forks could also be helpful in this regard. They would need to respect free licences, and, as a by-product, add evidence favouring the freeness of the material. A person creating a fork based on some topic area is unlikely to significantly alter all the articles imported, preferring to draw different conclusions from the same underlying facts. This is bound to leave an identifiable residue that will protect the licence. Anything filed with the copyright office is a static slice in time. Copyright is such a sticky issue - If you publish something, copyright it , then go back and revise the original then you must copyright the whole thing over again - because copyright is based on an image of something. There is a limit to which you can use material that has a copyright by others - it is called plagiarism and is well defined in law. However - If you take material that is old enough to be out of copyright and publish a new edition of that material - you can copyright the new edition - but (as I understand it) only the image thereof - not the actual material. I may well be wrong, but a rather involved example might be in order. Someone has an original photographic print of Adolf Hitler. Originally the rights to that image had to be cleared by 1. the subject (however he was a public figure so his rights were automatically released unless otherwise stated) 2. the photographer 3. the rights-holder (originally NSDAP) and 4. the possessor of the print. However point 1 was cleared upon the subject's death (since he had no estate exercising control at the time of death other than 3), Point 2 was cleared when the assets were seized by the Allies. Point 3 reverted to the state of Bavaria since the NSDAP was chartered under their laws and has been dissolved by that agency. In this special case the state will not contest use by others unless the purpose is to further the goals of the NSDAP ie. Nazism and/or fascism. So the first three are covered and only point 4 applies to use in new work. Now the fun part - I buy a copy of that new work. It has a new copyright. Exactly what is covered here? Only the image in the book. So if I went to the National Archives, found the negative of that print and made my own copy I could use my copy without restriction. However if I used a scanner or camera to copy the image from the new work itself then the new copyright would apply and I would need to obtain permission from the publisher. So if someone used material as-is from Wikipedia in a new work, they could not own the material that came from Wikipedia, only the image represented by their own publication. Since the material is likely just text, I'm guessing that the as-is material could be freely copied by others. This could get to be tricky as it is like the government document that is stamped Secret because of one word. Obscure that word and the document can be released under FOIA. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Forkability, its problems and our problems
On 8/16/2011 5:00 AM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: A couple of months ago three admins of Aceh Wikipedia decided that it is not acceptable that they participate in the project which holds Muhammad depictions. By the project, they mean Wikimedia in general, including Wikimedia Commons. It was just a matter of time when they would create their own wiki. And they created that moth or two after leaving Wikimedia. And what do you think which project has more chances for success: the one without editors or the other with three editors? So, while the reason for leaving couldn't be counted among reasonable ones, the product is the same as if they had a valid reason. And there are plenty of valid reasons, among them almost universal problem of highly bureaucratic structures on Wikimedia projects. Politics and religion are the two areas where this problem usually occurs. It is perfectly acceptable to present differing POVs if the parties involved can find no common ground. They must be respected for their differences as much for their similarities. That means that a neutral platform such as Wikipedia must be able to host differing opinions. This problem was popped up long ago when people of differing opinions began altering pages and deleting the work of others. It was addressed with implementation of the edit lock and frequent monitoring. An Encyclopedia must be free to present all sides of this kind of issue so third parties can come to understand the reasons behind the differences. Refusal to do so moves the platform away from the mission statement of neutrality. Anyone who cannot support this commitment to neutrality is free to leave and present their own POV - but they lose that neutral credibility in the process of doing so. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] copyright issues
On 8/16/2011 12:51 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I don't believe your claim that you can take something which is PD, make an exact image of it, slap it up in a new work of your own (enjoying copyright protection automatically) and then claim copyright over that PD image in your work. Copyright applies to the presentation of your work, showing creativity. An image that you reproduce faithfully shows no creativity and can enjoy no new copyright, no matter how hard you push your view. That's it. Period. So I can freely copy any PD image, from any source, and not need to worry about copyright violation. PD doesn't change simply because a PD item is republished. The presentation of the item is copyright, not the item itself. I personally agree with that. However, it often costs more to prove your right to use something in court than to knuckle under if an aggressive rights owner comes after you. This is especially true when you are planning to distribute your own work worldwide - just getting a letter from the publisher telling you that they either give you the right to use an image or have no rights over that image is necessary before your work will be accepted by a publisher or distributor. An additional minor quibble. At least in the US a person does*not* need to reapply for copyright each time they revise an item. Copyright is an automatic process, merely by the fact of presenting something in a fixed media. You*can* file a copyright. You do not*need* to file a copyright, in order to enjoy copyright protection under the law. I also agree with you - except that the registered version has an ironclad protection you can protect in court while revised versions afterwards may not be so easy to protect unless they are also registered. It becomes a kind of chain of custody issue. If I were to create something original and show it to no one else for 50 years until I published it and died 5 years later, which would apply to the copyright expiration date - date of author's death, date of creation or date of publication? In the real world there are many examples of published books and screenplays that could clearly be seen as derivative - even plagiarized works from one or more unpublished sources. This is a big deal within the Writer's Guild and the reason for their online system of protecting manuscripts by registering before a work is shown to others. One of the most (in)famous books in American Religion is The Book of Mormon, parts of the first edition of which were (alleged to be) plagiarized from the Manuscript Story and arguably violated the 1790 Copyright Act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Spalding The work has been revised at least nine times (not counting translations) to make it fit the theology of the modern day church. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] copyright issues
On 8/16/2011 2:50 PM, Wjhonson wrote: The year of publication applies to published material. The year you make it public, to the public, for public consumption. of course, that is the definition of publication But look at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/303.html Unpublished works (in the United States at least) have copyright protection. If nothing else, the creator(s) has/have moral rights to the work. Usually they also have legal rights. (I'm no lawyer, but my entertainment attorney told me to assume everything has rights unless you find a specific exemption under the law) Unpublished material, if it enjoys copyright protection at all, would be based on the year of creation. That however might be a red herring if it, in fact, does not enjoy any copyright protection. Does copyright protect material not published? Yes it can. For example: Members of the Beatles recorded some material and did not publish it. According to the layers of copyright, the creator(s) owned it from the moment it was recorded, the recording studio and producers (if any) also had rights dated back to that time. Since it wasn't published there were no publishers rights. Whoever was given a copy of the recording also had the tangible right of ownership of a copy. Many years later it was published as part of Anthology 1. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles%27_recording_sessions for details. For the US, also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act Plagiarism and copyright are seperate issues and should not be conflated, as different approaches apply to each. True. In the case cited below, the Manuscript Story would have had copyright protection under current US law but had no such protection under the 1790 law. It wasn't until the 1976 law that protection was extended to unpublished works. As such, the only litigation possible at that time would have been under the rules of plagiarism and such litigation was considered. -Original Message- From: Robin McCain ro...@slmr.com To: foundation-l foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, Aug 16, 2011 2:36 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] copyright issues On 8/16/2011 12:51 PM,wjhon...@aol.com mailto:wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I don't believe your claim that you can take something which is PD, make an exact image of it, slap it up in a new work of your own (enjoying copyright protection automatically) and then claim copyright over that PD image in your work. Copyright applies to the presentation of your work, showing creativity. An image that you reproduce faithfully shows no creativity and can enjoy no new copyright, no matter how hard you push your view. That's it. Period. So I can freely copy any PD image, from any source, and not need to worry about copyright violation. PD doesn't change simply because a PD item is republished. The presentation of the item is copyright, not the item itself. I personally agree with that. However, it often costs more to prove your right to use something in court than to knuckle under if an aggressive rights owner comes after you. This is especially true when you are planning to distribute your own work worldwide - just getting a letter from the publisher telling you that they either give you the right to use an image or have no rights over that image is necessary before your work will be accepted by a publisher or distributor. An additional minor quibble. At least in the US a person does*not* need to reapply for copyright each time they revise an item. Copyright is an automatic process, merely by the fact of presenting something in a fixed media. You*can* file a copyright. You do not*need* to file a copyright, in order to enjoy copyright protection under the law. I also agree with you - except that the registered version has an ironclad protection you can protect in court while revised versions afterwards may not be so easy to protect unless they are also registered. It becomes a kind of chain of custody issue. If I were to create something original and show it to no one else for 50 years until I published it and died 5 years later, which would apply to the copyright expiration date - date of author's death, date of creation or date of publication? In the real world there are many examples of published books and screenplays that could clearly be seen as derivative - even plagiarized works from one or more unpublished sources. This is a big deal within the Writer's Guild and the reason for their online system of protecting manuscripts by registering before a work is shown to others. One of the most (in)famous books in American Religion is The Book of Mormon, parts of the first edition of which were (alleged to be) plagiarized from the Manuscript Story and arguably violated the 1790 Copyright Act.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
Re: [Foundation-l] We need to make it easy to fork and leave
Good point - risk management isn't just about technical disaster - geopolitical issues are actually a much greater long term risk On 8/15/2011 2:04 AM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: The primary value of a fork(s) is not financial or technical, but epistemological. We are the big kid in the playground, and that has a significant effect on the nature of the content. When we work so hard to build an aura of reliability readers begin to depend on us. Paradoxically, that's not always good. If we are so reliable, the reader is not motivated to look elsewhere for alternatives. Natural human laziness is bad enough by itself. We too easily fall into the trap of treating Group POV as Neutral POV. Forks, would develop their own versions of NPOV, and end up with very different results that are as easily reliable as ours, but still different. It becomes up to the reader to compare corresponding pages, and draw his own conclusions on the matter at hand. We should not be viewing forks as inherent evils to be resisted at all costs. We should be encouraging them, and helping them. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
Perhaps we might reflect on all the mistakes made by far older global NPOs - the Catholic Church and all the younger proselytizing churches are good examples.The mission has always been the dissemination of knowledge (of a specific sort), so it has experiences that might be helpful - what not to do, etc. They've always had wealthy and poor locales. A large part of their efforts have been devoted to raising money from the wealthy to fund programs for the poor. They all have had to learn how to meet the legal obligations of whichever states they are located and have evolved systems to manage their money - some of which work better than others. On 8/12/2011 7:21 AM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Michael Snowwikipe...@frontier.com wrote: On 8/11/2011 7:08 PM, phoebe ayers wrote: Anyway, thanks for raising the importance of decentralization. The Board agrees: there's a reason it was first in our list of principles. To my mind decentralization is important raises a whole bunch of other important questions: is decentralization more important than efficiency as a working principle? I think it is, at least up to a point. We need to have a diversity of tools and actors involved in fundraising, and decentralization should help that if done well. Also, we do not have an obligation to maximize revenue, so efficiency is not necessarily a cardinal virtue. I don't mean that we should disregard efficiency, but we can choose to sacrifice a bit of efficiency if, as a tradeoff, this benefits some other value we think is important like decentralization. One thing that struck me about reviewing chapter financials was that there are 20+ chapters that don't directly receive donations and haven't applied for many grants to date, and thus have little to no money to support program work. Though mostly outside the scope of the Board's letter, this is for instance one part of our model that I would like to see change -- Wikimedians everywhere should have better access to resources to get things done. On this specific point, I do disagree with Birgitte -- I think a well-developed grants program [and it's true we're not there yet, but want to be soon] could actually help us decentralize faster, in that to obtain money needed for program work chapters or other groups wouldn't have to develop the (increasingly difficult) infrastructure needed to directly fundraise with all the attendant legal and fiduciary concerns. I like the sound of this, but with a note of caution about a well-developed grants program. In many contexts, as grants programs develop and mature, grantees end up needing to develop increasingly complex infrastructure to secure and manage grants. At that point, it may not be any more helpful to these objectives than the model we are trying to move away from. --Michael Snow Fair point. By well-developed I just meant something that works well. One of the criteria of working well could be low overhead... Again, the idea of supporting grants is not exclusive to the WMF: I am so pleased to see the expansion of the WMDE program, as well. -- phoebe I can't help but point out that is begging the question. [1] It is a logical fallacy to say in answer to concerns that a grants program won't work well that you are supporting well-developed grants program (defined as something that works well). It is just wishful thinking. BirgitteSB [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question Sorry, I didn't intend to beg the question. Maybe I misread Michael's comment. I thought he was saying that a high-overhead grants program, such as many granting organizations end up with after a few years, would not be helpful. My response is that we should strive to build a functional low-overhead grants program. Yes, that is wishful thinking, since it's an aspirational goal, but it's also in response to concern over a hypothetical future... I think it's totally fair to think about what kind of criteria we would like to see in a grants program generally (e.g. low overhead, open to all, etc.), since the program will need to be expanded quite a bit if it covers funding many more chapters and groups. Now if people don't think it's *possible* to build a low-overhead grants program, that's a fair point:) best, phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The problem with Incubator: An interactive, journey
On 8/8/2011 6:24 PM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: fwiw, the Wikisource portal lists all languages, inc. the languages in the Wikisource incubator. http://www.wikisource.org/ That's actually a good shortcut and it appears amongst the Wikimedia buttons at the bottom of the all the root project pages. However - the average first time user may get lost before ever drilling in on these buttons. Perhaps a bunch of cross reference links are in order - *but* who is going to take the time to find all the references to my indigenous language/dialect and add these where needed? Is there a way to automate this process? (well yes, but it isn't that simple to write code that is comprehensive enough to do the job - that would spawn a new project) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 89, Issue 13
On 8/8/2011 12:41 AM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: The problem with Incubator: An interactive journey Written by geeks for geeks... If you are truly serious about enabling new languages dialects, it is almost mandatory to include a link at the very top level of Wiki/Pedia/ like the other languages line on the_main wikipedia home page_ that will take you directly to the incubator instructions, etc. Otherwise it will languish until a true geek walks the twisted path. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] people are knowledge
I've been following this with some interest and I think I'm beginning to see how this is like nesting dolls. In the kernel is the actual interview in the native language - the primary source(s) which is actually a video or audio recording. The next layer is the interviewers transcription layer - a secondary source that may or may not compare contrast various primary sources to create a collective composite which others who can read the native language are free to comment, modify, dispute, etc. That's great - don't monkey with success. So far all that has been done is to convert one or more oral sources into a written condensation that is now open to all native readers (or listeners if you use text to speech technology) and that information is coherent within the context of that culture. Where all this seems to fall down is that some insist on forcing? this material into English so a researcher will not be inconvenienced with the task of learning the native language. That doesn't make much sense, as the ethnographer or other researcher needs to understand that culture enough to access the primary source and understand the cultural context - which means they must know the native language anyway. Work based on this cultural collection of material that will ultimately be published in English should be written by this researcher or a translator who can make it make sense in English. Running the original material through a mechanical translator is fraught with errors and misunderstandings. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] They do make or break reputations
Yes, there are big differences between IMDB and YouTube rightswise. IMDB requires that every submission be reviewed for accuracy and content before acceptance. They are trying to compete with Baseline and want to be seen as an equal - so they (perhaps overzealously even) require that new indie film productions have documented festival screenings before acceptance. This restriction is NOT imposed on the 350 production companies who are members of AMPTP, who are able to list projects as being in development forever. YouTube uses a completely different approach. Anyone can put anything online anytime. The only time content origin is an issue is when it is challenged. Unlike other video sharing sites, there is no explicit opt in button asking if the uploader has copyright control over original content. The Wikimedia movement is on the bleeding edge of evolving copyright law, just as are Google, The Internet Archive and many other evolving content providers. It is unfortunate that YouTube is so frequently used to share content without the copyright holder's consent as it lowers the trust level. If someone wants to link to content they uploaded to a video sharing site for inclusion in Wikipedia, then use of a more trusted site might be in order to avoid editor action. How can we communicate this to the casual contributor? On 7/16/2011 5:00 AM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: I haven't fully read the context of this thread, but something that did cross my mind recently, why do we treat YouTube-links different from other links here? Aren't most of our sources and external linked websites atleast as copyrighted as YouTube ? Consider links to IMDb for example, the content we link to, through that, is all copyrighted! Or just a good old Official website-link on an article about person X or organization Y, likely also All rights reserved. YouTube atleast is partially (and soon more) under a CC-license. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] They do make or break reputations
Why can't we setup a meta server sandbox that allows these experimental things to be rapidly activated in the sense of giving each a virtual server slice. That way there is room to play and if something takes off it can then be allocated some serious resources. The ones that die on the vine won't be tying up much of any time or resources since they are virtual anyway. On 7/12/2011 11:16 AM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: But now, I feel like we may be able to move back into an era of rapid experimentation, where new projects are more like unmanned 1940s test rockets-- they should be blowing up left and right, as we try to learn from the failed attempts. I'll go further-- provided we can do so cheaply, I want new projects that are like the ridiculous early failures of flight. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7OJvv4LG9M]. I want to hear about a new WMF project and it's policy, think That's crazy-- that's never gonna get off the ground, and indeed, learn something from whether it crashes or whether it actually takes off. Having an early flight era attitude is how we can find something even better than Wikipedia. I agree a lot of ideas are unlikely to work-- but provided the resource usage is sufficiently negligible, let people start making insane flying machine projects, and eventually the wright brothers will show up. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Privacy concerns
Back in the 1980's BBS sysops validated new users on some of the more abused dial-up BBS systems via snail mail. The person had to provide a real address in order to receive their login password - just as many systems use email addresses today. The big difference between these two mechanisms is that using snail mail has a chain of custody and implies the possibility of some kind of legal action for misuse whereas email has no real chain of custody or rarely any legal standing. So is it going to be a hoop to jump through or something more? Making a copy and mailing it isn't much better than forging a document and mailing it. Who knows whether the copy even belongs to the person in question? I'd say that if you've blocked someone who is a sockpuppet or other abuser the burden of validating such a person should be on them, not the wiki staff. At least a notary (or other public official) would have to look at an identity document - verify its validity as well as see that it indeed matches the person in question - then sign a document to that effect. This completely removes the wiki staff from the need to access the validity of a copy. No it isn't free, but that's the price a blocked user might have to pay for abusing what was freely given in the first place. :-/ Do they have notaries in the Netherlands? ?Why not simply ask them to mail a notarized statement that I am Foo at such an address and request an ublock so I may edit as Bar? I still am not sure if this is something I would completely endorse, but at least it would be meaningful and not so easily forged. Notaries usually charge for that kind of thing. It's not usually much, but it's substantially more than the cost of a stamp, which is all the current policy costs. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 88, Issue 19
If I might interject, it seems that the sole purpose of the snail mail described is to link a physical person to a login name in such a way that there is some accountability for one's actions that is acceptable to the organization. Is it really necessary to copy an identity document? Could a document with a notary seal accomplish much the same purpose without the need for a copy (and thus avoid possible legal issues arising from making such a copy)? We had similar identity concerns when CAcert http://www.cacert.org/ became intercontinental - originally one had to go through a somewhat complicated process with two notarys, etc. to gain certain trust levels, but as the project grew and the founders began to travel all over the world it became possible to meet in person with an Assurer and present one's identity documents (which were NOT copied) and thus gain points towards becoming a trusted person to the certification authority (ie. able to generate server keys chained to the CAcert organization's root keys, etc.). On 7/9/2011 4:45 AM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: I do think it is absolutely a problem when people on a WMF-hosted wiki are using an unofficial mechanism to demand copies of people's passports. Note that WMF does not allow local communities to do other things that would violate the privacy policy, such as run Google Analytics, even if the local community is all for it. When passports are requested of people on the wiki, does the requester stress that this is not WMF-official, not covered by the privacy policy and there is no official oversight whatsoever of the mechanism? It looks to me like Huib has alerted us to a potentially disastrous privacy time bomb. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] merge wikis
It seems silly to proliferate so many wikis when many of them focus on related issues. It becomes the nightmare of having to visit the web site of every user group every few hours vs having all the new posts sent via email to one address so you save time. The real question to me seems to be how to make the software capable of sharing data across silos. Our hardware is much more robust than 10 years ago, our software has matured and now it is time to do content aggregation. We can (and probably should) use the name with the widest recognition as the root of our tree. Then all the branches can continue to function as if they were independent for a time - even though they are part of the same trunk. Over time their quirks will need to be harmonized and fiefdoms consolidated into a coherent whole. We already use disambiguation pages to distinguish between topics with similar names, go one step further and have a multiple articles page. Some contributors have great insight but terrible writing skills and that is where the skills of an editor are needed. Having to police all the differing opinions of supposedly factual matters is more of a censorship (shudder - who will watch the watchers?) or judicial function. Thank goodness for the page history function. I've setup and used several wikis inhouse, and currently run MediaWiki on the server. The biggest problem I have is with user fears - fear of creating a new page, fear of doing something someone else should be doing, learning curve issues. Currently teams are working on a better GUI experience that will (hopefully) make it much easier for a new user to be able to contribute productive work without having to learn a new programming language. Creating a disambiguation page is a good example of something that should be relatively easy to do the first time rather than spend 3 or 4 hours learning how to do it in the current wiki programming environment. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
